Court : House of Lords
LORD REID There are before your Lordships four appeals by associated companies in actions brought by them against the Lord Advocate under the Crown Suits Act, 1857. When war broke out with Japan, these companies owned extensive properties in Burma, including oil wells, pipe lines, refineries and other buildings and stocks of petroleum and other goods. When the Japanese invaded Burma, these were destroyed by order of the British Government. The appellants claim that they are entitled to payment of such sum as will make good to the pursuers the damage sustained by them as a result of that destruction. The Lord Ordinary, Lord Kilbrandon, repelled pleas that the pursuers' averments are irrelevant and allowed proof before answer. The First Division by interlocutors of 14th March 1963 sustained the pleas to relevancy and dismissed the actions. The appellants now seek to have the interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary restored. The pursuers aver that, in accordance with directives from His Majest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Reid My Lords, The Appellant is a whole time director of Peter Merchant, Ltd. On 23rd July, 1958, the car which he was driving on the company's business struck and killed a pedestrian. The next day while in hospital he instructed his secretary to get legal advice from the Automobile Association. But when his managing director heard of this he countermanded that instruction and consulted the company's solicitors. He was advised that the Appellant might be charged with causing death by reckless or dangerous driving, that if convicted he would be sent to prison and that the company might be involved in liability. The Appellant was the only director in a position to negotiate contracts with certain customers and his services were also needed in connection with a reorganisation. So the managing director instructed the solicitors to spare no reasonable expense in his defence. This appears to have been fully justified in the interests of the company, as they might have lost much business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Reid my lords, This case arises out of the accidental explosion of a charge at a quarry belonging to the Appellants which caused injuries to the Respondent George Shatwell and his brother, James, who were both qualified shotfirers. On 8th June, 1960, these two men and another shotfirer, Beswick, had bored and filled 50 shot holes and had inserted electric detonators and connected them up in series. Before firing it was necessary to test the circuit for continuity. This should have been done by connecting long wires so that the men could go to a shelter some 80 yards away and test from there. They had not sufficient wire with them and Beswick went off to get more. The testing ought not to have been done until signals had been given so that other men could take shelter and these signals were not due to be given for at least another hour. Soon after Beswick had left George said to his brother Must we test them , meaning shall we test them, and James said yes . The testing is done by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Reported in : [1975]UKHL1; [1975]1ALLER504
Lord DiplockMY LORDS,This interlocutory appeal concerns a patent for the use as absorbablesurgical sutures of filaments made of a particular kind of chain polymerknown as " a polyhydroxyacetic ester " (" PHAE ").These are sutures ofa kind that disintegrate and are absorbed by the human body once theyhave served their purpose.The Appellants (" Cyanamid "), an AmericanCompany, are the registered proprietors of the patent.Its priority datein the United Kingdom is October 2nd, 1964.At that date the absorbablesutures in use were of natural origin.They were made from animaltissues popularly known as catgut.The Respondents (" Ethicon "), a sub-sidiary of another American Company, were the dominant suppliers ofcatgut sutures in the U.K.market.Cyanamid introduced their patented product in 1970.The chemical sub-stance of which it is made is a homo-polymer, i.e.all the units in the chain,except the first and the last (" the end stabilisers"), consist of glycolideradicals.Glycolide is the radical ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone my lords, We are all agreed that this appeal from decisions of Master Waldman and Sheen J. refusing leave to defend under RSC 0.14 fails on the facts for the reasons given by my noble and learned friends to which personally I have nothing to add. The appellants have failed to raise a triable issue. Nevertheless, though they arrive in your Lordships' House by an unusual route, the proceedings do raise an interesting and important general question of principle relating to the extent and nature of the law of frustration which has long been debated and which, since the matter has reached this stage and has been fully argued, should now be decided by your Lordships' House. This question is the applicability of the law of frustration to leases and agreements for a lease. The question is discussed at length in Cricklewood Property and Investment Trust Ltd. v. Leightons Investment Trust Ltd. [1945] A.C. 221 by the decision of which in the Court of Appeal, Master...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Browne-Wilkinson My Lords, Introduction 1. This petition has been brought by Senator Pinochet to set aside an order made by your Lordships on 25 November 1998. It is said that the links between one of the members of the Appellate Committee who heard the appeal, Lord Hoffmann, and Amnesty International ("AI') were such as to give the appearance that he might have been biased against Senator Pinochet On 17 December 1998 your Lordships set aside the order of 25 November 1998 for reasons to be given later. These are the reasons that led me to that conclusion. Background facts : 2. Senator Pinochet was the Head of State of Chile from 1 1 September 1973 until 11 March 1990. It is alleged that during that period there took place in Chile various crimes against humanity (torture, hostage taking and murder) for which he was knowingly responsible. 3. In October 1998 Senator Pinochet was in this country receiving medical treatment. In October and November 1998 the judicial authorities i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The question in this appeal is whether, as held by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (Carswell LCJ, Campbell LJ and Sir John MacDermott), it was beyond the power of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (now the Police Service of Northern Ireland) to make the directions contained in paragraphs 9(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Force Order No 10/2001 dated 8 February 2001. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hutton (whose rehearsal of the facts and the relevant legislation I gratefully adopt), and in agreement with all my noble and learned friends, I conclude that it was not. 2. Section 36 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 required the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under the Act in such manner and to such extent as appeared to him best calculated to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the Northern Ireland Police Service. Subject to the Act, it was left to him to judge whether and how to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD STEYN My Lords, The principal question: 1. These appeals raise the question whether evidence about the deliberations of a jury, which reveal a lack of impartiality on the part of the jury, is always inadmissible under the common law secrecy rule however compelling the evidence may be and however grave the circumstances of the lack of impartiality may be. Two examples will illustrate the point. A juror reveals after verdict that during the jury deliberations it emerged that some members of the jury were associated with a Neo-Nazi group and that they urged the conviction of the accused because he was a black immigrant. In the second example a juror reveals after verdict that a majority of the jury refused to deliberate and that the jury ultimately arrived at a verdict of guilty by spinning a coin. Nobody would seriously contest that such guilty verdicts would be the result of perverse processes by judicial tribunals. Neither example is fanciful or extreme: both were suggested to me ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would dismiss this appeal. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 2. This appeal arises out of an action raised by Mr Nigel Buchanan, the registered proprietor of UK Patent GB 2 287 321 ("for a fluid boiling point measuring device"), against Alba Diagnostics Ltd ("Alba") alleging infringement by the manufacture and sale of an implement called the Brake Fluid Tester. Alba denies infringement but takes the preliminary point that Mr Buchanan has no title to sue, having assigned his rights in the patent in suit ("the 321 patent") to a Mr Mills, who in turn assigned them to Alba. The Lord Ordinary (Lord Hamilton) and the Inner House (the Lord President (Rodger) and Lords Marnoch and Clarke) were unanimously of the opinion that the preliminary point was well founded and although they went on to find that Alba's devic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The issue raised in these appeals was succinctly expressed by Simon Brown LJ in the opening sentence of his leading judgment in the Court of Appeal ([2003] EWCA Civ 235, [2003] 1 WLR 1289, 1291): "Is residence in a district in accommodation provided to a destitute asylum seeker under legislation which requires the provider to ignore any preference of the asylum seeker as to where he resides capable of being regarded as residence (in that district) of the asylum seeker's own choice?" 2. It is common ground that the respondents to these appeals (Mr Al-Ameri and Mrs Osmani, both of them former asylum seekers) were, in March 2002 and November 2001 respectively, entitled to be provided with accommodation for occupation by them and members of their families under the Housing Act 1996. The question is whether the duty to secure provision of such accommodation may have lain on the intervener (the Glasgow City Council) or whether it lay on the appellants (t...
Tag this Judgment!