Results: 82

• Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd

  10 Dec 1963 [1964] AC 993; [1964] 2 WLR 150; [1964] 1 All ER 300, PC

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 43.
  ESTOPPEL — Per rem judicatam — Judgment by default

  ESTOPPEL — Per rem judicatam — Statute, in face of

  ESTOPPEL — Malaya — Estoppel
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  ESTOPPEL — Per rem judicatam — Judgment by default — How far effective to estop — Only for what must “necessarily and with complete precision” have been determined — No estoppel in face of statute — Not confined to transactions made the subject of legislation

  ESTOPPEL — Per rem judicatam — Statute, in face of — Which statutes preclude estoppels — Moneylending — Social policy — Application of principle to common law

  ESTOPPEL — Malaya — Estoppel — Per rem judicatam — Default judgment — How far effective to estop

  7 Case(s) considered
• Coutts & Co v Inland Revenue Comrs (Inland Revenue Comrs v Coutts & Co)

  22 Jun 1961 [1962] Ch 305; [1961] 3 WLR 781; [1961] 3 All ER 158, Ch D

  17 Apr 1962 [1963] Ch 135; [1962] 3 WLR 347; [1962] 2 All ER 521, CA

  29 May 1963 [1964] AC 1393; [1963] 2 WLR 1407; [1963] 2 All ER 722, HL(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 2.
  REVENUE — Estate duty — “Surviving spouse” exemption
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  REVENUE — Estate duty — “Surviving spouse” exemption — Derivative settlement — Duty paid on death of first life tenant — Subsequent settlement of limited interests on death — Whether deceased competent to dispose of “settled estates” — Whether claim for duty “in respect of” settled estates — Finance Act, 1894, s 5 (2) — Finance Act, 1914, s 14

  11 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  4 Statutes considered
• Parker v The Queen

  12 May 1964 [1964] AC 1369; [1964] 3 WLR 70; [1964] 2 All ER 641, PC

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 4.
  CRIME — Australia — New South Wales

  CRIME — Homicide — Provocation
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Australia — New South Wales — Crime — Homicide — Provocation — Issue wrongly withdrawn from jury — Statutory defence — Grossly insulting words or gestures as provocation — Provided act done “without intent to take life” — Onus — “Intent” to be qualified by “premeditated” — Interval between provocation and act causing death — Loss of self-control — Matters for jury — Case remitted for verdict of manslaughter to be entered or new trial — Crimes Act, 1900 (New South Wales), No 40, s 23

  CRIME — Homicide — Provocation — General principles — Intent to kill — Malice prepensed — Cooling off period

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Overseas Enactment considered
• Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd (Rubber Improvement Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd)

  04 Apr 1962 [1963] 1 QB 340; [1962] 3 WLR 50; [1962] 2 All ER 698, CA

  26 Mar 1963 [1964] AC 234; [1963] 2 WLR 1063; [1963] 2 All ER 151, HL(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 3 positive; 6 neutral. Subsequent citations: 113.
  DAMAGES — Tax element — Libel

  LIBEL AND SLANDER — Justification — Suspicion of crime

  LIBEL AND SLANDER — Pleadings — Innuendo
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  DAMAGES — Tax element — Libel — Application of Gourley's case

  LIBEL AND SLANDER — Justification — Suspicion of crime — Newspaper report — Statement that Fraud Squad inquiring into affairs of limited company — Ordinary meaning of words admitted to be defamatory, but justified — Proof of police inquiry in progress at date of report — Whether justification — Whether words reasonably capable of meaning plaintiffs guilty of fraud

  LIBEL AND SLANDER — Pleadings — Innuendo — Not supported by extrinsic facts — Duty to withdraw unproved innuendo from jury — Not applicable if innuendo relying only on words used — Whether implied meaning should be pleaded — RSC, Ord 19, r 6 (2)

  LIBEL AND SLANDER — Pleadings — Innuendo — Two causes of action based on ordinary meaning and innuendo not pleaded in the alternative — Failure to prove innuendo meaning — Whether plaintiff entitled to impute part of failed innuendo meaning to ordinary meaning

  15 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered
• Union of India v Cia Naviera Aeolus SA (Cia Naviera Aeolus SA v Union of India)

  22 Feb 1960 [1960] 1 WLR 297, QBD

  16 Feb 1961 [1962] 1 QB 1; [1961] 2 WLR 659; [1961] 2 All ER 115; [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep 132, CA

  17 Apr 1961 (pet all) [1964] AC 868; [1961] 1 WLR 738; [1962] 3 WLR 1123; [1962] 3 All ER 670; [1962] 2 Lloyd's Rep 175, HL(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 8.
  SHIPPING — Charterparty — Demurrage
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  SHIPPING — Charterparty — Demurrage — Exceptions clause — Centrocon charter — “Time for loading or discharging … shall not count” during strike — Whether receivers liable for demurrage during strike period after expiry of laytime.

  SHIPPING — Charterparty — Demurrage — Exceptions clause — Centrocon charter — “Time for loading or discharging … shall not count” during strike — Whether receivers liable for demurrage during strike period after expiry of laytime

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

• Lewis v Dally Telegraph Ltd

  LIBEL AND SLANDER — Damages for libel — Assessment by jury
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LIBEL AND SLANDER — Damages for libel — Assessment by jury — Libel on limited company and chairman — No plea of special damage — No proof of general low of business — High award of damages — Considerations justifying interference with award by appellate court — Tax position relevant to question of excessive or inadequate award of damages — Similar libels in two newspapers — Defamation Act, 1952, s 12
• R v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Schtraks (Schtraks, Ex parte, R v Governor of Brixton Prison, Schtraks v Government of Israel)

  27 Feb 1962 [1963] 1 QB 55; [1962] 2 WLR 976; [1962] 2 All ER 176, DC

  06 Sep 1962 [1964] AC 556; [1962] 3 WLR 1013; [1962] 3 All ER 529, HL(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive; 5 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 51.
  EXTRADITION — Extent of treaty — “Territory”

  EXTRADITION — Habeas corpus — Appeal

  EXTRADITION — Offence of political character — Meaning
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EXTRADITION — Extent of treaty — “Territory” — Israel — Non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem — De facto authority recognised — Whether Jerusalem “territory” of Israel Government — Israel (Extradition) Order, 1960

  EXTRADITION — Habeas corpus — Appeal — House of Lords — Ambit of jurisdiction to review magistrate's decision — Fresh evidence — Whether admissible — Admissibility on question of jurisdiction — Whether offence political

  EXTRADITION — Offence of political character — Meaning — Offence in itself not political — Subsequently becoming political — Whether offence of political character at the time of commission — Burden of proof — Extradition Act, 1870, s 3

  9 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered
• In re Pilkington’s Will Trusts

  [1959] Ch 699, Ch D

  24 Mar 1961 [1961] Ch 466; [1961] 2 WLR 776; [1961] 2 All ER 330, CA

  08 Oct 1962 [1964] AC 612; [1962] 3 WLR 1051; [1962] 3 All ER 622; 40 TC 416, HL(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 7 neutral. Subsequent citations: 29.
  TRUST AND TRUSTEE — Power of advancement — Exercise of power

  PERPETUITY RULE — Power of advancement — Power used for resettlement

  POWER OF APPOINTMENT — Power of advancement — Distinction

  TRUSTS — Power of advancement — Exercise of power
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TRUST AND TRUSTEE — Power of advancement — Exercise of power — Statutory power — Fund held on trust for beneficiary for life and after his death for such of his children or remoter issue as he should appoint — Settlement for the benefit of infant child of beneficiary — Advancement of moiety of infant's expectant share on trusts of new settlement — Avoidance of death duties — Whether advancement for benefit of object of power — Whether rule against perpetuities infringed — Whether valid exercise of power of advancement — Trustee Act, 1925 (15 Geo. 5, c. 19), s. 32.

  PERPETUITY RULE — Power of advancement — Power used for resettlement — Application of perpetuity rule.

  POWER OF APPOINTMENT — Power of advancement — Distinction — Perpetuity rule.

  PERPETUITY RULE — Power of advancement — Power used for resettlement — Application of perpetuity rule

  POWER OF APPOINTMENT — Power of advancement — Distinction — Perpetuity rule

  TRUSTS — Power of advancement — Exercise of power — Statutory power — Fund held on trust for beneficiary for life and after his death for such of his children or remoter issue as he should appoint — Settlement for the benefit of infant child of beneficiary — Advancement of moiety of infant's expectant share on trusts of new settlement — Avoidance of death duties — Whether advancement for benefit of object of power — Whether rule against perpetuities infringed — Whether valid exercise of power of advancement — Trustee Act, 1925, s 32

  10 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered
• Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions (R v)

  12 Jul 1962 [1964] AC 763; [1962] 3 WLR 694; [1962] 2 All ER 314, CCA

  12 Jul 1962 [1964] AC 763; [1962] 3 WLR 694; [1962] 3 All ER 142; 46 Cr App R 347, HL(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive. Subsequent citations: 39.
  CRIME — Official secrets — Prejudice to State

  CROWN — Prerogative — Safety of State

  STATUTE — Construction — Side note
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Official secrets — Prejudice to State — Evidence — Conspiracy to enter and incite others to enter a prohibited place — Purpose of entry to ground aircraft to prevent carriage of nuclear weapons — Meaning of “purpose” — Evidence by Crown witness that entry prejudicial to State — Judge's exclusion of cross-examination and evidence as to defendants' intention and showing that acts in fact beneficial to State — Whether judge right in so ruling — Whether acts disclosed conspiracy to commit breach of section 1 of Act of 1911 — Official Secrets Act, 1911, s 1 (1)

  CROWN — Prerogative — Safety of State — Evidence as to interests of State — Challenge of policy — Evidence by Crown witness that defendants' plan to enter prohibited place prejudicial to State — Judge's refusal to allow cross-examination and evidence as to defendants' intention and to challenge policy of Crown — Whether judge right in so ruling — Official Secrets Act, 1911, s 1 (1)

  STATUTE — Construction — Side note — Cannot be used as aid to construction — Official Secrets Act, 1911, s 1

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• Williams v Williams (Divorce: Cruelty)

  19 Jul 1962 [1963] P 212; [1962] 3 WLR 977, CA

  27 Jun 1963 [1964] AC 698; [1963] 3 WLR 215; [1963] 2 All ER 994, HL(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 7 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 9.
  CRIME — Insanity — M'Naughten Rules

  HUSBAND AND WIFE — Cruelty — Insanity
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Insanity — M'Naughten Rules — Whether applicable outside field of crime — Divorce — Cruelty

  HUSBAND AND WIFE — Cruelty — Insanity — As defence — M'Naughten Rules — Applicability as defence to cruelty

  9 Case(s) considered