1-20 of 3,310 Results for:
- All: Essential Cases x
Did you mean: Essential Cases: Contract Law, Essential Cases: Land Law, Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts ... Essential Cases: Contract Law, Essential Cases: Land Law, Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts, Essential Cases: EU Law, Essential Cases: Criminal Law, Essential Cases: Tort Law, Essential Cases: Public Law more less
Book
Nicola Jackson
Book
Aruna Nair
Book
Derek Whayman
Book
Noreen O'Meara
Book
Jonathan Herring
Book
Craig Purshouse
Book
Thomas E. Webb
Chapter
Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation [2020] UKSC 43
amenity that arose prior to the killing (at [146]). Comment Henderson is an essential case because it clarifies the approach to illegality. This area of law had been in a confused
Chapter
Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13
the bank was not vicariously liable for his torts. Comment Barclays is an essential case as it clarifies the limits of the ‘akin to employment’ test and maintains the traditional
Chapter
Plaumann v Commission (Case 25/62), EU:C:1963:17, [1963] ECR 95, 15 July 1963
Commission (Case 11/82), EU:C:1985:18, [1985] ECR 207, 17 January 1985 Case 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki [1985] ECR 207 , Joined cases 789/79 and 790/79 Calpak [1980] ECR 1949, and Case C-519/07
Chapter
Swindle v Harrison [1997] 4 All ER 705, Court of Appeal
1 (CA) and Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] 1 AC 421 (HL), both noted in Essential Cases , demonstrated there was a requirement of causation in compensation claims against
Chapter
Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455
AC 155] but also, without any explanation, necessary’. Comment Frost is an essential case on the law of psychiatric injury generally and primary victims in particular. In
Chapter
Murad v Al-Saraj [2005] EWCA Civ 959, Court of Appeal
[1967] 2 AC 46, House of Lords Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 (HL) , noted in Essential Cases ). It is said that this is ‘ pour encourager les autres ’ (at [74]). This appears very
Chapter
Federal Republic of Brazil v Durant International Corporation [2015] UKPC 35, Privy Council
1 AC 102, House of Lords Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 (HL) (also noted in Essential Cases ), sees tracing as a process of identifying where the value has gone—tracing value
Chapter
Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740
32 LJ QB 164 did not apply only where a thing essential to a contract had been destroyed. When there was a state of affairs essential to the foundation of the contract, and a supervening
Chapter
Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 2) [1974] Ch 269, Court of Appeal
European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 , both noted in Essential Cases , on these matters. Stephenson LJ briefly expressed doubts but concurred in the result
Chapter
Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch 373, Chancery Division
[1971] AC 424 (HL) , and Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 2) [1973] Ch 9 (CA) (noted in Essential Cases ), for a discretionary trust, a complete list of objects was required. It was pressed
Chapter
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010] QB 732
or other prisoner wrongfully locked him in. Comment Iqbal is an essential false imprisonment case for its restatement of the basic elements of the tort. In holding that false
Chapter
Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241, Court of Appeal
of Appeal Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 , also noted in Essential Cases ). This core does not, however, include the duties of care and skill, prudence, and
Chapter
Privacy International and others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others [2021] EWCA Civ 330, Court of Appeal (also known as the Third Direction case)
of law are essential components to legality. They cannot, Hooper argues, be ‘crudely traded off’ against one another. On the characterization of the prerogative in the case, which Hooper