Court Structure in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Swain v Hillman
    • Court of Appeal
    • 21 Oct 1999,21 Oct 1999

    In doing so he or she gives effect to the overriding objectives contained in Part 1. It saves expense; it achieves expedition; it avoids the court's resources being used up on cases where this serves no purpose, and I would add, generally, that it is in the interests of justice. If a claimant has a case which is bound to fail, then it is in the claimant's interests to know as soon as possible that that is the position.

  • Rookes v Barnard
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Jan 1964

    Cases in the second category are those in which the Defendant's conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff. Exemplary damages can properly be awarded whenever it is necessary to teach a wrongdoer that tort does not pay.

  • Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abu-Qulbain v Same; Kashmiri v Same
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Mar 2007

    In an article 8 case where this question is reached, the ultimate question for the appellate immigration authority is whether the refusal of leave to enter or remain, in circumstances where the life of the family cannot reasonably be expected to be enjoyed elsewhere, taking full account of all considerations weighing in favour of the refusal, prejudices the family life of the applicant in a manner sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of the fundamental right protected by article 8.

  • Dorset Yacht Company Ltd v Home Office
    • House of Lords
    • 06 May 1970

    Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562 may be regarded as a milestone, and the well-known passage in Lord Atkin's speech should I think be regarded as a statement of principle. It is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. But I think that the time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion.

  • Antaios Compania Naviera S.A. v Salen Rederierna A.B.
    • House of Lords
    • 26 Jul 1984

    While deprecating the extension of the use of the expression "purposive construction" from the interpretation of statutes to the interpretation of private contracts, I agree with the passage I have cited from the arbitrators' award and I take this opportunity of re-stating that if detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business commonsense, it must be made to yield to business commonsense.

  • Rainy Sky SA and Others v Kookmin Bank
    • Supreme Court
    • 02 Nov 2011,02 Nov 2011

    If there are two possible constructions, the court is entitled to prefer the construction which is consistent with business common sense and to reject the other.

  • Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and another
    • House of Lords
    • 01 Jul 2009,01 Jul 2009

    What is clear from these cases is that there is not, so to speak, a limit to the amount of red ink or verbal rearrangement or correction which the court is allowed. All that is required is that it should be clear that something has gone wrong with the language and that it should be clear what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have meant. In my opinion, both of these requirements are satisfied.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results