how to understand an act of parliament

7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament

1/237


2/237

HOW TO UNDERSTANDAN ACT OF PARLIAMENT

Cavendish

PublishingLimited

CP


3/237


4/237

HOW TO UNDERSTANDAN ACT OF PARLIAMENT

D J Gifford PhD (Cantab)

John Salter MA (Oxon)

CavendishPublishingLimited

CP


5/237

First published in Great Britain 1996 by Cavendish Publishing Limited,The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PXTelephone: 0171-278 8000 Facsimile: 0171-278 8080

Kelandon Pty Ltd 1996

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, storedin a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec-

tronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without theprior permission of the publisher and copyright owner.

The right of Dr D J Gifford and John Salter to be identified as authors ofthis work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Any person who infringes the above in relation to this publication may beliable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

British Library Cataloguing-in Publication Data.

Gifford, Understanding an Act of Parliament.1. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons Rules and2. Legislative bodies Great Britain 3. Parliamentary practice GreatBritainI. Title II. Salter328.4.1077

ISBN 1 85941 206 8

Printed and bound in Great Britain


6/237

v

There is a very real need today for people to know how to approach anunderstanding of the numerous Acts of Parliament and other forms of legislation

that affect so many aspects of their daily lives. The age in which we live is an ageof rapidly increasing governmental control. That control has extended into everywalk of life. For all of us there is legislation of one type or another that affects thethings we can do and controls how we can do them. From the broadcaster to themanufacturer, from the sales staff to the company secretary, there are Acts ofParliament and statutory instruments that must be complied with if penalties areto be avoided.

There was a time when only the lawyer had to know how to understand anAct of Parliament. That time has long since passed. Today there are many walksof life in which the knowledge of how to understand an Act of Parliament isessential. In the professional field the accountant, the architect, the engineer, the

chartered surveyor, the chief executive of a hospital or a geriatric complex, andthe town planner must have a good working knowledge of the special rules thatgovern the reading of legislation; they must know how to understand legislationand how to use it. In the commercial field this knowledge is of growingimportance for the landlord, the manager, the company secretary, the shoppingcentre manager, the developer, the estate agent and the builder. In the field ofgovernment this knowledge is perhaps most important of all and it is ofimportance not merely for those in the public service but for those in the creativefield of local government.

An Act of Parliament is not something that can be read like a book. That is notjust because the Act of Parliament is heavier reading, as indeed it usually is. It is

because over the years the law has developed special rules that govern thereading of the Act of Parliament. Every Act of Parliament must be read in thelight of those rules, and the person who attempts to read an Act of Parliamentwithout a working knowledge of the more important rules of interpretation mayfall into error. That error may be expensive.

The rules which govern the reading and interpretation of an Act of Parliamentalso govern the reading and understanding of legislation in all the other formsthat legislation takes today. They govern the reading and understanding of themaze of subordinate legislation whether made by central or local government or

by other statutory authorities. Such subordinate legislation is made today ingrowing profusion in the administration of an increasing number of statutes.

The object of this book is to explain the more important of the rules thatgovern the reading and understanding of legislation, and to do so as far aspossible in ordinary everyday language. The reader who studies and understandsthose rules will gain more from the reading of legislation whether reading an Actof Parliament or any other form of legislation. The reader will not, however,

become an expert in the science of interpreting legislation and must therefore

PREFACE


7/237

expect to have to turn to members of the legal profession for help in solving themany complications that arise in the course of modern legislation. The more

legislation grows the greater is the service which the legal profession can anddoes give to the community through its interpretation of the legislation andthrough its unravelling of the tangled legislative knots.

T C Beirne School of Law, D J Gifford

University of Queensland

Denton Hall, John Salter

5 Chancery Lane,

Cliffords Inn,London

How to Understand an Act of Parliament

vi


8/237

vii

Preface vTable of Cases xvii

Table of Statutes xxxviiGlossary xxxix

1 HOW AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT IS MADE 1What an Act of Parliament is 1How an Act of Parliament begins 1How the Act of Parliament is prepared 3How the Act is considered in Parliament 4How the Act of Parliament comes into force 6Acts obtained by fraud 6

2 THE SPECIAL RULES FOR UNDERSTANDING ACTS OFPARLIAMENT 7

Ambiguity in Acts of Parliament 7Judges criticisms of the drafting of Acts of Parliament 7Legislation by reference 10The need for special rules for the reading of Acts of Parliament 11

3 THE ELEMENTS OF AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT 13

Introduction 13The elements of an Act of Parliament 13

4 THE COAT OF ARMS AND THE REGNAL YEAR 15The form of the coat of arms and regnal year 15The effect of the coat of arms 15The regnal year 15

5 THE NUMBER OF THE ACT 17The nature of the number 17The form of the number 17The effect of the number 17

6 THE LONG TITLE OF THE ACT 19The form of the long title 19The long title as part of the Act 19Using the long title to find the meaning of the Act 20

CONTENTS


9/237

7 THE ENACTING WORDS 21The use of enacting words 21

The form of the enacting words 21The effect of the enacting words 22

8 THE SHORT TITLE 23The nature of the short title 23The place where the short title is to be found 23The use of the short title 23The legal effect of a short title 23

9 WHEN AN ACT COMES INTO FORCE 27The date on the Act of Parliament 27What the date on the Act of Parliament means 27The date on which the Act comes into force 27Bringing the Act into force on a later day 27Treating an Act as having been in force from a day before the date

on which it was passed 28The date on an Act reprinted after it has been amended 29

10 THE PREAMBLE 31

The nature of the preamble 31The preamble as part of the Act of Parliament 32The preamble when the meaning of the Act is clear 32The use of the preamble to find the meaning of a section 32

11 THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE IN AN ACT 35What the statement of principle of an Act is 35The statement of principle is part of the Act 35Where to find the statement of principle 35How to use the statement of principle 35

Traps to using the statement of principle 35

12 SECTIONS, SUBSECTIONS AND PARAGRAPHS 37Sections 37Subsections 37Paragraphs 37The effect of the setting out of the Act in numbered sections,

subsections and paragraphs 38Conflicting sections in the one Act 38The way in which sections, subsections, paragraphs and

subparagraphs are referred to 39


viii


10/237

Contents

13 PARTS AND DIVISIONS 41The nature of parts and divisions 41

The effect of dividing an Act into parts and divisions 42

14 HEADINGS 43The use of headings 43The effect of headings when the meaning of an Act is clear 43The effect of headings when the meaning of a section is not plain 43The effect of a heading when there is only one section under it 44

15 MARGINAL NOTES 45

The nature of marginal notes 45The form of a marginal note 45Parliament and the marginal notes 45The dangers of marginal notes 46The problem as to whether marginal notes can be used to find

the meaning of an Act 47The value of marginal notes 47

16 DEFINITIONS 49The need for definitions 49

The definitions section 50The effect of definitions in an Act of Parliament 51Definitions which use mean or include or both 51Definitions in other Acts 53Dictionary definitions and technical terms 53

17 SCHEDULES 55The nature of a schedule 55Conflict between a section of an Act and a schedule to that Act 56Conflict between a preamble to an Act and a schedule to that Act 58

Conflict between a section of an Act and a form in a schedule to that Act 58

18 PROVISOS 61The nature of a proviso 61The form of a proviso 61The effect of a proviso 61Proviso inserted unnecessarily 61Words wrongly expressed as a proviso 62

ix


11/237

19 PUNCTUATION 63Acts of Parliament passed before 1850 63

Punctuation in Acts of Parliament passed in 1850 or later 63

20 THE MEANING OF WORDS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT 65The difficulty of finding the meaning of words 65Where possible, a word is to be given a constant meaning

throughout the Act 65Words in an Act of Parliament have the meaning which they

bore at the date when the Act was passed 66Dictionary definitions 66Technical terms 67

21 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GENERAL RULES ANDTHE SPECIFIC RULES 69

The general rules 69Conflicts between the general and the specific rules 69

22 THE PLAIN MEANING RULE 71The names by which the plain meaning rule is known 71The effect of the plain meaning rule 71

The importance of the plain meaning rule 73The plain meaning rule cannot apply if the meaning is not plain 74The effect of definitions on the plain meaning rule 74

23 MANIFEST ABSURDITY AND INJUSTICE ARE TO BE AVOIDED 75The nature of the rule 75A warning about the rule 77

24 THE MISCHIEF RULE 79The nature of the rule 79The state of the law before the Act was passed 79The mischief or defect 80Ascertaining the mischief or defect 80The remedy Parliament has appointed 81The reason for the remedy 81Applying the rule 81The mischief cannot limit the meaning of plain words 81


x


12/237

Contents

25 THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT OF PARLIAMENT 83A section specifying the purposes of the Act 83

The Act is to be interpreted according to its object and intent 83The parliamentary intent should be effectuated, not defeated 83The meaning of intention in this context 84When the purposive approach is unavailable 85Finding the intention by necessary implication 86Caution must be exercised in interpreting by intention 87Intention is an unruly horse to ride 87

26 HANSARD 89The nature ofHansard 89The limited use ofHansard the common law previously allowed

for in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament 89Why the common law used to limit the use ofHansard to find the

meaning of an Act of Parliament 89The changed common law rule allowing the use ofHansard to

interpret an Act 90

27 USING OTHER MATERIAL FROM OUTSIDE AN ACT TOUNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THAT ACT 93

Reports by law reform commissions 93Reports by royal commissions and boards or committees of inquiry 93Explanations by government departments 93Planning policy guidelines 94Subordinate legislation 94Treaties and conventions 94

28 THE ACT MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE 95Words must be read in the light of the section as a whole 95A section must be read in the light of the Act as a whole 96

Limits to the use of this rule 97

29 EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN TO THE WHOLE ACT 99Words should not be discarded 99Sense should be made of a provision if possible 99Repetition and surplusage 99

30 OMISSIONS FROM THE ACT 101The rule as to things left out of the Act 101Implied terms 101

xi


13/237

31 MISTAKES IN AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT 103Common causes of mistakes in Acts of Parliament 103

The effect of a mistake as to the facts 103The effect of a mistake as to the law 104The effect of a mistake as to policy 104The effect of a drafters oversight 105Misprints 105The extent to which the courts will correct mistakes in Acts

of Parliament 106

32 THE CLASS RULE 107The nature of the class rule 107There must be a general word 108The general word must follow after a class of specific words 108There must be two or more specific words before the general word 109The name lawyers give to the class rule 110A court will not necessarily apply the class rule 110Excluding the class rule 110The class rule does not give guidance on the meaning of specific

words within the class 110

33 WORDS OF SIMILAR MEANING 111The nature of the rule 111The meaning of similar words when they are associated with

each other 111

34 EXPRESS INCLUSIONS AND IMPLIED EXCLUSIONS 113The effect of the rule 113The use of the rule in relation to definitions 113The rule must be applied with caution 113The name lawyers give the rule 114

35 INTERPRETING AN ACT IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER ACTS 115Acts which are related to the Act being considered 115Incorporating one Act into another 116The effect of Acts which are not related to the Act under consideration 116The effect of an Act repealing and replacing an earlier Act 117

36 ACTS INCONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER 119Conflicts between different Acts of Parliament 119Conflict between a general and a specific Act 119

Other conflicts between Acts of Parliament 119Implied repeal 120


xii


14/237

Contents

37 NINE CLASSES OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT 121Amending Acts 121

Codes 121Consolidating Acts 121Declaratory Acts 124Enabling Acts 124Explanatory Acts 125Remedial Acts 125Repealing Acts 126Validating Acts 126

38 ACTS WHICH ARE READ NARROWLY 129The kinds of Acts that are read narrowly 129Acts which impose a penalty 129Acts which empower arrest or detention 131Acts which create a tax, a rate or a charge 131Acts which affect vested rights 132The rights to be protected must be vested rights 133Taking property compulsorily 134Legal rules as to court procedure or as to law costs do not

create vested rights 135Acts affecting a fundamental principle of the common law 135

Acts that apply from before the date on which they were passed 136

39 ACTS THAT APPLY FROM BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICHTHEY WERE PASSED 137

The power of Parliament to make Acts that apply from a datebefore the date on which they were passed 137

The meaning of retrospective 137Taking away existing rights 137Providing penalties for things done before the coming into force

of the Act 138

Clear words are needed to make an Act operate from before the dateon which it was passed 139

Acts declaring the existing law are retrospective 141Acts relating to procedure or evidence are usually retrospective 141

40 THE AREA IN WHICH AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT OPERATES 143A British Act operates within the territories the people of which are

subject to the British Parliament 143Applying the principle to bodies under Parliament 143Defining the territories of Parliament 144

Parliament can make the Act operate beyond its territories 144

xiii


15/237

Applying the Act to foreigners beyond the territories 145Actions outside the territorial bounds affecting persons inside them 145

41 HOW ACTS OF PARLIAMENT AFFECT THE CROWN 147The meaning of the Crown 147When an Act of Parliament binds the Crown 147The extent of the Crown 147A warning as to whether the Crown is bound 148

42 HOW JUDICIAL DECISIONS AFFECT THE READING OF AN ACT 149Prior judicial decisions can be taken into consideration 149

Judicial decisions on principles of the common law 149Judicial decisions on the meaning of particular words and phrases 149Re-enactment after an Act has been interpreted by the courts 149Technical legal terms 151

43 SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION 153Subordinate legislation 153Subordinate legislation needs authorisation to be retrospective 154

44 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 155

An Act giving effect to a treaty or convention is presumed tointend to fulfil Britains obligations 155

The treaty or convention can be examined to resolve ambiguityin the British Act 155

Words in the treaty or convention are to be given their ordinarymeanings 155

The purposive approach is to be applied 155Using a treaty or convention in two or more languages 156Extrinsic evidence may be used to determine whether

an international treaty or convention is relevant 157

The effect of conventions being more loosely worded than Acts 157The presumptions do not apply if the words being interpreted are

unambiguous 157The special rules for interpreting the European Communitys Access Act

and Directives 158

45 THE EUROPEAN LAW APPROACH 159Introduction 159Community treaties 159International treaties 161

How a Directive comes into force 162


xiv


16/237

Contents

The elements of a Directive 162The nature of the preamble 163

Drafting procedure 163Commission and Parliamentary Reports 164Incorporated and conflicting terms 164

46 EUROPEAN PRINCIPLES 167Unwritten principles 167Fundamental rights 167Effet utile 167Solidarity 168Human rights 169Equality of treatment 169Proportionality 169Legal certainty 170Legitimate expectations 170Retrospective effect 171Fairness 171

47 EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION 173General principles 173Width of construction 174Literal meaning 175Uniformity 175Footnotes 176Plural 176Implication 176Amendments 177Decisions 177Direct effect 178Precedent 178

48 AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION 179Objectives 179Surrounding circumstances 179Social developments 180Preamble 180Minutes of Council meetings 180Opinions of officials 180Informal documents 180Negotiating documents 181Implemented legislation 181

Public international law 181

xv


17/237

Member State laws 182Laws of a third country 183

Languages 183Member State opinions 184

49 NOW READ ON 185Highlights and history 185Further reading on the rules for finding

the meaning of Acts of Parliament 187

Index 187


xvi


18/237

xvii

A

Abel v Lee (1871) LR 6 CP 365 .......................................................................................106

Abley v Dale (1851) 20 LJ CP 233 ....................................................................................78

Adoption Application (Non-Patrial: Breach of Procedures),Re [1993] Fam 125 .........................................................................................................143

Air-India v Wiggins [1980] 1 WLR 815.........................................................................145

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 101...............................................................135

Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824 .................................................................130

Amalia, The (1863) 1 Moore PC (NS) 471; [1863] 15 ER 778 .....................................145

Anderton v Ryan [1985] 2 WLR 968................................................................................85

Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) Ltd v Birkenhead Corpn [1975] AC 99, HL ...........7, 46

Argyll (Duke) v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1913) 109 LT 893......................119

Assam Rlys & Trading Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1935] AC 455..................................................................................................................90

Assheton Smith v Owen [1906] 1 Ch 179, CA...............................................................66

Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd v Wyong ShireCouncil [1975] AC 538 .................................................................................................119

Associated Newspapers Group Ltd v Fleming [1973] AC 628 ..................................79

Attorney-General (Alberta) v Huggard Assets Ltd [1953] AC 420 .........................143

Attorney-General for Canada v Hallett & Carey Ltd [1952] AC 427................83, 133

Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1994] 2 AC 238, HL ...................71

Attorney-General v Great Eastern Rly (1879) 11 Ch D 449, CA...........................45, 46

Attorney-General v Jones [1990] 1 WLR 859, CA.........................................................85

Attorney-General v Lamplough (1873) 3 Ex D 214, CA........................................56, 58

Attorney-General v Leicester Corpn [1910] 2 Ch 359 ................................................110

Attorney-General v Theobold (1890) 24 QBD 556......................................................124

Auchterarder Presbytery v Lord Kinnoull (1839) 6 Cl & F 646;[1839] 7 ER 841 ................................................................................................................99

B

Bank of England v Vagliano Bros [1891] AC 107 .......................................................121

Barker v Edger [1898] AC 748 ..........................................................................................38

BBC Enterprises Ltd v Hi-Tech Xtravision Ltd [1990] Ch 609;[1991] 2 AC 327, CA .....................................................................................................102

Beese v Ashford Remand Centre (Governor) [1973] 1 WLR 1426...........................155

Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 ...................................................................................123

Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-AschaffenburgAG [1975] AC 591, HL...............................................................20, 79, 80, 84, 85, 87, 90

Blyth v Blyth (No 2) [1966] AC 643 ...............................................................................142

Boaler, Re [1915] 1 KB 21, CA ....................................................................................24, 25

Bolton Corpn v Owen [1962] 1 QB 470, CA.....................................................................9

Bombay Province v Bombay Municipal Corpn [1947] AC 58..................................147

BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 52 ALJR 20 ...........102

TABLE OF CASES


19/237

Bradford City Metropolitan Council v McMahon [1994] 1 WLR 5, CA...................77

Brett v Brett (1826) 3 Add 210; [1826] 152 ER 456; (1872) 3 Russ 437 ........................96

Brightman & Co Ltd v Tate [1919] 35 TLR 209 ...........................................................133

Bristol Airport plc v Powdrill [1990] 1 Ch 944..............................................................86

Bristol-Myers Co v Beecham Group Ltd [1974] AC 646..............................................77

British Eagle International Airlines Ltd v Compagnie NationaleAir France [1975] 1 WLR 758, HL ................................................................................71

British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765..............................................6, 103, 104

Britt v Buckinghamshire County Council [1964] 1 QB 77, CA...................................47

Bromley London Borough Council v Greater LondonCouncil [1983] 1 AC 768 ..............................................................................................136

Brook v Brook (1861) 9 HLC 193; [1861] 11 ER 703....................................................144

Brownsea Haven Properties Ltd v Poole Corpn [1958] Ch 574, CA.......................107Buchanan, James & Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding & Shipping

(UK) Ltd [1978] AC 141 .......................................................................................156, 157

Buckman v Button [1943] KB 405 ..................................................................................139

C

Camden London Borough Council v Secretary of State for theEnvironment [1988] 86 LGR 775 ....................................................................................9

Canada Southern Rly International Bridge Co (1883) 8 App Cas 723 ......................10

Canada Sugar Refining Co v The Queen [1898] AC 735.............................................97

Canterbury City Council v Colley [1993] AC 401, HL ........................................73, 133Cape Brandy Sindicate v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921]2 KB 403, CA..........................................................................................................106, 132

Cargo ex Argos (1873) LR 5 PC 134 ..............................................................................99

Carrington v Term-a-Stor [1983] 1 WLR 138, CA.........................................................81

Carson v Carson [1964] 1 All ER 681 ............................................................................139

Carter v Bradbeer [1975] 1 WLR 1204, HL.........................................................52, 73, 83

Cartwright v MacCormack [1963] 1 WLR 18, CA........................................................99

Casanova v The Queen (1866) LR 1 PC 268.................................................................116

Chance v Adams (1696) 1 Ld Raym 77; [1696] 91 ER 948 ...........................................19

Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 763, HL................................47Chief Adjudication Officer v Foster [1993] AC 754......................................................91

Chilton v Telford Development Corpn [1987] 1 WLR 872 .................................83, 134

City of London v Wood (1701) 12 Mod Rep 669; [1701] 88 ER 1592 .........................87

Clark, (C & J) Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1975] 1 WLR 413, CA ............................................................................................79, 132

Coleshill and District Investment Co Ltd v Minister of Housing andLocal Government [1969] 1 WLR 746..........................................................................94

Colonial Sugal Refining Co Ltd v Melbourne Harbour TrustCommissioners [1927] AC 343 ...................................................................................134

Colquhorn v Brooks (1888) 21 QBD 52, CA ........................................................113, 114

Comdel Commodities Ltd v Siporex Trade SA [1991] 1 AC 148, HL.......................66


xviii


20/237

Table of Cases

Commissioner of Estate and Gift Duties v Fiji Resorts Ltd [1983] 2 AC 649 ...........52

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Curran [1976]1 WLR 87, HL..............................................................................................72, 78, 83, 123

Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Atwill [1973] AC 558.............................................62

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Gallaher Ltd [1971] AC 43 ....................137

Congreve v Home Office [1976] QB 629, CA ................................................................94

Cooke v Charles A Vogeler Co [1901] AC 102............................................................143

Copeland, ex p (1852) 22 LJ Bank 17.............................................................................115

Copeman v Gallant (1716) 1 P Wms 314; [1716] 24 ER 404.........................................33

County of London Housing Order, Re [1956] 1 WLR 499 ........................................104

Courtauld v Legh (1869) LR 4 Ex 126 .............................................................................65

Cowper-Essex v Acton Local Board (1889) 14 App Cas 153.....................................100

Cox v Army Council [1963] AC 48................................................................................145

Cox v Hakes (1890) 15 App Cas 506, HL .......................................................................72

Crawford v Spooner (1846) 6 Moore PC 1; [1846] 13 ER 582....................................101

Crowe v Lloyds British Testing Co Ltd [1960] 1 QB 592, CA...................................116

Cushing v Lupuy (1880) 5 App Cas 409.......................................................................147

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Mechanical Services (TrailerEngineers) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 305, CA.......................................................................100

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Thorn Electrical IndustriesLtd [1975] 1 WLR 437...........................................................................................140, 154

DDAvigdor-Goldsmid v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1953] AC 347, HL......131

Davidson v Hill [1901] 2 KB 606....................................................................................145

Davis v Edmondson (1803) 3 B & P 382; [1803] 127 ER 209......................................115

Daymond v South West Water Authority [1976] AC 609, HL...................96, 101, 132

De Demko v Home Secretary [1959] AC 654, HL, see also R v BrixtonPrison Governor, ex p De Demko..............................................................................123

Dean v Green (1882) 8 PD 79............................................................................................58

Delbourgo v Field [1978] 2 All ER 193, CA..................................................................132

Devis (W) & Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] AC 931, HL..........................................75, 77, 84

Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99.....................................................52Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica v White [1978] AC 426 ........................102

Director of Public Prosecutions v Bhagwan [1972] AC 60..........................................86

Director of Public Prosecutions v Goodchild [1978] 1 WLR 578, HL........................62

Director of Public Prosecutions v Lamb [1941] 2 KB 89............................................139

Director of Public Prosecutions v Turner [1974] AC 357 ....................................97, 130

Director of Public Works v Ho Po Sang [1961] AC 901.............................................133

Doe dem Bishop Rochester v Bridges (1831) 1 B & Ad 859;[1831] 109 ER 1001 ........................................................................................................126

Doncaster Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment

(1992) 91 LGR 459, CA ...................................................................................................91

xix


21/237

Duke of Devonshire v OConnor (1890) 24 QBD 468., CA .........................................63

Dullewe v Dullewe [1969] AC 313 ..................................................................................81

Dun v Dun [1959] AC 272.........................................................................................73, 150

E

Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342................83

East & West India Dock Co v Shaw Savill & Albion Co [1888] 38 Ch D 524...........20

East Riding County Council v Park Estate (Bridlington) Ltd [1957] AC 223 ........133

Eastern Counties Rlys v Marriage (1860) 9 HLC 32; [1860] 11 ER 639, HL........43, 44

Engineering Industry Training Board v Samuel Talbot (Engineers) Ltd[1969] 2 QB 270, CA......................................................................................................132

Eschersheim, The; Erkowit (owners) v Salus (owners) [1975] 1 WLR 83.......150, 155

F

F (orse A) (a minor) (publication of information), Re [1976] 3 WLR 813, CA .......130

Fairview Church Street Bromyard, Re [1974] 1 WLR 579...........................53, 84, 117

Farquharson v R [1973] AC 786.....................................................................................121

Farrell v Alexander [1977] AC 59, HL......................................................84, 96, 124, 131

Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council [1961]AC 636, HL ........................................................................................................11, 99, 130

Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Department of Trade andIndustry [1974] 1 WLR 505, HL..........................................................................102, 131

Fielden v Morley Corpn [1899] 1 Ch 1; [1900] AC 133, CA ........................................19

First National Securities v Chiltern District Council [1975] 1 WLR 1075...............104Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1978] QB 108; [1981] AC 251............................156

14 Grafton Street London W1, Re [1971] 2 All ER 1...................................................135

G

Gardner v Lucas (1878) 3 App Cas 582 ................................................................135, 139

Garnett v Bradley (1978) 3 App Cas 944 ......................................................................120

Geelong Harbour Trust Commissioners v Gibbs Bright & Co (a firm)[1974] AC 810.................................................................................................................150

Gilbard v Amey Roadstone Corpn Ltd (1974) 73 LGR 43, CA ..................................75

Gilbert v Gilbert and Boucher [1928] P 1, CA .............................................................122Goswami, Re [1969] 1 QB 453, CA ..................................................................................11

Gough v Gough [1891] 2 QB 665 .....................................................................................52

Graysim Holdings Ltd v P & O Property Holdings Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 992, CA.....76

Greene v Church Commissioners for England [1974] Ch 467, CA ...........................51

Grimes v London Borough of Sutton [1973] 2 All ER 448.........................................141

Groveside Properties Ltd v Westminster Medical School (1983)47 P & CR 507, CA..........................................................................................................76

Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd v Advisory Conciliation andArbitration Service [1978] AC 655 .............................................................................101


xx


22/237

Table of Cases

H

Haigh v Charles W Ireland Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 43, HL...................................66, 72, 150

Hammersmith Rly v Brand (1869) 4 HL 171, HL .........................................................44

Hampson v Department of Education and Science [1991] 1 AC 171........................96

Hanlon v Law Society [1981] AC 124 .....................................................................63, 153

Hare v Gocjer [1962] 2 QB 641..........................................................................................72

Hart v Hudson Bros Ltd [1928] 2 KB 629.......................................................................11

Hartnell v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963]1 WLR 1141; [1965] AC 1134.......................................................................................134

Hebbert v Purchas (1871) LR 3 PC 605, HL .....................................................................6

Hemens v Whitsbury Farm and Stud Ltd [1988] AC 601, HL ...................................52

Herbert Berry Associates Ltd (in liquidation), Re[1977] 1 WLR 617, CA .........................................................................................108, 109

Herbert Berry Associates Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1977] 1 WLR 1437, HL ..................................................................................67, 120, 150

Hereford and Worcester County Council v Craske (1976) 75 LGR 174 ...................89

Heydons Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7; [1584] 76 ER 637 ....................................................79

Hibbert v Acton (1889) 5 TLR 274 ...................................................................................49

Hill v East & West India Dock Co (1884) 9 App Cas 448, HL....................................61

Hollandia, The [1983] 1 AC 565 .....................................................................................156

Holmes v Bradfield Rural District Council [1949] 2 KB 1...........................................77

Holt & Co v Colyer (1881) 16 Ch D 718..........................................................................67

Hough v Windus (1884) 12 QBD 224............................................................................132

Houston v Burns [1918] AC 337 ......................................................................................63

Howard v Borneman (No 2) [1975] Ch 201; [1976] AC 301, CA..........................73, 84

Hull Dock Co v Browne (1831) 2 B & Ad 43; [1831] 109 ER 1059 ............................131

Hy Whittle Ltd v Stalybridge Corpn (1967) 65 LGR 344...........................................108

I

Income Tax Commissioners v Pemsel [1891] AC 531................................100, 106, 151

Ingle v Farrand [1927] AC 417 .......................................................................................139

Inglis v Robertson [1898] AC 616, HL ............................................................................43

Inland Renveue Commissioners v Joiner [1975] 1 WLR 1701..................122, 140, 141Inland Revenue Commissioners v Dowdall OMahoney & Co Ltd

[1952] AC 401, HL.........................................................................................................104

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Gittus [1920] 1 KB 563; [1921]2 AC 81, CA .....................................................................................................................58

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hinchy [1960] AC 748............................63, 97, 122

Ishak v Thowfeek [1986] 1 WLR 1718.............................................................................76

J

Jackson v Hall [1980] AC 854 .........................................................................................153

James v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1977] 1 WLR 835............................132, 139Johnson v Moreton [1980] AC 37, HL ..............................................................71, 75, 101

xxi


23/237

Joint Properties Ltd v Williamson [1945] SC 68..............................................................8

Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates [1980] AC 74..................................................102

Jortin v South Eastern Rly Co (1855) 6 De GM & G 270;[1855] 43 ER 1237 ..........................................................................................................126

K

Kariapper v Wijesinha [1968] AC 716...........................................................................119

Kelly v Pierhead Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 65, CA....................................................................75

Kennedy v Spratt [1972] AC 83........................................................................................86

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes BuildingSupplies Ltd [1993] AC 227.........................................................................................165

Knill v Towse (1889) 24 QBD 186 ....................................................................................10

Knowles & Sons v Lancashire & Yorkshire Rly Co (1889) 14 App Cas 248...........116Knowles v Liverpool City Council [1993] 1 WLR 1428, HL .................................20, 50

L

LOffice Cherifien des Phosphates v Yamashita-Shinnihon SS CoLtd [1994] 1 AC 486; [1993] 3 WLR 266, CA ................................78, 87, 140, 141, 142

Lake v Bennett [1970] 1 QB 663, CA .............................................................................117

Lauri v Renad [1892] 3 Ch 402 .......................................................................................139

Lawson v Fox [1974] AC 803..........................................................................143, 145, 153

Lee v Showmens Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 QB 329, CA ..................................67

Lee-Verhulst (Investments) Ltd v Harwood Trust

[1973] 1 QB 204, CA..........................................................................................65, 97, 115Legal Aid Board v Russell [1990] 2 QB 607; [1991] 2 AC 317, CA .............................66

Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, CA ............................................................................80

Lewis v Rogers (1984) 82 LGR 670 ..................................................................................51

Lincoln Colleges Case (1595) 3 Co Rep 58b; [1595] 76 ER 764...................................96

Lincoln Corpn v Parker [1974] 1 WLR 713 ..................................................................117

Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1990] AC 546 ..........................166

Littlewoods Mail Order Stores v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1961] Ch 597 .................................................................................................................116

London & Harrogate Securities Ltd v Pitts [1976] 1 WLR 1063, CA.......................113

London County Council v Central Land Board [1959] Ch 386, CA..........................93London County Council v Pearce [1892] 2 QB 109 ......................................................49

Lonhro (No 2), Re [1990] Ch 695......................................................................................85

Lord Advocate v De Rosa [1974] 1 WLR 946, HL.........................................................72

Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council [1990] 2 AC 580..............................147

Lucy v WT Henleys Telegraph Works Ltd [1970] 1 QB 393, CA...............................84

Lumsden v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1914] AC 877......................................90

M

Macmillan v Dent [1907] 1 Ch 107, CA ..........................................................................80

Macree v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council (1991) 90 LGR 137 .................94


xxii


24/237

Table of Cases

Madden v Madden [1974] 1 WLR 247..........................................................................140

Magnhild, SS v McIntyre Bros & Co [1920] 2 KB 321 ................................................109

Main v Stark (1890) 15 App Cas 384 .............................................................................140

Mangin v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1971] AC 739 ......................................76

Marr, Re [1990] Ch 773, CA................................................................................38, 58, 119

Marshall v Cottingham [1982] 1 Ch 82...........................................................................64

Martin v Lowry [1926] 1 KB 550......................................................................................97

Maunsell v Olins [1975] 1 All ER 16, HL........................................................................11

Maurice (C) & Co Ltd v Ministry of Labour [1968] 1 WLR 1337, CA;see also, SOS for Employment and Productivity vC Maurice & Co ............................................................................................................114

Mayfair Property Co, Re [1898] 2 Ch 28.........................................................................79

McDonald v Howard Cook Advertising Ltd [1972] 1 WLR 90................................130Medway Drydock & Engineering Co Ltd v MV Andrea Ursula

[1973] 1 QB 265 ..............................................................................................................155

Melluish v BMI (No 3) Ltd [1995] STC 964....................................................................90

Mendip District Council v Glastonbury Festivals Ltd [1993] 91 LGR 447 ...............91

Mersey Docks v Henderson (1888) 13 App Cas 595 ..................................................101

Metheun-Campbell v Walters [1979] QB 525, CA................................................67, 134

Meux v Jacobs (1875) LR 7 HL 481, HL..........................................................................51

Middlesex Justices v The Queen (1884) 9 App Cas 757, HL.......................................25

Milford Haven Conservancy Board v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1976] 1 WLR 817, CA ....................................................................................................96

Millar v Taylor (1769) 4 Burr 2303; [1769] 98 ER 201`90

Mills v Funnell (1824) 2 B & C 988; [1824] 107 ER 616.................................................96

Ministry of Housing and Local Government v Sharp [1970] 2 QB 223, CA..........117

Mischeff v Springett [1942] 2 KB 331 ............................................................................139

Moir v Williams [1892] 1 QB 264, CA.............................................................................49

Moody and Yates Contract, Re (1885) 30 Ch D 344, CA ............................................65

Morris v Beardmore [1981] AC 446...............................................................................136

Moseley v Stonehouse (1806) 7 East 174; [1806] 103 ER 67.......................................126

Mudie & Co v Strick (1909) 100 LT 701................................................................108, 109

Mullins v Treasurer of Surrey (1880) 5 QBD 170, DC..................................................61

Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions [1994] 1 WLR 1, Hl ..............................9, 80

Murray v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1918] AC 541 .........................................99

N

NWL Ltd v Woods [1979] 1 WLR 1294, HL ............................................................71, 75

Nairn v University of St Andrews [1909] AC 147, HL ................................................11

National Assistance Board v Wilkinson [1952] 2 QB 648..........................................135

National Real Estate and Finance Co Ltd v Hassan [1939] 2 KB 61, CA................135

National Rivers Authority v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd [1994]

3 WLR 1202, HL ............................................................................................................116

xxiii


25/237

National Telephone Co Ltd v Postmaster-General [1913] AC 546, HL..............24, 25

Nixon v Attorney-General [1930] 1 Ch 566, CA ...........................................................47

Northern Ireland Trailers Ltd v Preston Corpn [1972] 1 WLR 203, dc...................115

Northman v Barnet London Borough Council [1979] 1 WLR 67.............................102

Norton v Spooner (1954) 9 Moore PC 103; [1854] 14 ER 237 ....................................104

Nutton v Wilson (1889) 22 QBD 744, CA.....................................................................110

P

Palmers Case (1784) 1 Leach CC (4th edn) 355..........................................................115

Passmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council [1898] AC 387 .........................126

Pattison v Finningley Internal Drainage Board [1970] 2 QB 33 .........................20, 133

Peart v Stewart [1983] 2 AC 109.......................................................................................66

Pepper v Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032...................................................76, 77, 85, 90, 91, 164Phillips v Parnaby [1934] 2 KB 299..................................................................................11

Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66........................................................................166

Plymouth Corpn v Secretary of State for the Environment[1972] 1 WLR 1347 ..........................................................................................................77

Post Office v Estuary Radio Ltd [1968] 2 QB 740........................................................144

Post Office v Union of Communication Workers [1990] 1 WLR 981, CA................85

Powell v Kempton Park Racecource Co [1899] AC 143, HL ..............................32, 164

Pretty v Solly (1859) 426 Beav 606; [1859] 53 ER 1032..................................................38

Prince Ernest of Hanover v Attorney-General [1956]

Ch 188; [1957] AC 437, CA ............................................................................................75

Q

Qualter, Hall & Co Ltd v Board of Trade [1962] Ch 273, CA .....................................43

Quasi v Quasi [1980] AC 744, HL..................................................................................109

R

R v Baines (1840) 12 A & E 210; [1840] 113 ER 792 .......................................................59

R v Berkshire Justices (1879) 4 QBD 469.........................................................................95

R v Bexley [1993] 1 WLR 192, CA....................................................................................75

R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum [1993] 1 WLR 1171, CA ...................96

R v Brixton Prison Governor, ex p De Demko [1959] 1 QB 268;see also De Demko v Home Secretary ......................................................................123

R v Callender [1993] QB 303, CA...................................................................................130

R v Chief Immigration Officer Heathrow Airport, ex p Salamat Bibi[1976] 3 All ER 843, CA................................................................................................155

R v Crown Court at Leeds, ex p City of Bradford ChiefConstable [1975] QB 314..............................................................................................122

R v Curran [1975] 1 WLR 876, CA...................................................................................83

R v Dunwoodie [1978] 1 All ER 923..............................................................................142

R v Dursley (Inhabitants) (1832) 3 B & Ad 465; [1832] 110 ER 168..........................125

R v Eaton (1881) 8 QBD 158..............................................................................................10


xxiv


26/237

Table of Cases

R v Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Department of Trade andIndustry [1974] 1 WLR 505, HL....................................................................................71

R v Havering Justices, ex p Smith [1974] 2 All ER 484.................................................76R v Herrod, ex p Leeds City Council [1976] QB 540; see also

Walker v Leeds CC.......................................................................................................116

R v Houghton (Inhabitants) (1853) 1 E & B 501; [1853] 118 ER 523.........................103

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p Woolwich EquitableBuilding Society [1990] 1 WLR 1400............................................................................85

R v Judge of City of London Court [1892] 1 QB 273 ....................................................78

R v Kelt [1977] 1 WLR 1365, CA ......................................................................................47

R v Kynaston (1926) 19 Cr App R 180 ............................................................................28

R v Loxdale (1758) 1 Burr 445; [1758] 97 ER 394.................................................115, 116

R v Mohan [1976] QB 1, CA ...........................................................................................130R v Morris [1867] LR 1 CCR 90 ......................................................................................136

R v Murray (Nicholas) [1990] 1 WLR 1360, CA..........................................................145

R v Newham East Justices, ex p Hunt [1976] 1 WLR 420, DC..................................131

R v North Metropolitan Rly Co (1856) 27 LTOS 156....................................................96

R v Oliver [1944] KB 68, CCA ................................................................................139, 154

R v Registrar-General, ex p Smith [1991] 2 QB 393, CA ..............................................83

R v Reid (Phillip) [1973] 1 WLR 1283, CA......................................................................76

R v Schildkamp [1971] AC 1, HL.....................................................................................47

R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Hammersmith andFulham London Borough Council [1991] 1 AC 521 ...............................................149

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex pK [1991] 1 QB 270, CA..................................................................................................157

R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd(No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603 .................................................................................................165

R v Southwark Crown Court, ex p Customs and Excise Commissioners[1990] 1 QB 650 ................................................................................................................84

R v St John Westgate Burial Board (1862) 2 B & S 703; [1862] 121 ER 1232..............99

R v Surrey Assessment Committee [1948] 1 KB 29 ......................................................43

R v Swabey (No 2) [1973] 1 WLR 183 ...............................................................................7

R v Titterton [1895] 2 QB 61, DC....................................................................................115R v Treasury [1851] 20 LJ QB 305 ..................................................................................104

R v Wheatley [1979] 1 WLR 144.....................................................................................116

R v Wilcock (1845) 7 QB317; [1845] 115 ER 509 ..........................................................106

R v Wimbledon Local Board [1882] 8 QBD 459, CA ..................................................133

Ramsay, (WT) v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, HL ...................132

Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority [1991] 1 QB 587 .............................................82

Redpath v Allen (1872) LR 4 CP 518.............................................................................115

Reed International Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1976] AC 336, HL ....131

Rippon Housing Order, Re [1939] 2 KB 838 ..................................................................67

xxv


27/237

Robinson & Co Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue, Singapore[1980] 1 WLR 1614 ........................................................................................................134

Robinson v Barton Eccles Local Board (1883) 8 App Cas 798, HL ............................52Rolls-Royce Co Ltd, Re [1974] 1 WLR 1584 .................................................................122

Rome v Punjab National Bank (No 2) [1989] 1 WLR 1211, CA..................................61

Rosseter v Cahlmann (1853) 8 Ex 361; [1853] 155 ER 1586........................................145

Rumbolt v Schmidt (1882) 8 QBD 603 ..........................................................................129

S

St Aubyn v Attorney-General [1952] AC 14, HL ............................................................8

Sakhuja v Allen [1973] AC 152, HL...........................................................................73, 75

Salmon v Duncombe (1886) 11 App Cas 627 ......................................................104, 106Salomon v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1967] 2 QB 116, CA ..............157

Saneen v Abeyewickrema [1963] 2 WLR 1120, CA......................................................95

Scales v Pickering (1828) 4 Bing 448; [1828] 130 ER 840 ............................................111

Scher v Policyholders Protection Board (No 2) [1993] 3 WLR 1030, HL ..................75

Seagull Manufacturing Co Ltd (No 2), Re [1994] 2 Ch 91.........................................143

Seales Marriage Settlement, Re [1961] Ch 574 ...........................................................145

Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity v C Maurice& Co [1969] 2 AC 346; see also Maurice (C) & Co Ltd vMinistry of Labour .......................................................................................................114

Secretary of State for Social Services v Tunnicliffe [1991]2 All ER 712, CA......................................................................................................78, 141

Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Craddock (No 2)[1968] 1 WLR 319 ..........................................................................................................135

Seward v Vera Cruz (1884) 10 App Cas 59, HL..........................................................119

Sharpe v Wakefield (1888) 22 QBD 239; [1891] AC 173, CA.......................................66

Shaw v Ruddin (1859) 9 Ir CLR 214................................................................................20

Sheffield Development Corpn v Glossop Sectional BuildingsLtd [1994] 1 WLR 1676, CA...........................................................................................95

Shields v E Coomes (Holdings) Ltd [1979] 1 All ER 456, CA...................................165

Simmons v Pizzey [1979] AC 37....................................................................................150

Simms v Registrar of Probates [1900] AC 323...............................................................76

Slaney v Kean [1970] 1 Ch 243 .........................................................................................63

Smith v Callender [1901] AC 297 ..................................................................................139

Smith v Richmond [1899] AC 448, HL ...........................................................................49

Smith v Schofield [1990] 1 WLR 1447 .............................................................................83

Smith, Re (1893) 24 Ch D 672 ...........................................................................................65

South Eastern Rly Co v Rly Commissioners (1881) 50 LJ KB 201..............................90

Southam, ex p Lamb, Re (1881) 19 Ch D 169, CA.........................................................95

Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment

[1976] 2 WLR 73; [1979] AC 144, HL ...........................................................................43


xxvi


28/237

Table of Cases

Spicer v Holt [1977] AC 987............................................................................................131

Steavenson, ex p (1823) 2 B & C 34................................................................................126

Stephens v Cuckfield Rural District Council [1960] 2 QB 373....................................47

Stepney Borough Council v Schneider [1960] 58 LGR 202 .........................................76

Stock v Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 231, HL ................................73, 84, 87

Stone v Boreham [1959] 1 QB 1, DC................................................................................52

Stott v West Yorkshire Road Car Co Ltd [1971] 2 QB 651, CA ..................................97

Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498 ..............................................................................91, 93

Sudders v Barking London Borough Council [1974] 72 LGR 430, CA...................133

Sunshine Porcelain Potteries Pty Ltd v Nash [1961] AC 927....................................140

T

Tabrisky, Re [1947] Ch 565, DC .......................................................................................61Tamlin v Hannaford [1950] 1 KB 18, CA .....................................................................148

Tarr v Tarr [1973] AC 254 .........................................................................................83, 133

Thakurain Balraj Kunwar v Rae Jagatpal Singh (1904) LR 31 1A 132.......................47

Thames & Mersey Marine Insurance Co Ltd v HamiltonFraser & Co (1887) 12 App Cas 484 ...........................................................................107

Theberge v Laundry (1876) 2 App Cas 102, HL .........................................................147

Thompson v Goold & Co [1910] AC 409 .......................................................73, 101, 102

Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 2) (1995)Independent, 22 December ...........................................................................................90

Tilmans & Co v SS Knutsford Ltd [1908] 2 KB 395, CA ............................................108Town Investments Ltd v Department of the Environment [1976]

1 WLR 1126, CA............................................................................................................147

Turners Will Trusts, Re [1937] Ch 15...........................................................................123

U

Ulster-Swift Ltd v Taunton Meat Haulage Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 625, CA..................156

United Towns Electric Co Ltd v Attorney-General for Newfoundland[1939] 1 All ER 428........................................................................................................108

V

Vacher & Sons Ltd v London Society of Compositors[1913] AC 107, HL ................................................................................20, 24, 25, 75, 105

Vandyk v Oliver [1976] 2 WLR 235, HL...........................................................................7

W

Waddington v Miah alias Ullah [1974] 1 WLR 683............................................138, 141

Walker decd (in bankruptcy), Re [1974] Ch 193, CA................................................104

Walker v Leeds City Council [1978] AC 403, HL; see alsoR v Herrod, ex p Leeds CC ...................................................................................77, 116

Warburton v Loveland (1831) 2 D & Cl 480; [1831] 5 ER 499...............................71, 97

West Derby Union v Metropolitan Life Assurance Co [1897] AC 647, HL .............62

xxvii


29/237

West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association Inc v Birmingham Corpn[1979] AC 874, HL.........................................................................................................104

West v Gwynne [1911] 2 Ch 1, CA................................................................................134Westbys Settlement, Re [1950] Ch 296, CA.................................................................125

Western Bank Ltd v Schindler [1977] Ch 1; [1976] 3 WLR 341, CA.........................101

Westminster Bank Ltd v Minister of Housing and LocalGovernment [1971] AC 508.........................................................................................134

Whitehead v Haines [1965] 1 QB 200............................................................................131

Whiteman v Sadler [1910] AC 514 ................................................................................113

Whitney v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1926] AC 37..........................................99

Willingdale v Norris [1909] 1 KB 57................................................................................11

Wilson v Dagnall [1972] 1 QB 509, CA...................................................................28, 105

Woods Estate, Re (1886) Ch D 607, CA .........................................................................10Wood v Riley (1867) LR 3 CP 26......................................................................................38

Wychavon District Council v National Rivers Authority [1993] 1 WLR 125 ..........95

Y

Yorkshire Insurance Co v Clayton (1881) QBD 421, CA...........................................100

Z

Zainal bin Hashim v Malaysia (Government) [1980] AC 734 ..................................140

Zarcyznyska v Levy [1979] 1 WLR 125 ............................................................................8

Zimmerman v Grossman [1972] 1 QB 167, CA...................................................123, 130


xxviii


30/237

Table of Cases

EUROPEAN UNION CASES

A

Adorno v Joint Commission (Case 107/80) [1981] ECR 1469 ..................................180

AKZO Chemie BV and AZKO Chemie UK Ltd v Commission(Case 53/85) [1986] ECR 1965.....................................................................................173

AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission (Case 155/79) [1982] ECR 1575......................182

Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v SRL MeridionaleIndustria Salumi (Cases 212-217/80) [1981] ECR 2735..................................170, 171

Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellshaft mbH and Others v Bundesamt

fr Ernhrung und Forstwirtschaft (Case C-465/93)(1995) Times, 29 November ........................................................................................162

B

Baccini v The Office National de lEmploi (Case 232/82) [1983] ECR 583 ............160

BALM v Raiffeisen Hauptgenossenschaft (Case 215/85) [1987] ECR 1279...........160

BayWa Ag v Bundesanstalt fr Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung(Cases 146, 192, 193/81) [1982] ECR 1503 ........................................................174, 175

Belgische Radio EN Televisie (BRT) v SV SABAM (Case 127/73)[1974] ECR 313; [1974] 2 CMLR 238 ..........................................................................174

Bernard v European Parliament (Case 48/70) [1971] ECR 175................................176Beus, (W) GmbH & Co v Hauptzollamt Mnchen (Case 5/67)

[1968] ECR 83; [1968] CMLR 131................................................................................169

Bonsignore v Stadt Kln (Case 67/74) [1975] ECR 297 .............................................174

Borrie Clarke v Chief Adjudication Officer (Case 384/85) [1987] ECR 2865.........179

Brouwer-Kaune v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsverenging Voorhekledingbedrijf(Case 180/78) [1979] ECR 2111 ..................................................................................176

Bundesanstalt fr landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung v RaiffeisenHauptgenossenschaft eG (Case 215/85) [1987] ECR 1279 ....................................179

Burton v British Railways Board (Case 19/81 [1982] ECR 555 ................................160

CCaisse de Pension des Employs Privs v Massonet (Case 50/75)

[1975] EC 1473 ...............................................................................................................173

Campana v Bundesanstalt fr Arbeit (Case 375/85) [1987] ECR 2387...................160

Casio Computer Co GmbH Deutschland v Oberfiananzdirektion Mnchen(Case 234/87) [1989] ECR 63.......................................................................................180

Centre Public daide Socialie de Courcelles v Lebon (Case 316/85)[1987] ECR 2811; [1989] 1 CMLR 337 ................................................................167, 183

CILFIT Slr v Ministry of Health (Case 283/81) [1982] ECR 3415 ............................160

Cimenteries CBR Cementbedrijven NV v Commission (Cases 8-11/66)[1967] ECR 75; [1967] CMLR 77..................................................................................167

xxix


31/237

Coenen v Sociaal-Economische Raad (Case 39/75) [1975] ECR 1547; [1976]1 CMLR 30......................................................................................................................170

Cohen v Commission (Case 342/82) [1983] ECR 3829..............................................179Commission v Belgium (Case 14/79) [1980] ECR 3881.....................................174, 183

Commission v Council (Case 22/70) [1971] ECR 263; [1971] CMLR 335...............168

Commission v Council (Case 81/72) [1973] ECR 575; [1973] CMLR 639...............170

Commission v Council (Case C-300/89) 11 June 1991 ..............................................162

Commission v France (Cases 6, 11/69) [1969] ECR 523; [1970] CMLR 43 .............168

Commission v Greece (Case 68/88) [1989] ECR 2965................................................159

Commission v Italy (Case 24/68) [1969] ECR 193; [1971] CMLR 611.....................174

Commission v Italy (Case 33/69) [1970] ECR 93........................................................181

Commission v Italy (Case 38/69) [1970] ECR 47; [1970] CMLR 77.................161, 180

Commission v Italy (Case 39/71) [1973] ECR 101; [1973] CMLR 439.....................168

Commission v Italy (Case 91/79) [1980] ECR 1099....................................................161



Commission v Italy (Case 118/85) [1987] ECR 2599..................................................183


Commission v United Kingdom (Case 804/79) [1981] ECR 1045;[1982] 1 CMLR 543........................................................................................................168

Commission v United Kingdom (Case 124/81) [1983] ECR 203;[1983] 2 CMLR 1............................................................................................................174

Compagnie des Hauts Fourneaux de Chasse v High Authority (Case 15/57)[1957-58] ECR 211 .........................................................................................................182

Conradi v Directeur de la Concurrence (Case 198/86) [1987] ECR 4469...............173

Control Data v Commission (Case 13/84) [1987] ECR 275 ..............................160, 174

Costa v ENEL (Case 6/64) [1964] ECR 585..........................................................159, 165

Criminal Proceedings v JJ Zwartveld and Others (Case 2/88)[1990] ECR 1-3365 .........................................................................................................159

D

Defrenne v SA Belge de Navigation Arienne (Case 43/75)[1976] ECR 455; [1976] 2 CMLR 98............................................167, 170, 171, 178, 181

Defrenne v SA Belge de Navigation Arienne Sabena (Case 149/77)[1978] ECR 1365; [1978] 3 CMLR 312 ........................................................................169

Denkavit France v FORMA (Case 266/84) [1986] ECR 149;[1987] 3 CMLR 202........................................................................................................170

Deuka v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle Fr Getreide und Futtermittel(Case 78/74) [1975] ECR 421; [1975] 2 CMLR 28.....................................................170

Deutsche Grammophon Geselleschaft mbH v Metro-SB- GrossmrketGmbH and Co KG (Case 78/70) [1971] ECR 487; [1971] CMLR 631...................168

Douaneagent Der NV Nederlandse Spoorwegen v Inspecteur derInvoerrechten en Accijnzen (Case 38/75) [1975] ECR 1439 ..................................176


xxx


32/237

Table of Cases

E

Effer SpA v Kantner (Case 38/81) [1982] ECR 825.....................................................180

Estasis Salotti di Colzani Amio v RUWA Polstereimaschinen GmbH(Case 24/76) [1976] ECR 1831; [1977] 1 CMLR 345 ................................................174

Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Co Inc v Commission(Case 6/72) [1973] ECR 215 ................................................................................160, 179

F

Fellinger v Bundesanstalt fr Arbeit, Nuremberg (Case 67/79)[1980] ECR 535; [1981] 1 CMLR 471 ..........................................................160, 175, 179

Firma Johann Lhrs v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case 78/77)[1978] ECR 169...............................................................................................................172

Firma Molkerei-Zentrale Westfalen/Lippe GmbH v Hauptzollamt

Paderborn (Case 28/67) [1968] ECR 143...................................................................178Forcheri v Belguim (Case 152/82) [1983] ECR 2323; [1984] 1 CMLR 334 ..............167

Frankfurt-am-main City v Neumann (Case 137/77) [1978] ECR 1523...................176

Frico v Voedselvoorzienings In-en Verkoopbureau(Joined Cases 424-425/85) [1987] ECR 2755.....................................................180, 183

Friedrich Haaga GmbH (Case 32/74) [1974] ECR 1201 ............................................176

G

Galeries Segoura Sprl v Rahim Bonakdarian (Case 25/76) [1976]ECR 1851; [1977] 1 CMLR 361 ....................................................................................174

Gaston Schul Douane Expediteur BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten enAccijnzen, Roosendaal (Case 15/81) [1982] ECR 1409...........................................179

GVL v Commission (Case 7/82) [1983] ECR 483 ...............................................160, 173

Gebr der Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke v Hauptezollamt HamburgJonas (Case 118/79) [1980] ECR 1183........................................................................167

Gerling Konzern Speziale Kreditversicherungs-AG v Amministrazione delTesoro Dello Stato (Case 201/82) [1983] ECR 2503; [1984] 3 CMLR 638 ............181

Germany v Commission (Case 18/76) [1979] ECR 343.............................................175

Germany v Commission (Case 44/81) [1982] ECR 1855...........................................176

Germany v Commission (Case 278/84) [1987] ECR 1;[1988] 1 CMLR 632 ...............................................................................................171, 174

Germany v Commission (Case 332/85) [1987] ECR 5143.........................................174Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein (Case 9/70) [1970] ECR 825;

[1971] CMLR 1 .............................................................................................160, 168, 179

Groupement des Industries Sidrurgiques Luxembourgeoisesv High Authority (Cases 7, 9/54) [1954-56] ECR 175.............................................173

Gubisch Maschinenfabrik v Palumbo Handels (Case 144/86) [1987] ECR 4861..182

H

Hagen OHG v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle fr Getreide und Futtermittel(Case 49/71) [1972] ECR 23; [1973] CMLR 35..........................................................175

Handelswekerij GJ Bier NV v Mines de Potasse dAlsace SA (Case 21/76)

[1976] ECR 1735.............................................................................................................182

xxxi


33/237

Haselhorst v Finanzamt Dusseldorf-Alstadt (Case 23/70) [1970] ECR 881 ..........179

Hauptzollamt Bielefeld v Knig (Case 185/73) [1974] ECR 607..............................175

Hauptzollamt Bremer-Freihafen v Waren-Import-Gesellschaft Krohn &Co (Case 74/69) [1970] ECR 451 ................................................................................180

Hoche v De Beste Boter v BALM (Joined Cases 154 and 155/83)[1985] ECR 1215.............................................................................................................180

Hoekstra (ne Unger) v Bestuur der Bedrijfsvereniging Voor DetailhandelEn Ambachten (Case 75/63) [1964] ECR 177, CMLR 319......................................183

Hudig en Pieters BV v Minister Van Landbouw en Visserij (Case 136/80)[1981] ECR 2233; [1983] 1 CMLR 582 ........................................................................167

Humblet v Belgium (Case 6/60) [1960] ECR 559...............................167, 178, 181, 184

I

Industrie Tessili Italiano Como v Dunlop AG (Case 12/76)[1976] ECR 1473.............................................................................................................182

Institut National dAssurance Maladie-Invalidit v Knoeller (Case 93/81)[1982] ECR 951...............................................................................................................173

Interfood GmbH v Hauptzollamt HamburgEricus (Case 92/71)[1972] ECR 231; [1973] CMLR 562..............................................................................181

International Chemical Corporation SpA v Amministrazione DelleFinanze Dello Stato (Case 66/80) [1981] ECR 1191;[1983] 2 CMLR 593........................................................................................................170

International Flavors and Fragrances IFF (Deutschland) GmbH vHauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall (Case 295/81)

[1982] ECR 3239.............................................................................................................174Italy v Commission (Case 61/82) [1983] ECR 655......................................................180

Italy v Commission (Case 342/85) [1987] ECR 4677..................................................173

Italy v Commission (Case 343/85) [1987] ECR 4711..................................................173

Italy v High Authority (Case 20/59) [1960] ECR 325 ................................................181

Irish Grain Board v Minister for Agriculture (Case 254/85)[1986] ECR 3309.............................................................................................................160

J

Johnston v RUC Cheif Constable (Case 222/84) [1986] ECR 1651..................170, 173

KKaufhof AG v Commission (Case 29/75) [1976] ECR 431........................................174

Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justite (Case 139/85) [1986] ECR 1741.....................167

Koninklijke Lassiefabrieken NV v Hoofdproduktschap voorAkkerbrouwprodukten (Case 80/72) [1973] ECR 635...........................................176

Krupp Stahl AG v Commission (Cases 275/80, 24/81) [1981] ECR 2489 ..............177

L

Lemmerz-Werke GmbH v High Authority (Joint Cases 53 and 54/63)[1963] ECR 239...............................................................................................................180

Lemmerz-Werke GmbH v High Authority (Case 111/63)[1965] ECR 677; [1968] CMLR 280..............................................................................171

Les Verts v Parliament (Case 294/83) [1986] ECR 1357 ............................................159


xxxii


34/237

Table of Cases

Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Case 53/81) [1982] ECR 1035;[1982] 2 CMLR 454........................................................................................................167

Lipman v EC Commission (Case 143/82) [1983] ECR 1301.............................167, 175Lttiscke, Alfons v Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH (Case 182/85)

[1987] ECR 3159.............................................................................................................170

Luxembourg v Puliat (Case 230/81) [1983] ECR 255.................................................159

M

Macchiorlati Dalmas e Figli v High Authority (Case 21/64)[1965] ECR 175...............................................................................................................176

Maizena GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case 94/86)[1987] ECR 2941 ....................................................................................................173, 176

Manzoni v Fonds Nationale de Retraite des Ouvriers Mineurs

(Case 112/76) [1977] ECR 1647; [1978] 2 CMLR 416 ......................................170, 178Marinari v Lloyds Bank plc and Another (Case C-364/93) (1995)

Times, 19 October .........................................................................................................182

Marleasing (Case C-106/89) [1990] 1 ECR 4134 .........................................................165

Maulijn v Commission (Case 6/74) [1974] ECR 1287................................................175

Mavridis v European Parliament (Case 289/81) [1983] ECR 1731..........................171

Meroni & Co, Industrie Metallurgiche, SpA v Higher Authority(Case 9/56) [1957-58] ECR 133 ...................................................................................182

Micheli v Commission (Cases 198-202/81) [1982] ECR 4145 ...................................169

Mikx v Minister van Economische Zaken (Case 90/85) [1986] ECR 1695 .............181

Milch-Fett-Und Eirkontor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Saarbrcken(Case 29/68) [1969] ECR 165.......................................................................................178

Ministre Public v Maniglier (Case 320/85) [1986] ECR 2917 .........................160, 174

Moreau v EAEC Commission (Cases 15/64, 60/65) [1966] ECR 459 .....................176

Muras v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case 12/73) [1973] ECR 963..................183

N

Netherlands v High Authority (Case 25/59) [1960] ECR 355 ..................................181

Netherlands v Reed (Case 59/85) [1986] ECR 1283 ...........................................160, 180

Netherlands, The v Commission (Case 11/76) [1979] ECR 245.......................175, 181

Nicolaus Corman & Fils SA v Hauptzollamt Gronau (Case 64/81)[1982] ECR 13.................................................................................................................182

Nicolet Instrument v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof (Case 232/86)[1987] ECR 5025 ....................................................................................................160, 180

Niederrheinische Bergwerks-AG v High Authority (Joint Cases 2-3/60)[1961] ECR 133...............................................................................................................184

North Kerry Milk Products Ltd v Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries(Case 80/76) [1977] ECR 425; [1977] 2 CMLR 769 ..........................................175, 183

O

Officer van Justitie v Kramer (Cases 3, 4, 6/76) [1976] ECR 1279............................161

Officine Elettromeccaniche Ing A. Merlini v High Authority(Case 108/63) [1965] ECR1..........................................................................................182

xxxiii


35/237

P

PPW Internationaal NV v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten(Case 61/72) [1973] ECR 301.......................................................................................174

Papierfabrik Schoellershammer Schoeller & Shne GmbH & Co KG vCommission (Case 283/82) [1983] ECR 2419...........................................................177

R

R v Bouchereau (Case 30/7) [1977] ECR 1999.............................................................179

Reich v Hauptzollamt Landau (Case 64/74) [1975] ECR 274 ..........................172, 176

Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG v Landwirtschaftskammer fr Saarland(Case 33/76) [1976] ECR 1989; [1977] 1 CMLR 533 ................................................169

Reyners v Belgium (Case 2/74) [1974] ECR 631; [1974] 2 CMLR 305.....................174

Rindone v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Bad Urach-Mnsingen(Case 22/86) [1987] ECR 1339.....................................................................................174

Robert Bosch GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hildesheim (Case 1/77)[1977] ECR 1473; [1977] 2 CMLR 563 .......................................................................183

Roser (Case 238/84) [1986] ECR 795.............................................................................174

Ruckdeschel, Albert & Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen(Cases 117/76, 16/77) [1977] ECR 1753; [1979] 2 CMLR 445................................169

S

Saarland and Others v Ministry of Industry and Others (Case 187/87)[1989] 1 CMLR 529........................................................................................................167

Sandoz BV (Case 174/82) [1983] ECR 2445; [1984] 3 CMLR 43 ...............................174

Schluter und Maack v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case 94/71)[1972] ECR 307...............................................................................................................175

Schwarze v Einfuhr-Und Vorratsstelle Fr Getreide Und Futtermittel(Case 16/6

how to understand an act of parliament

Documents