St. Albans And District Council V International Computers Ltd Case

The Christmas conference period was not as lucrative as Keith had anticipated and as a result was unable to pay Office Ltd the full £1,000. Office Ltd, who were also in financial difficulties, agreed to accept payment of £750 in full settlement.

The appellant company (Youyang) was trustee of a discretionary trust formed in 1974 for the Hayward family. Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher’s (Minters) had been acting for EC Consolidated Capital Limited (ECCCL) since July 1991, all work in connection with the drafting of the documents relating to the subscription for preference shares in ECCCL was dealt with by Minters. As part of the subscription agreement Youyang deposited $500,000 in Minters trust account. Minters was entitled to release a section of the fund from the trust account to ECCCL for the purchase of a bearer deposit certificate to be issued by Dresdner International Financial Markets (Australia) Ltd (DAL), which could then be traded on the money market. When the certificate was obtained Minters then had the right to release the remainder of the funds to ECCCL based on the subscription agreement.

Information Commissioner’s Office (2012) Introduction to The Data Protection Act 1998. [Online] Available from: http://www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_reports/ico_presentation_EVOC_20120528.ashx [Accessed: 11th October 2013]

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

The decision of the tribunal was that the appellant was found guilty of having acted with dishonesty when he relied on the documents, but not when he created them, here he was charged with lack of integrity. The court had to therefore consider what the definition of the words ‘dishonesty’ and ‘integrity’ was.

This case represents quite a relaxed approach to conflicts. It is in line with cases such as Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (1999) 1 All ER 517 (HL) and World Medical Manufacturing v Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick [2000] VSC 196 (Gillard J). More traditional approaches have been more strict, not requiring identification of actual confidential information, but merely the chance of misuse, or the appearance of impropriety. See e.g. Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd (2001) 4 VR 501 (Brooking JA); Village Roadshow v Blake Dawson [2003] VSC 505 (Byrne J); Connell v Pistorino [2009] VSC 289 (Byrne J); and Nettle J in Sent and Primelife Corporation Ltd v John Fairfax Publication Pty Ltd and Hills [2002] VSC 429 (7 October 2002) where Jeff Sher QC was restrained on the basis of a brief 14 years previously he could not even remember! Whilst the liberal view might be the current law, Nettle J is now on the High Court and thus could signal a shift.

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

In the human services field it’s likely workers will have contact with the court and legal system. The differences in the human services profession and the legal systems can become challenging for workers. Such as dissimilarities in prerogatives and values, prove this challenge for human services workers (Kennedy, Richards, & Leiman, 2013). Human service work practice requires an understanding of social policy’s impact in specific areas. As practitioners grasping how theories concerning fundamental principals of social policy have implications for human services agencies and for the individuals who are the users of the services (Carson & Kerr, 2014). This paper will discuss a case observed at Beenleigh Magistrates Courthouse. It will also look at the multiple roles and responsibilities of Human Service professionals appearing in the legal system, as well as the importance of ethical writing and possible tensions between the legal system and human services profession.

Parties involved in the case are the Crown and the accused. The crown was represented by Mr C Thompson and his solicitors were the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions. The accused is Neil Allen Baker represented by Mr P Morrissey SC and Ms C Hollingsworth with the solicitors being The Office of Emma Turnball.

This paper describes the impact of the decision made in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC on the law and its effects on the corporate world, and the comparison between the doctrine of vicarious liability that it outlines and the doctrine of identification that was used earlier to determine the liability of corporations in cooperate crime.

It is a requirement of the law that all businesses and organisations abide by given limitations and constraints. This report describes two selected limitations; Sales of Goods Act 1979, The Data Protection Act 1998 and two constraints; Pressure Groups and The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

The leading cases, CIR v Mitsubishi Motors Ltd [1995] and Commissioner of Taxation v James Flood Pty Ltd [1953] that reflect a taxpayer

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.