R vs. Stephens (LR 1 QB 702)

Case Name: R v Stephens Citation: LR 1 QB 702 Jurisdiction: Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales Judgment: The judgment in this case established that an individual could be indicted for a public nuisance on their premises caused by the actions of their servants, employees, agents, or subcontractors, even in … Read more

Chisholm v. Doulton [1890] 22 QBD 736.

Case Name:- Chisholm v. Doulton Citation:- [1890] 22 QBD 736. Jurisdiction:- United Kingdom (UK) Judgment:- The judgment found that a master cannot be held criminally responsible for acts committed by a servant without the master’s knowledge or authorization, in accordance with the principle “Actus non facit reum, Nisi mens sit rea” (An act does not … Read more

Hobbs v Winchester Law Society (1933) 98 JP 33

Case Name:– Hobbs v Winchester Law Society Citation:– [1933] 98 JP 33 Jurisdiction:– England and Wales Judgment:– The case dealt with the possession of an altered passport by the accused. Despite the accused’s lack of knowledge or suspicion of the alteration, the court held that possessing an altered passport constituted an offense. The judgment established … Read more

Cundy v/s. Le Cocq 13 QB D. 207

Case Name:- Cundy v/s. Le Cocq Citation:- 13 QB D. 207 Jurisdiction:- This case was heard in the Queen’s Bench Division of the English High Court. Judgment:- This case established a precedent emphasizing the duty of care for sellers regarding the sale of potentially harmful goods and the responsibility to ensure they do not contribute … Read more

R Vs. Scofield P.C. 1028

Case Name:- R vs. Scofield Citation:– P.C. 1028 Jurisdiction:- This case falls under the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. Judgment:- Nature of the Case: The case involved allegations against Mr. Scofield for a criminal offense where intent played a crucial role. Key Issue: The central contention was whether mere intent, without the actual commission of … Read more

Baily Vs. De Crespigny LR 4 QB 180 (185)

Case Name:– Baily Vs. De Crespigny Citation:– LR 4 QB 180 (185) Jurisdiction:– England and Wales (Queen’s Bench Division) Judgment:– The judgment discussed the principle that an “act of God” does not per se excuse a party’s breach of contract, emphasizing that the absence of contract terms addressing such unforeseen events determines whether non-performance is … Read more

Breeknock Co. vs. Pritchard (6 TR 750)

Case Name: Breeknock Co. vs. Pritchard Citation: 6 Term Reports 750 (6 TR 750) Jurisdiction: English courts Judgment:-The case involved a contract for building and maintaining a bridge over a river for a fixed term. A severe flood, considered an “act of God,” destroyed the bridge within the specified timeframe. The court ruled that despite … Read more

Forward vs. Pittard (1785) 1 TR 27

Case Name: Forward v. Pittard (1785) 1 Term Reports 27 (1 TR 27) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Judgement: The judgment in this case established that events caused by the elementary forces of nature, such as storms, tempests, lightning, or extraordinary high tides, fall under the category of an “act of God.” In this case, the … Read more

Nugent vs. Smith (1876) 1 C.P.D. 423

Case Name: Nugent v Smith Citation: (1876) 1 C.P.D. 423 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Judgement: The court held that the storm in question was indeed an Act of God, meeting the legal criteria. It emphasized its sudden, violent, and uncontrollable nature, making it impossible to foresee or prevent. As a result, Mr. Nugent was not … Read more

Smith vs Egginton (7 Adolphus & Ellis 167 (1837))

Case Name: Smith vs Egginton Citation: 7 Adolphus & Ellis 167 (1837) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Judgement: The judgment in this case established the legal principle that an act becomes a trespass if it was initially intended to cause harm or if it is conducted illegally. Specifically, it emphasized that if a party’s actions show … Read more