These notes are summaries of the case notes in the textbooks, in concise forms.

Heres a

sample of the case notes.

Explanation: Facts: the important facts of the case Held: what the court has decided Law: the relevant legal principles (In the first half, the held part was put into law) Topic: Liability for Negligence Donoghue v Stevenson Facts: Plaintiff consumed ginger beer containing decomposed snail and suffered from nausea, shock and severe gastro-enteritis. Ginger beer was purchased by a friend from caf proprietor. Held: The Court held that the manufacturer of the ginger beer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumers. A neighbour is someone who is so closely and directly affected by your actions or omissions that you ought reasonably to have him or her in contemplation as being so affected when you are directing your mind to the acts and omissions which are in issue. Law: Negligence Palsgraf v Long Island Railway Facts: Ms Palsgraf was injured by a heavy set of scales which had been knocked over by the force of an explosion caused by a boarding passenger dropping his parcel of explosives on the ground. Two Long Island Railway guards negligently knocked the parcel out of the grasp of the passenger while helping the passenger to board. Held: There was not enough causal connection between the careless action of the guards and the damage suffered by Ms Palsgraf. The conduct of the defendants guards, if a wrong in relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in relation the plaintiff standing 25 feet away. Law: Negligence Duty of care Forseeability of plaintiff: To be a foreseeable plaintiff, the plaintiff must not piggy back on a duty of care owed to another person

Bourhill v Young Facts: A motor cyclist negligently collided with a car and was killed. Bourhill, being 45 feet away from the site, heard the noise of the accident and she later saw the blood on the road. Bourhill suffered from nervous shock and her baby born a month later was stillborn. P sought to recover damages from the dead motor cyclists estate. Held: Users of motor vehicles on public roads owe a duty to drive with care to all persons who could foreseeably be injured. The plaintiff had not been sufficiently close to the area of potential danger and thus the motor cyclist had not owed her a duty of care. Law: Negligence Duty of care Forseeability of plaintiff: To be a foreseeable plaintiff, the plaintiff must not piggy back on a duty of care owed to another person Topic: Liability in Contract Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Facts: The defendant published an advertisement in which it promised to pay 100 to any person who used its smoke ball but still got the flu after using it for two weeks as directed. The plaintiff saw the advertisement, purchased a smoke ball, used it but still got the flu. The plaintiff claimed 100. Held: The advertisement was an offer, made to the world, and the plaintiff had by meeting all the conditions, accepted it. There was a valid contract. Law: Contract Offer (1) An offer can be made to the world at large (2) The offeror may waive the need for communication. If the offeror is prepared to be bound upon the offeree fulfilling their obligations, the law will give effect to this. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Facts: It was provided by statute that certain drugs could be sold only under the supervision of a registered pharmacist. One such drug was displayed on a shelf at the back of the store. Held: Placing goods on the shelf was merely an invitation to treat and that it was

the customer who made the offer when the goods were presented at the checkout. Law: Contract Offer An invitation to treat is not an offer Felthouse v Bindley Facts: The plaintiff wrote to Bindley and offered to buy his horse. He added that if he heard nothing he could consider the horse his. The defendant later sold the horse at auction. The plaintiff sued the defendant in conversion. Held: The claim in conversion must fail as no contract had ever been reached by which the plaintiff acquired an interest in the horse. Law: Contract The offeror cannot impose silence as the means of acceptance Hyde v Wrench Facts: The defendant offered to sell property to the plaintiff for 1,000. The plaintiff countered with an offer of 950. The defendant refused and the plaintiff tried to accept the original offer of 1,000. Held: There was no contract Law: Contract Acceptance (1) The accepting party must accept the offer in precisely the same terms. (2) Accepting an earlier offer after a counter offer has been rejected does not constitute a contract. Boulder Consolidated Ltd v Tangere Facts: The parties had been in lengthy negotiations for the sale and purchase of land and the question was whether the considerable volume of correspondence between the parties disclosed a contract. Held: A mechanical analysis in terms of offer and acceptance may be less rewarding than the test whether, viewed as a whole and objectively, the correspondence shows a concluded agreement. Law:

Contract The concepts of offer and acceptance are merely tools to assist in the identification of an agreement. Topic: Overview of Obligations Balfour v AG Facts: The plaintiff consistently failed to get teaching positions and was rejected by a deaf training course. He later discovered a note on his personal file made by an Inspector alleging that he was a long practicing and blatant homosexual The plaintiff sued the Education Department for negligence in that their servant, the Inspector had not taken reasonable steps to verify what he was recording on the file and also breach of statutory duty. Held: The plaintiff had been the subject of unjust and perhaps malicious conduct by fellow teachers and education administrators, but unfairness and irresponsibility were not sufficient to found an action for damages. The claim for breach of statutory duty failed. The claim for negligence also failed: (1) There was not a duty not to make careless but untrue statements. It said this would blur the distinction between defamation and negligence. (2) Causation can not be established. Law: (1) Proof of harm is not enough to establish liability (2) Negligence (3) Defamation Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Facts: The defendant bankers gave gratuitous, but not unsolicited information about the creditworthiness of a customer to a third party (the plaintiffs). The advice was given negligently and was incorrect, causing the third party to suffer loss. Held: The Court decided the bankers were not liable because they had issued a disclaimer of responsibility. Obiter: If there is no disclaimer, liability could exist in some circumstances for negligent advice. Law: Negligent statements

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Facts: Mr Fagan accidentally and unknowingly parked a wheel of his car on a police officers foot. The police officer demanded that Mr Fagan move the car. Mr Fagan deliberately delayed moving the vehicle. Held: Assault. When the incident started, there was no mens rea. The actus reus was continuous when the vehicle was on the police officers foot. During that time, Mr Fagan developed mens rea. Law: Criminal liability Actus reus and Mens rea must coincide FIRST HALF Fitzgerald v Muldoon Facts: Prime Minister announced in a press statement that the superannuation scheme established pursuant to the New Zealand Superannuation Act 1974 was going to be abolished forthwith and that the abolition would be made retrospective. The Prime Minister did not give instructions to the relevant bodies of the state services, but these bodies acted on the Prime Ministers announcement. Law: The executive has no power to suspend or dispense laws without parliamentary consent. (Bill of rights 1688) The Prime Ministers attempt to suspend law by regall authority was invalidated by the court. Congreve v The Home Office Facts: A television license fee levied by the executive was invalidated. Law: No taxation without parliamentary consent. (Bill of Rights 1688) The NZ Maori Council case The New Zealand Maori Council v A-G Facts: During the economic reforms of the 1980s, corporatisation of Crown assets into SOEs (state owned enterprises) allowed the free disposal of lands, some of which were subject to claim by Maori before the Waitangi Tribunal. Maori Council concerned that land may be sold and lost to Maori. S 9 of the State Owned Enterprise Act provided that nothing in the Act would be inconsistent to the principles of the Treaty. S9 allowed the court to consider the Treaty of Waitangi.

Law: The court gave effect to the spirit of the Treaty: there is a partnership between the races and each must act in each others best interests. Europeans must protect Maori in the use of their land and culture. Outcome: It led to the passing of the Treaty of Waitangi (State Owned Enterprises) Act 1988. This Act provided that the Waitangi Tribunal would have the power to order a compulsory return to Maori of land transferred to the State Owned Enterprises which was subject to a successful claim. The compulsory return would apply even if the land was sold. The certificates of title to the land would note that it was subject to resumption, thereby warning potential purchasers.

Topic: Tort of negligent misstatement Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General Hong Kong Facts: Held: The official agency which registered the defaulting company as a deposit taker was held to be making no representation to depositors as to the creditworthiness of the company. Keeping the company on the register was not in itself a statement. It was reasonably foreseeable by the official agency that harm could occur if an uncreditworthy company were allowed to remain on the register. However, mere foreseeability of harm did not in itself create a duty of care. Since there was no special relationship recovery by the plaintiffs was not allowed. Law: Negligent statement Mere silence does not attract liability Mere foreseeability does not attract liability => also need special relationship Meates v AG Facts: Meates set up factories on the West Coast after negotiations with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Industries. It became apparent that the company was unlikely to be profitable unless it received massive subsidies from the government. The Minister told the company that it should keep on trading. After the receiver was appointed, the minister assured in a press statement that employees, creditors and shareholders would be protected. On receivership the whole of the shareholders funds were lost. Held: There was a duty of care. Negligent statements may take the form of

promises or assurances as to future actions and still give rise to liability. The Privy Council expressed considerable reversion about the concept of the negligent promise in the form of obiter. Law: Negligent statement Concept of negligent promise rarely seen

Topic: Misues of Information Oxford v Moss Facts: An undergraduate student was found not guilty of theft when he read an examination paper without authority and then returned it to its proper place. Held: It was held that confidential information, although it certainly has a value and can be sold, was not property within a section of the Theft Act (UK). Law: Information as property (Under the Property Law Act and the Crimes Act property includes real and personal property and any estate or interest in any real or personal property and any debt, and anything in action and any other right or interest) Information cannot be easily followed and reclaimed. It can be consumed without diminishing the stock. Prince Albert v Strange Facts: Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert had sent etched plates to Strange for the purpose of running off some prints for themselves and other family members. Strange decided to hold a public exhibition of the etchings and give some copies to an acquaintance to prepare a catalogue for the unauthorised exhibition. Copies of this catalogue were sent to a number of people. Held: Someone somewhere had committed a breach of trust, confidence or contract. Breach of confidence has evolved from this case. Law: Equitable breach of confidence Saltman Engineering Col Ltd v Campbell Engineering Facts: A company gave confidential drawings of tools to a subcontractor to manufacture the tools according to specifications. The subcontractor manufactured more of the tools and sold them on its own behalf. The terms

of the sub-contract did not expressly prohibit this action. Held: The subcontractor was in breach of confidence. A defendant proved to have used confidential information directly or indirectly obtained from a plaintiff without the consent, express or implied, of the plaintiff will be guilty of an infringement of the plaintiffs rights. Law: Equitable breach of confidence Elements of cause of action

Lecture notes: Defamation Compensation: damages People with high profile need to protect their reputation Elements: 1. The statement make right thinking members of the society think less of them. What is a right thing section of the society? Representative. E.g. Sex offences against children. Most ppl think less of them, but not paedophiles. Fellow residents in the neighbourhood, representative? Fellow accountants, fellow doctors, fellow employees. Prisoners: not a representative section of the society. police informer => not defamatory A student newspaper wrongly identified a student union president as a paid agent of the security intelligence service. Students: representative section of the society? Grey area. Types of defamatory suggestions Antisocial: Drunkard, drug taker, Elton John: bizarre diet, spitting on his food Dishonesty: corrupt (Cricket player fixed the result) Committed a criminal act: homicide The serious fraud office is looking into the affairs of XYZ limited Alleged, apparently: dont work. Need evidences Ridiculed: English actor in the Coronation Street sued a newspaper for calling him boring, and won, they said it confused him with his character.

Cause people to avoid the pl: Suggest someone is the offender or victim of a crime, suggest someone is mentally unstable (the stay in the psychiatric hospital was assessment only, there was no requirement of disclosure to the nursing school . ) Accuse someone of homosexuality: defamatory Lazy, incompetent: Identification Context: you have to look at the whole statement, not just part of it. Case: A newspaper run a story about a pornographic computer game which superimposes a famous actors photo on a naked body. The photo suggested that the actor gave consent to use their photo in the game. The article in the newspaper made clear that this was done without his permission, and the article was very critical of the misuse of the actors photo. Readership goes up, you avoid the defamation. You have to read the statement as a whole. A series of separate innocent statements may be read together and be defamatory. E.g. yesterday, the newspaper said Sams company was in financial difficulties. Today, another article said that Sam left his home for Australia in such a hurry that he did not have time to speak to us. Two apparently innocent statements, read together: Sam left the country to avoid creditors because his company is going under. Real case about Mr Peters (Former MP): he said on the Holms program that he had been offered money on a business roundtable to support free market policies. He didnt name that person. A year later he named the person when he said, they can take that persons word for it or they can take mine. Intention: Defame negligently, innocently, doesnt matter. Only thing that matters is the impression in the audiences mind is changed. The impression of a person is lowered in their mind. Typo, slip of the pen: Car chief to pay wife $2000=> Car thief : Defamation. A newspaper published a fictitious article about Artless Jones. He went to France with his mistress. There was a real person. He sued for defamation. The paper proved that they didnt even know the existence of that person, but they are still liable. Cf Injurious Falsehood: need to prove intention.

Lecture notes: Breach of Confidence Use more than one cause of action: Two exceptions:

1. There is a contract: cant sue in negligent statement or deceit, must sue in CRA s6. 2. Judicial reluctance to grant negligent statement as an alternative where a defence to defamation would apply. Balfour: the inspector had a duty, the education department had an interest, couldnt succeed in defamation. The court said it would undermine defamation if you can use negligence to get around of it. Negligent statement: stmt made to ppl. Defamation: made about people. UK: blurred the two (spring garden insurance) NZ bill of rights 1990: freedom of speech. An act of parliament. Tension between reputation and freedom of speech. Employers escape their incompetence in making employment references. A price to pay for freedom of speech. Someone can be negligent under the protection of defamation, but they should be allowed to get away of it. Misuse of information Stmt: false. Deceit, negligent statement, FTA, injurious falsehood. Harm people that relied upon them. Stmt: not false. Ppl are using, disclosing for their own profits. E.g. Sex scandals, drug taking in newspapers. E.g.2 Information that is commercially valuable, that could be sold to competitor to give them an advantage over you to take away all the efforts you put into them. Why protect info? Information has value. Information has power. Much of the value of the information is in protecting its inherent confidentiality. If its secret, it has some value in the remaining side. Protect scientific advances, technologies, processes, client information, product information, goodwill of the business. 3 aspects of information might have value: 1. Commercial value: Rivals might be after vital information that can assist your information to damage your competitive advantage. 2. Sensitive and private, personal embarrassing facts. 3. The info that government and its agencies hold about you. How is it regulated, how can you have access, how can you prevent it from being misused? Is information property? If yes, I own it. It could be stolen. You could bring a criminal charge of theft. Not property: cant charge with theft.

Oxford v Moss A student gained access to and read the exam paper before the exam. Was the info property capable of being stolen? The court: No. Info is not property. He had no intention of permanently deprive the university of the property. Trespass in someones office? Maybe. But a civil matter. Not property: have to be protected by obligations. 1. Infor about business 2. Personal infor 3. Information controlled by the government

MySummary: Cases Fitzgerald V Muldoon Cushing V Peters New Zealand Maori Council V AG Brownsea Haven V Poole Corporation Jackson V Collector of Customs Craig V Hutt Valley and Bays Metropolitan Milk Board

Significant constitutional principle, Superanuatio allegation by an outsider that a MP defamed him court gave effect to the spirit of the Treaty court found local body corporation unreasonabl months as the enabling Act gave powers only to streets in times of public processons, rejoicings Improper sub-delegation, power lies in GG rathe

Court: Unreasonableto impose time for milk deli

MySummary: Technical terms actus reus mens rea stare decisis ultra vires noscitur a sociis ejusdem generis

behaviour or conduct e.g. lack of consent for ra guilty mind, not the motive follow pattern of earlier decisioin, to make law m more confident

beyond the power given by enabling act a word or phrase draws its meaning from the wo does not come from the words stabbing, cutting

were a number of words which form a class are general phrase, the meaning of the general phra words

MySummary: Law of Property Law of Propery covers legal relation between persons and things gives rights in respect of a thing

property rights, rights in rem Property person's ownership in rights in something also refers to item of property itself property rights property object

Ownership of property to possess / physically control it, less right than ownership, sometimes it is more important to possess than to own it to use and enjoy to sell of gift to destroy to use as a security for loan Ownership cf possession Classification into 2 fundalmental types Realty - real land, don't move about or permanently attached, property airspace above land, things beneth the surface Personalty - personal property Real property Land Estates in land Interests in land

land's surface, fixtures, airspace, things beneath the surface rights to use and enjoy all of the land, estates in fee simple, life estates easements, profits from land