During my undergraduate degree and into my masters, I have encountered a fair amount of landmark cases. For those of you who don’t know, the system in English law is that of common law. This means that the law is decided primarily by judicial decisions, which means cases heard in court. These cases set precedent for (they bind) future cases unless of course things change. The doctrine of precedent is a complex area of law that could be a blog post in itself so I am keeping this brief.
Like I mentioned, there are so many cases that are influential to English law. I could name a lot but I thought I would name 4, share the facts briefly and explain why they’re so significant. These aren’t the most significant to me or in any particular order. These are just ones that I wanted to talk about today! Let’s get to it!
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]
This case is a landmark case in Contract Law. During the 1800s, Carbolic Smoke Ball claimed that their product would prevent a person from catching influenza if used three times a day for two weeks. They placed an advert in a newspaper which stated that if a person used it but contacted influenza, they would be able to get £100. The claimant used the product and still contacted influenza, meaning they wanted to get £100. However, the company disagreed and said that the advert was not a contract but merely an advertising tool. The courts disagreed though, arguing that the advert was a unilateral offer to form a contract.
This case is influential because it established and clarified the requirements of what constitutes a formation of a contract.
R v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy [1924]
This case is an important one that came up in the Legal System of England and Wales module. Have you ever heard of the saying “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.“? You can thank this case for being the origin.
In this case, McCarthy was a motorcyclist involved in an accident that resulted in there being a criminal case in the Magistrates’ Court for dangerous driving. However, it soon came to be known that the clerk for the justices was a member of the firm acting in a civil case against McCarthy for the accident. McCarthy was convicted but when this information came to light, he appealed. The appeal was heard and the outcome favoured McCarthy. Whether or not the decision was swayed by the clerk in any way, the mere appearance of bias was enough for the decision to be overturned.
R v Transport Secretary, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2) [1991]
This case appeared in public law in terms of the sources of the UK Constitution. This case had a lot of implications with various judgments and outcomes but I am focused on the aspect of the UK Constitution. This case concerns parliamentary sovereignty.
This case concerned some Spanish fishing vessels registering themselves in the United Kingdom to take advantage of the quota the United Kingdom had with regard to fish that ships from each country were allowed to catch. In an attempt to stop this from happening, the government passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The Spanish fishing vessels argued this was contrary to EU law and sought for an interim relief order. The House of Lords agreed and granted an interim relief order.
This case established that EU law is supreme over UK law. Any law that the government passed must not be contrary to EU law as that (at the time) had sovereignty.
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986]
This case is an important one that I have come across a couple of times. I briefly came across it in Family Law but more recently in my Masters in Medical Law and Ethics. It created the test that establishes whether a child under 16 years of age has the capacity to consent to their own medical treatment.
In this case, the claimant was a mother to 5 children under the age of 16. One of these children received contraceptive advice from a local doctor without the parent’s consent, with the Department of Health and Social Security issuing guidance stating that this was allowed. The claimant wanted assurance that this would not happen without her knowledge or consent but this was refused. It was held by the House of Lords that the child under 16 did not lack legal capacity to consent merely by the reason of their age.
During the judgment, a test was established that allowed for children under the age of 16 to be competent to consent for medical treatment. This test is something that is still used today and can be found on the NHS website, showing how important it is today.
And that’s it! I hope you enjoyed this post. It was a little different for me but I really liked going back and reminding myself of some of these cases. If you’d like to see a part 2, please let me know!
I can’t believe we’re halfway through blogmas now! I hope you have all been enjoying it! As always, thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to read this post and I will see you tomorrow for another one!
Beth
Beth Olivia 