Results.
17 judgments found.
|
|
|
| October 2003 |
|
|
A defendant may set aside a default injunction judgment by showing a meritorious defence and that the plaintiff lacks clean hands.
-
Civil procedure — setting aside default judgment (Order 19 r 9) — defendant must show bona fide defence on the merits (Farden v Richter) — equitable relief and clean hands doctrine — dispensing with service of defence — costs where judgment regularly entered.
|
31 October 2003 |
|
False accounting in delivery notes does not amount to forgery; confession admissible but full amount of theft not proved.
-
Criminal law — admissibility of confession where accused alleges police force; forgery vs false accounting — false entries in company documents do not necessarily constitute forgery; theft by servant — requirement to prove amount stolen for sentencing
|
29 October 2003 |
|
Interlocutory injunction refused because damages were adequate and plaintiff failed to show inability to pay.
-
Interlocutory injunction — American Cyanamid principles — adequacy of damages — undertaking as to damages — disputed agency and fraud — balance of convenience
|
29 October 2003 |
|
Cross-examination of a company's affidavit deponent in summary judgment is exceptional and inappropriate where fraud allegations warrant a trial.
-
Civil procedure — Summary judgment (Order 14/Part 24) — Cross-examination of affidavit deponent — Company officer adopting another affidavit — Leave to cross-examine should be rare and limited — Serious allegations of fraud require trial, not summary oral examination
|
28 October 2003 |
|
Court refused to dissolve ex parte injunction against sale of intestate estate, finding non-disclosure immaterial and balance of convenience favored maintenance.
-
Civil procedure — Interlocutory (ex parte) injunction — Non‑disclosure materiality — Application of American Cyanamid principles — Intestate estate — Sale by beneficiary without letters of administration — Balance of convenience and preservation of status quo
|
28 October 2003 |
|
Court refused to order defendants to pay plaintiffs solicitors directly; upheld judgment for costs, criticized 1999 rules altering indemnity principle.
-
Civil procedure — judgment in default for liquidated sum; government suits — section 4 notice not required for contractual claims; arbitration — discretion to stay only where appropriate; solicitors lien — no order to compel defendant to pay solicitor directly except in exceptional equitable cases; costs law — Legal Practitioners (Scale and Minimum Charges) (Amendment) 1999 alters indemnity principle, 15% collection charge recoverable as part of judgment but subject to taxation
|
22 October 2003 |
|
Whether the applicant has standing and whether the expanded ‘crossing the floor’ amendment infringes association and political rights.
-
Constitutional law — standing — Sections 15(2) and 46(2): broad purposive locus standi for persons/groups protecting rights; constitutional amendment — Section 65(1) (crossing the floor): limits on freedom of association (s.32) and political rights (s.40); referendum requirement — Sections 196/197 and schedule; severance of unconstitutional portions under Sections 5 and 11(3) and jurisdiction s.108(2)
|
5 October 2003 |
|
On review the court enhanced burglary sentences, finding a six-year starting point and prevailing aggravating factors.
-
Criminal law — Burglary — Sentencing — High Court starting point six years — Aggravating factors (multiple offenders, no guilty plea, prior convictions) — Disparity in sentences — Sentences enhanced on review
|
2 October 2003 |
|
A six-year burglary sentence was reduced to four years after balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.
-
Criminal law — Sentencing — Burglary/housebreaking — sentencing principles and factors — Chizumila six-year starting point; three-year minimum for simple burglary — aggravating factors (violence, vulnerable victim) v. mitigating factors (youth, first offender, guilty plea, cooperation) — review and reduction of manifestly excessive sentence
|
2 October 2003 |
|
Conviction upheld despite duplicity in the charge where no prejudice existed; burglary sentence found manifestly inadequate but already served.
-
Criminal procedure — Duplicity in charge/particulars contrary to section 128 — No prejudice vitiating conviction; Sentencing — burglary/housebreaking: Chizumila starting point six years, simple burglary minimum three years; factors: vulnerability of victims, multiple participants, guilty plea, first offender status; late review after sentences served
|
2 October 2003 |
|
Sentencing for burglary must balance offence seriousness, offender mitigation and victim vulnerability; simple burglary attracts a minimum three-year custodial term.
-
Criminal law — Sentencing — Burglary/housebreaking — sentencing principles; actus reus and mens rea factors; starting/threshold sentence (Chizumila) — simple burglary minimum three years — mitigation: youth, first offender, guilty plea; victim vulnerability as aggravation
|
2 October 2003 |
|
Whether duplicity in the charge prejudiced the accused and whether the burglary sentence was manifestly inadequate.
-
Criminal procedure — Duplicity in charge and section 128 — convictions may be confirmed where defective particulars occasion no prejudice; Sentencing — burglary/housebreaking: sentencing principles, Chizumila starting point (six years), minimum for simple burglary (three years); manifestly inadequate sentence
|
2 October 2003 |
|
Six-year burglary sentence reduced to three years; courts must prove or put prior convictions to defendant before relying on them.
-
Criminal law — Sentencing principles for burglary/housebreaking — balancing actus reus, mens rea, offender and victim circumstances — previous convictions must be proved or put to defendant before reliance — simple burglary minimum custodial sentence three years
|
2 October 2003 |
|
Conviction sustained despite defective plea; sentencing principles for burglary affirmed and inadequate sentence confirmed due to time served.
-
Criminal law — Plea procedure — Defective plea curable under section 5 where no failure of justice; Criminal law — Sentencing — burglary/housebreaking; Chizumila six-year starting point and three-year minimum for simple burglary; sentencing factors (actus reus, mens rea, offender’s age, antecedents, remorse, victim vulnerability); confirmation of sentence where already served
|
2 October 2003 |
|
Sentencing for burglary must account for victim vulnerability and disturbance; excessive concurrent sentences were reduced.
-
Criminal law — Sentencing — Burglary/housebreaking — Chizumila six-year starting point — Factors: victim vulnerability, disturbance, offender’s age/first offender status, plea — Concurrent sentences; manifestly excessive sentence reduced
|
2 October 2003 |
|
Whether a six-year burglary sentence was excessive given a young first offender and a simple, non-violent trespass.
-
Criminal law — Sentencing — Burglary — Sentencing factors: nature of offence, offender’s antecedents, victim’s vulnerability, public interest — Six-year threshold for serious burglary; simple burglary minimum three years
|
2 October 2003 |
|
Court quantified damages for two children’s deaths and plaintiff’s injuries using multiplier method; unpleaded loss of earnings refused.
-
Damages assessment — death of children — loss of expectation of life and loss of dependency for minors — use of half average industrial earnings and multiplier method — unpleaded heads of damage not recoverable — awards for funeral and medical incidentals following default judgment
|
1 October 2003 |