Real Law Cases

Publishing obscure law cases of niche interest.

[reallawcases-blog]

Donoghue vs. Stevenson

Donoghue vs. Stevenson is a famous case in English tort law, one that has given rise to the modern concept of negligence as it relates to the 'neighbour principle' everywhere from medicine to architecture.

Within the case, Ms. Donoghue drank some ginger beer as part of a Scots ice cream float, which happened to (allegedly) contain a partly decomposed snail. She subsequently experienced gastroenteritis and had an acute stress reaction (also known as psychological shock, not to be confused with circulatory or medical shock).

It was a tough case - just three weeks earlier, an extremely similar case with a rotting mouse instead of a snail pressed by the same lawyer had failed, Mullen vs. AG Barr & Co. Ltd. It was noted that:

"(Q.) “How do you suggest that anybody is going to discover a mouse in a stone ginger beer bottle?” (A.) “The only method I can see is when the mouse comes out of the bottle.” The mouse may have got in and remained in through a mischance, but without negligence."

There was one dissenter - Lord Hunter, who claimed (among other things) that the very difficulty in determining the presence of a mouse in an opaque bottle meant that the company involved owed a duty of care to its customers to ensure that no mouse could get into their bottles.

Sadly, for such a significant case, it was never proven whether such a snail existed, and the claim was ultimately settled out of court for £200 (rather than the £500 claimed).

Legal Disclaimer: The content of this article is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute professional advice (legal or otherwise) nor should it be used as such. We cannot accept responsibility for actions based on the material provided.

[reallawcases-blog]

Baigent & Anor vs. The Random House Group Limited

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh worked together on speculative histories that challenged what most historians believe about religious history.

Baigent's work has had some, uh, less than flattering reviews, but there are clear elements of his notable hit The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail that Dan Brown used in his international bestseller The Da Vinci Code.

Anthony Burgess wrote of The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail, with great foresight even if he was simply being facetious, "I can only see this as a marvellous theme for a novel". Baigent certainly believed that Dan Brown had swiped entire sections of copyrightable ideas wholesale, as he launched a lawsuit claiming "non-textual infringement in a literary work". During the trial, the judge identified the primary theme that Dan Brown had taken inspiration from as the continuation of Mary Magdalene's bloodline through the Merovingians. However, he rejected large sections of Baigent's analysis of his own book's central themes.

Large parts of the trial[1] resemble an English Literature essay more than a court case, with much interesting analysis and dissection of the central themes of these two very different books. The case is also worth a read because of the quintessentially ...judicious... use of put-downs from Justice Smith. Baigent was the principle recipient of these cutting remarks, but it should be noted that Dan Brown was also called out by the judge on several occasions.

For most lawyers, the outcome was never in doubt. Had Baigent succeeded, copyright law would have been forever changed. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the central idea. Ideas can be protected by other methods, but copyright is not one. It seems likely that poor performance under the pressures of the court also harmed their chances, and probably did nothing to endear them to the court.

Ultimately, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh had to pay a vast amount in costs, which is what this case is chiefly notable for. Both ended up paying around £1.3 million, leaving them extremely badly off.

Legal Disclaimer: The content of this article is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute professional advice (legal or otherwise) nor should it be used as such. We cannot accept responsibility for actions based on the material provided.

[reallawcases-blog]

Irvin Leroux vs. CRA

Irvin Leroux was a business owner whose tax documents were handled negligently by the Canadian Revenue Agency.

After 18 years of legal wrangling, the courts established that, yes, the CRA owed a duty of care to the taxpayer.

Leroux had to sell off many assets in order to pay a non-existent bill, incurred by the CRA's negligent handling of his tax documents.

This significantly affected his life and earnings, and to add insult to injury, he alleged that an auditor lied and even blackmailed him.

Legal Disclaimer: The content of this article is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute professional advice (legal or otherwise) nor should it be used as such. We cannot accept responsibility for actions based on the material provided.

[reallawcases-blog]

Woodman Vs. FCUK

In this trademark decision, an important principle was upheld in British intellectual property law.

Although trademarks aren't allowed to be obscene or dangerous (in the sense that they are not allowed to be "contrary to morality" or "contrary to public policy"), the hearing officer decided that context was the most important factor in this case.

The mark FCUK, standing for French Connection UK, was often used in advertising campaigns in which it was clearly supposed to read as the expletive "fuck". However, that did not affect the nature of the trademark, which was, on its own, neither contrary to morality nor contrary to public policy.

Searching for this case by name can bring up some surprising results. For that reason, you can see the full case and decision linked here.

Legal Disclaimer: The content of this article is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute professional advice (legal or otherwise) nor should it be used as such. We cannot accept responsibility for actions based on the material provided.

[reallawcases-blog]

Pattle & Pattle Vs. The Secretary Of State For Transport

In this law case, the decision of which can be seen in full here, two brothers who owned industrial land and a joinery business made a compensation claim for both the value of the land lost, severance and injurious affection (which are commonly compensated for during a compulsory purchase process).

In addition to this, more unusually, they claimed for the lost income from land which would have been redeveloped and improved, except that it had been compulsorily purchased.

They also claimed they received lower rents from tenants during this period due to the uncertainty involved around the land. The fact that this rent would not be taken from the land in question did not affect the court's decision.

Relevant factors included section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 and Director of Building and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of Pattle & Pattle. Pattle & Pattle were represented by Simon Pickles and Gerard Van Tonder, instructed by Kingsley Smith LLP.

Legal Disclaimer: The content of this article is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute professional advice (legal or otherwise) nor should it be used as such. We cannot accept responsibility for actions based on the material provided.