Morris v Murray [1990] 2 QB 6

Facts:

  • C was injured on a drunken plane flight.


 Issue:

  • Does volenti apply as a defence to C’s negligence claim?


 Ratio:

  • C had colluded in the dangerous venture and his claim was defeated by the defence of volenti.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

3. ‘The defence of ‘Honest Opinion’ under s.3 of The Defamation Act 2013 is not robust enough to protect free speech and rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’ Discuss.

Introduction: There is a narrow line between freedom of expression and the right of one’s reputation. To make this line more clear, the Defamation Act 2013 was created. One of the defences was one of ‘Honest Opinion’ which provided that a statement of opinion, based on facts, was one that could be held by an honest person. The connection to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) was that Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression and information, and the UK courts were then given the task of finding the balance between the two in relation to defamation cases. Although the Defamation Act 2013 has been found to encourage freedom of expression, it does not protect free speech and rights to the same extent that the ECHR does. P1: The aim of the Defamation Act is to provide better protection for free speech. The main legal case that underlies the honest opinion defence in this Act was Joseph v Spiller [2010]. The defendants, a management agency, had publis...
Read more

Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567

Facts: C, a burglar, was shot by D as he attempted to gain access to D’s shed. C sued D in negligence and under the 1984 Act. Ratio: CoA rejected D’s attempt to raise the defence of illegality. C was contributorily negligent and his damages decreased by ⅔.
Read more

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645

Facts: Crown colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since 1923, declared independence from Britain in 1965 British government considered its UDI to be illegal and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Rhodesian government Before 1965, Madzimbamuto was detained under section 21 of the Regulations Madzimbamuto's wife challenged the legality of her husband's detention, on the grounds that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful Issue: Whether a convention would be enforceable and have legal position of United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia Held: The case reached the Privy Council who rejected the Rhodesian Minister for Law and Order's argument that because of the convention, the United Kingdom legislation overriding the Rhodesian detention law was invalid
Read more