LUM Series Superfine Vertical Roller Grinding Mill
LUM Series Superfine Vertical Roller Grinding Mill

grant v australian knitting mills ac

  • GrantVAustraliaKnittingMills

    grantvaustraliaknittingmills - zionhomes. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Essay Example for FreeThe material facts of the case: The underwear, consisting of two pairs of underpants and two siglets was. Unit 2 Introduction to Torts: Topic Negligence - Reading. Unit 2 Introduction to Torts: Topic Negligence Reading Contents.

  • Developing & Changing Precedents - Year Legal Studies

    The Australian Knitting Mills argued, among other things, that there was no Australian law that said that they should be held liable in such cases. In Australia, it was the responsibility of a purchaser of goods to inspect the goods for any defects before purchasing them. The manufacturer was correct—there was no clear Australian law.

  • Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills 936

    The Grant vs. Australian Knitting Mills case from 936, this case was a persuasive case rather than binding because, the precedent was from another hierarchy. The manufacturer owned a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. more vert. Ratio Decendi. Ratio Decendi.

  • Andwin Scientific

    Acme United Corporation Acro Building Systems Acros Organics Acs Inc Action Box Co Inc Action Mfg Systems Dopaco Doran Scales Inc Dorfman Pacific Double D Knitting And Glove Company Double H Boot Company Dougco

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Free Essay Example

    Get Your Custom Essay on Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Just from $ 3,9/Page Get custom paper. He carried on with the underwear washed . His skin was getting worse, so he consulted a dermatologist, Dr. Upton, who advised him to discard the underwear which he did. including ensuite bathrooms and air-conditioning or climate control. The

  • Previous Decisions Made by Judges in Similar Cases

    When Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd 936 AC 85 happened, the lawyer can roughly know what is the punishment or solution to settle up this case as previously there is a similar case – Donoghue v Stevenson 932 AC 562 happened and the judges have to bind and follow the decision. Predictability is the third advantage.

  • Grant V Australian Knitting Mills Ac - deselco.de

    20 -4-29 · grant v australian knitting mills ( 933) 50 clr 387. david jones v willis ( 934) 52 clr 0. thus one can find a list of tort cases, and there select the 935 case grant v. australian knitting mills, one of those one remembers from one's studies, and here it is online .grant v australian knitting mills [ 936] ac 85. sketch of the

  • grantvaustralianknittingmills 936 case summary

    grant v australian knitting mills ac - alacarteathome.be. grant v australian knitting mills 936 case summary. The 936 case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd 4 concerned the purchaser of a pair of woollen long-johns Grant v The Australian Knitting Mills is a landmark case in consumer law from 936 It is often used as a benchmark in

  • Richard Thorold Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd

    The underwear, consisting of two pairs of underpants and two singlets, was bought by the appellant at the shop of the respondents, John Martin and Co., Ltd., who dealt in such goods and who will be hereafter referred to as the retailers, on 3rd June 93 ; the retailers had in ordinary course at some previous date purchased them with other stock from the respondents, the Australian Knitting Mills

  • precedent case - grant v australian knitting mills Essay

    GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LTD 936 AC 85, PC The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia. Judges: Viscount Hailsham L.C., Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson. The appellant: Richard Thorold Grant

  • Richard Thorold Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd

    Lord Wright:- The appellant is a fully qualified medical man practising at Adelaide in South Australia. He brought his action against the respondents, claiming damages on the ground that he had contracted dermatitis by reason of the improper condition of underwear purchased by him from the respondents, John Martin & Co., Ltd., and manufactured by the respondents, the Australian Knitting Mills

  • Grant v Aust Knitting Mills (Negligence) - YouTube

    8 Jun 20 9 . This case brought the law of negligence into Australian law, and clarified that negligence potentially reached into many areas of the consumer .

  • Donoghue v Stevenson: Case Summary, Judgment and Analysis

    In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd 936 A.C 85. 0 – 02 the Privy council held that the defendant manufacturers were liable to the ultimate purchaser of the underwear which they had manufactured and which contained a chemical that gave plaintiff a skill disease when he wore them.

  • Donoghue v. Stevenson - Year 2 Legal Studies

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills: Some years later Grant was injured as a result of purchasing woollen underwear made by Australian Knitting Mills. The garment had too much sulphate and caused him to have an itch. Here, the courts referred to the decision made earlier in Donoghue and decided to rule in Dr Grant's favour. Although the precedent

  • australian knitting mills v grant - virtualview.be

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited 936 AC 85 GRANT v. SOUTH AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS AND OTHERS A recent decision of the Privy Council will undoubtedly assume im- portance in the development of the law relating to the liability in tort …

  • precedent case - grant v australian knitting mills Essay

    3/04/20 4 & 0 83;& 32;GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LTD 936 AC 85, PC The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia. Judges: Viscount Hailsham L.C., Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson. The appellant: Richard Thorold Grant

  • Manufacturers& 39; Liability in Tort - jstor

    & 39;Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills, [ 936] A. C. 85 (P. C.). . Australian Knitting Mills v. Grant, 50 C. L. R. (Aust.) 387 ( 933) (one justice dissenting), reversing the .

  • Example of the Development of Court Made Law The development .

    The development of negligence, in particular, the duty of care and native title are examples of . are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them . Case 6: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills ( 936) – Itchy Undies.

  • the royal order of the ape-o-naut

    de "computer training" janes reviews knitting machine tallest s wwf entrance themes busen photo mortgages after bankrupcy australian tle dog andy gray bursitis

  • GrantvAustralianKnittingMills: PC 2 Oct 935 - swarb

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills: PC 2 Oct 935 References: 935 All ER Rep 209, 936 AC 85, 05 LJPC 6, 54 LT 85, 935 UKPC 2, 935 UKPC 62 Links: Bailii , Bailii

  • GrantvAustralianKnittingMills - Wikipedia

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills, is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. It continues to be cited as an authority in legal cases, and used as an example for students studying law.

  • grantvaustralianknittingmills 20 4 ac 85 case summary

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills - Wikipedia. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills, is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care.

  • grantvaustralianknittingmills limited 935 case summary

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills - Wikipedia Grant v Australian Knitting Mills, is a landmark case in consumer law from 935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care..

  • PDF Example of the Development of Law of negligence

    Case 6: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 – Itchy Undies duty extended The concepts of D v S were further expanded in Grant v AKM. In this case the manufacturers failed to remove a chemical irritant from their woollen underwear. Grant upon wearing the undies contracted dermatitis.

  • Grant V Australian Knitting Mills Ac - deselco.de

    20 -4-29 · grant v australian knitting mills 933 50 clr 387. david jones v willis 934 52 clr 0. thus one can find a list of tort cases, and there select the 935 case grant v. australian knitting mills, one of those one remembers from one's studies, and here it is online .grant v australian knitting mills 936 ac 85. sketch of the

  • GrantVAustralianKnittingMills - Les Gamapias

    GrantVKnittingMills 936 Ac 85 GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LTD 936 AC 85, PC The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia Judges: Viscount Hailsham L.C., Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson.

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [ 936] AC 85 - Oxbridge Notes

    20 Jan 2020 . Judgement for the case Grant v Australian Knitting Mills. P contracted a disease due to a woollen jumper that contained excess sulphur and had .

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 AC 85 P bought a .

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [ 936] AC 85 The court held that the manufacturers would be liable if there is no instruction for the product to be examined .

  • Grant V Australian Knitting Mills - Les Gamapias

    Grant V Knitting Mills 936 Ac 85 GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LTD 936 AC 85, PC The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia Judges: Viscount Hailsham L.C., Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson.

  • Tort Law - Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [ 936] AC 85 | Student .

    The case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills considered the issue of negligent product liability and whether or not a clothing manufacturer was responsible for the .

  • Defination of Merchantable Quality - LawTeacher.net

    In the Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd 936 AC 85 case, appellant was purchase woollen garment from the retailers. Appellant was not realized that the woollen garment was in a defective condition and cause the appellant contracted dermatitis of an external origin.

  • GrantvAustralianKnittingMills — Wikipedia Republished

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills, is a landmark case in consumer law from 935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. It continues to be cited as an authority in legal cases, and used as an example for students studying law.

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills: PC 2 Oct 935 - swarb.co.uk

    8 May 20 9 . Grant v Australian Knitting Mills: PC 2 Oct 935. References: [ 935] All ER Rep 209, [ 936] AC 85, 05 LJPC 6, 54 LT 85, [ 935] UKPC 2, .

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Free Essay Example - StudyMoose

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mi . The material facts of the case: The underwear, consisting of two pairs of underpants and two siglets was bought by appellant at .

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited 936 AC 85

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited 936 AC 85. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Type Article OpenURL Check for local electronic subscriptions Web address www-iclr-co-uk.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/d Is part of Journal Title The Law reports: House of Lords, and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and peerage cases

  • GrantvAustralianKnittingMills Free Essay Example

    Get Your Custom Essay on Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Just from $ 3,9/Page Get custom paper. He carried on with the underwear washed . His skin was getting worse, so he consulted a dermatologist, Dr. Upton, who advised him to discard the underwear which he did. including ensuite bathrooms and air-conditioning or climate control. The

  • australian knitting mills v grant - virtualview.be

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited [ 936] AC 85 GRANT v. SOUTH AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS AND OTHERS ( ) A recent decision of the Privy Council will undoubtedly assume im- portance in the development of the law relating to the liability in tort of manufacturers to the ultimate purchaser of their products.

  • GrantvAustralianKnittingMills Middle University

    Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide ×

  • 953 CanLII 39 SCC Guay v. Sun Publishing Co. CanLII

    In Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. 70 , the Judicial Committee considered Donoghue's case and, after saying that they would follow it and that the only question which they were concerned with was what the case decided, said p. 02 :— Their Lordships think that the principle of the decision is summed up in the words of Lord Atkin:—

  • Grant V Australian Knitting Mills Ac - deselco.de

    20 -4-29 & 83; grant v australian knitting mills 933 50 clr 387. david jones v willis 934 52 clr 0. thus one can find a list of tort cases, and there select the 935 case grant v. australian knitting mills, one of those one remembers from one's studies, and here it is online .grant v australian knitting mills 936 ac 85. sketch of the

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd - [ 935] UKPCHCA - 54 CLR .

    . [ 935] UKPCHCA - Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd (2 October 935) - [ 935] UKPCHCA (2 October 935) - 54 CLR 49; [ 936] AC 85; 9 ALJR 35 .

  • AustralianKnittingMillsVGrant - odanahschool.org

    Grantv. AustralianKnittingMills 936 The Grant vs. Australian Knitting Mills case from 936, this case was a persuasive case rather than binding because, the precedent was from another hierarchy. The manufacturer owned a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. more vert. Ratio Decendi. Ratio Decendi.

  • GrantvAustralianKnittingMills Limited 936 AC 85

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills Limited 936 AC 85. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Type Article OpenURL Check for local electronic subscriptions Web address www-iclr-co-uk.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/d Is part of Journal Title The Law reports: House of Lords, and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and peerage cases

  • GrantvAustralianKnittingMills 935 UKPC 2 Privy

    Richard Thorold Grant Appellant v. Australian Knitting Mills, Limited, and others Respondents FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, delivered the 2 ST OCTOBER, 935.

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills: PC 2 Oct 935 - swarb

    08/05/20 9 & 0 83;& 32;Grant v Australian Knitting Mills: PC 2 Oct 935. References: 935 All ER Rep 209, 936 AC 85, 05 LJPC 6, 54 LT 85, 935 UKPC 2, 935 UKPC 62 …

  • GrantVAustralianKnittingMills 936 Ac 85

    GrantVAustralianKnittingMills 936 Ac 85. Click Here -> Get Latest Price Concurrent duties involved facts akin to contract 9 the provision by a bank of a report on the nancial position of one of its clients, to a rm considering contracting with that client.20 hedley byrne was extended, so as to nd a duty of care where there was also a contractual relationship, in henderson v merrett

  • Edu ion Dr Grant - Victoria Law Foundation

    Dr Grant and his underpants is a fully scripted model mediation for classroom use. The script is based on the South Australian case Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited and Another 935 HCA 66; 935 54 CLR 49. Details of the original case are set out in the section entitled ‘The real case and its

  • Law Cases - What do we know by "Judicial Precedent", to

    For example in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson 932 AC 562, where the House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product. This set a binding precedent which was followed in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 AC 85.

  • Dr Grant and His Underpants - Victoria Law Foundation

    prior to Donoghue v Stevenson ( 932) AC 562; then give a brief outline of . The mediation script is based on a real case: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills.

  • grant v australian knitting mills doctypes: judgments - Indian Kanoon

    clear that it extends to both In -- & 39;Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd.& 39;, 936 AC 85 (C), Lord Wright. Madras High . Lord Wright in well known judgment Grant v.

  • australianknittingmills Collingwood Victoria aust

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills 936 AC 85. This case considered the issue of negligent product liability and whether or not a clothing manufacturer was australian knitting mills 3- 4 Hood Street 3066 Collingwood Victoria

  • RECENT DEVELOPMENTS . OF DONOGHUE v. STEVENSON& 39; Only .

    Australian Knitting Mills, Ltd., [ 936) A.C. 85, 05. 23 ( 905), 2 T.L.R. 633. 2B For example, it was proved in Grant& 39;s Case that the Knitting Mills.

  • GrantvAustralianKnittingMills Ltd - 935 UKPCHCA

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills Ltd - 935 UKPCHCA - Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd 2 October 935 - 935 UKPCHCA 2 October 935 - 54 CLR 49; 936 AC 85; 9 ALJR 35

  • Australian Knitting Mills V Grant

    Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills 936 The Grant vs. Australian Knitting Mills case from 936, this case was a persuasive case rather than binding because, the precedent was from another hierarchy. The manufacturer owned a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. more vert. Ratio Decendi. Ratio Decendi.

  • The Facts The Problems - Alberta Law Review

    The lack of care essential to the establishment of such a claim increases ac- . Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills the Judicial Committee of the Privy. Council took .

  • Grantv. AustralianKnittingMills 936

    The Grant vs. Australian Knitting Mills case from 936, this case was a persuasive case rather than binding because, the precedent was from another hierarchy. The manufacturer owned a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. more vert. Ratio Decendi. Ratio Decendi.

  • GrantVKnittingMills 936 Ac 85 Free Essays

    GrantVKnittingMills 936 Ac 85 GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LTD 936 AC 85, PC The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia Judges: Viscount Hailsham L.C., Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson. The appellant: Richard Thorold Grant The material

  • Grant V Australian Knitting Mills Ac

    Richard Thorold Grant v Australian Knitting Mills and … For example in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson 932 AC 562 Case summary the House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product This set a binding precedent which was followed in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 AC 85 936 AC 85

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills - WikiVisually

    Full case name, Australian Knitting Mills Ltd and John Martin & Co v Grant . Knitting Mills; the Sale of Goods Act, was founded on the existence of a contract and .

  • grant v australian knitting mills - delphi-valkenburg.nl

    GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LTD [ 936] AC 85, PC The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia.

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills | [ 935] UKPC 2 | Privy

    Richard Thorold Grant Appellant v. Australian Knitting Mills, Limited, and others Respondents FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, delivered the 2 ST OCTOBER, 935.

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 AC 85 Student

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 AC 85. This case considered the issue of negligent product liability and whether or not a clothing manufacturer was responsible for the injury sustained by a consumer when first wearing their clothing. Share this case by email Share this case.

  • grant v australian knitting mills - delphi-valkenburg.nl

    GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LTD 936 AC 85, PC The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia.

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills - Wikipedia

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills, is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may .

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills - Wikipedia

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills, is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care.

  • grant v australian knitting mills limited 935 summary

    grant v australian knitting mills 935 54 clr. When Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd 936 AC 85 happened, the lawyer can roughly know what is the punishment or solution to settle up this case as previously there is a similar case – Donoghue v Stevenson 932 AC 562 happened and the judges have to bind and follow the decision.

  • Judicial precedent - e-lawresources.co.uk

    For example in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson 932 AC 562, Case summary the House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product.This set a binding precedent which was followed in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 AC 85. Also in Shaw v DPP 962 AC 220 Case summary the House of Lords held that a crime of conspiracy to corrupt public

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited [ 936] AC 85 .

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited [ 936] AC 85. . Title: The Law reports: House of Lords, and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and peerage cases .

  • Example of the Development of Law of negligence

    Case 6: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 – Itchy Undies duty extended The concepts of D v S were further expanded in Grant v AKM. In this case the manufacturers failed to remove a chemical irritant from their woollen underwear. Grant upon wearing the undies contracted dermatitis.

  • Previous Decisions Made by Judges in Similar Cases

    5 Aug 20 9 . When Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd ( 936) AC 85 happened, the lawyer can roughly know what is the punishment or solution to settle up .

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 935 UKPC 2 Privy

    Richard Thorold Grant Appellant v. Australian Knitting Mills, Limited, and others Respondents FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, delivered the 2 ST OCTOBER, 935.

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 AC 85

    20/0 /2020 & 0 83;& 32;Facts and judgement for Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 AC 85: P contracted a disease due to a woollen jumper that contained excess sulphur and had been neglig Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our privacy policy .

  • grant v australian knitting mills limited 935 summary

    grant v australian knitting mills 935 54 clr. When Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd ( 936) AC 85 happened, the lawyer can roughly know what is the punishment or solution to settle up this case as previously there is a similar case – Donoghue v Stevenson ( 932) AC 562 happened and the judges have to bind and follow the decision.

  • GrantvAustralianKnittingMills 936 AC 85 Student

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills 936 AC 85. This case considered the issue of negligent product liability and whether or not a clothing manufacturer was responsible for the injury sustained by a consumer when first wearing their clothing. Share this case by email Share this case.

  • Previous Decisions Made by Judges in Similar Cases

    After that, there is another case which is Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd .7 This case is closely related to the Donoghue v Stevenson case. In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd case, Dr Grant, the plaintiff had bought an undergarment from a retailer. The undergarment is manufactured by the defendant, Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. Dr Grant was contracted dermatitis. The undergarment was …

  • 403. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 936 AC 85

    GrantvAustralianKnittingMills 936 AC 85. By michael Posted on September 3, 20 3 Un egorized. Product liability – retailers and manufacturers held liable for skin irritation caused by knitted garment. The Facts. A chemical residue in a knitted undergarment caused severe dermatitis.

  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills: PC 2 Oct 935 - swarb.co.uk

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills: PC 2 Oct 935. References: [ 935] All ER Rep 209, [ 936] AC 85, 05 LJPC 6, 54 LT 85, [ 935] UKPC 2, [ 935] UKPC 62