This is a classic case on law, art and freedom of expression. On October 20,
1960, a jury of nine men and three women were handed unexpurgated copies of
D H Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover and instructed to read it. Its
publishers, Penguin Books Ltd, were being prosecuted under the Obscene
Publications Act, which allowed for literary and artistic merit to be
considered in judging whether a work was obscene. The prosecutor, Mervyn
Griffith-Jones, argued that the book had no substantial literary merit and
merely advocated "coarseness and vulgarity". He set the jury the
following test: "Is it a book you would even wish your wife or servants
to read?" But Penguin's lawyer, Gerald Gardiner, QC, defended the use
of four-letter words by arguing that if such language was depraved and
corrupt then "95 per cent of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are past
redemption”. The defence also called the novelist EM Forster, who said
he knew Lawrence well and regarded him as the greatest writer of his
generation; Cecil Day-Lewis also testified on his behalf. Penguin was
acquitted and Lady Chatterley's Lover went on to sell three million copies
in a year.
Fisher
v Bell
November 11, 1960
This was a classic decision determining a highly consequential point of retail
law. The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 made it an offence to
offer for sale certain offensive weapons, including “flick-knives”. James
Bell, a Bristol shop keeper, displayed a weapon of this type, an “ejector
knife" selling for 4s, in his shop window. The Divisional Court held
that he could not be convicted because, giving the words in the Act their
tight, literal legal meaning, Bell had not “offered" the knives
for sale. Under the law of contract, placing something in a shop window is
not, technically, an “offer for sale”; it is merely an “invitation to
treat”. It is the customer who legally makes an “offer” to the shop when he
proffers money for an item on sale. This decision has significance in other
scenarios. What if a £2,000 multimedia system was mispriced in the shop
window at £200? The decision in Fisher v Bell means that you can’t seal a
contract by walking into the store and saying, “I accept”. The shop has the
final say about whether it wants to make a contract with you and on the
terms you offer.
Overseas
Tankship (UK) Ltd V Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd
January 19, 1961
This landmark case decides the test for working out whether a defendant who
starts a series of unusual events is liable to pay compensation for the
damage they cause. The ruling was by the Privy Council on an appeal from
Australia but it also changed English law, as it was later followed by
English courts. Through carelessness, furnace oil from a ship in Sydney
harbour was spilt into a bay. The oil spread over the water to a wharf 600
feet away where wharf owners were carrying out repairs to a ship, including
welding metal. Molten metal from the wharf dripped down on to floating
cotton waste which ignited the furnace oil on the water. The wharf was badly
burnt in the resulting fire. The wharf owners sued for damages but the court
found that the ship owners could not reasonably have known that the furnace
oil was capable of being set alight when spread on water. It was held that
the test of liability for the damage done by fire was whether it was
“reasonably foreseeable” in the circumstances.
Ridge
v Baldwin
March 15, 1963
This case cemented into English law a key principle of natural justice: that a
court or tribunal cannot come to a fair decision unless both sides have been
heard or have been given the chance to be heard. It was held by the House of
Lords that the former Chief Constable of Brighton, Charles Ridge, had been
unfairly dismissed in breach of the principles of natural justice. He had
brought a legal action against George Baldwin of the Brighton police
committee, in which he asked for a declaration that their termination of his
appointment as chief constable was illegal and beyond the powers of the
authority. At the core of his allegation was that at the appropriate time,
no specific charge was notified to him and he was not given an opportunity
of being heard. His solicitor was given an opportunity at one stage to
address a committee but had been given no particulars of the case against
him. Lord Reid recognised the cherished principle of the law audi alteram
partem, which means a judge in a dispute should allow both parties to be
heard and should listen to the point of view of each, or at least given an
opportunity of each to speak.
Hedley
Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners Ltd
May 29, 1963
This House of Lords case took the duty of care into the realm of advice. The
law had previously applied only to manufacturers, but this ruling affected
everyone from architects to zoo consultants. It now applied to anyone who
gave advice in the course of their job. It began when a bank phoned a
merchant bank to check on the financial position of a potential client,
Easipower Ltd, which wanted to borrow money to fund advertising. The bank
promised the merchant bank would be “without responsibility” in providing
the information. After Easipower went into liquidation, out of pocket
advertising agents sued the merchant bank to recover their losses, but lost.
They would have won were it not for the "without responsibility"
disclaimer.
Eastham
v Newcastle United Football Club Ltd
June 12, July 5, 1963
A court blew the whistle on Newcastle FC and declared a foul. This case
affected the way football contracts worked across the land. The claimant,
George Eastham, became a professional football player in 1956 when he was
19. He then transferred to Newcastle United, entering into an annual
contract. A while later, he asked for a transfer but the club notified him
that his services would be retained for the next season at his current wage.
The club cited regulation 26 of the Football Association rules. This blocked
him from getting a transfer and meant he could not play for another club in
the UK or Ireland provided Newcastle offered him a “reasonable wage”. But
the court decided that this was an “unlawful restraint of trade”.
D
& C Builders Ltd V Rees
November 13, 1965
