Search results
Legal Case Summary. Jackson v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262. Upholds the legality of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, limiting the House of Lords’ legislative powers. Facts. In November 2004, the British Government enacted the Hunting Act which prohibited fox hunting, inter alia. Whilst this bill received support in the House of Commons ...
- Stevenson Jacques & Co V Mclean
Legal Case Summary. Stevenson Jaques & Co. v McLean (1880) 5...
- Stevenson Jacques & Co V Mclean
Jackson and others (Appellants) v. Her Majesty’s Attorney General (Respondent) [2005] UKHL 56 LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The appellants all, in differing ways, have an interest in fox-hunting. They wish that activity to continue. They challenge the legal validity of the Hunting Act 2004 which, on its face, makes it an offence
- 199KB
- 82
Oct 24, 2006 · Abstract. This paper, which is based on a paper given at a seminar held at the University of Glasgow in November 2005, discusses the sovereignty of Parliament in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney General v Jackson, which considered the question of whether the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 were valid Acts ...
- Facts
- Issues
- Decision/Outcome
Mr Bell was the managing director for five years of a company that was owned by Lever Bros Ltd. Mr Bell had traded for personal profit during his employment, which was contrary to his contract with the company. Without knowledge of this, Lever Bros Ltd made an offer of redundancy to Mr Bell, terminating his contract and offering a £30,000 payment a...
The main issue in this case was whether the redundancy contract that was created and accepted by Mr Bell, could be void by common mistake, due to later finding out about his personal trading. Lever Bros Ltd argued that this concealment and misconduct was a breach of his duty that was detailed in his employment contract.
The court held that the contract was not void, as the mistake was not an ‘essential and integral’ part of the contract. The personal trading that had happened during the employment was not related to the subject matter of the contract and was said to be minor compared to the profits Mr Bell had made for Lever Bros Ltd. Only a mistake to the identit...
In Bell's case, the negotiations were virtually concluded before he was aware that he would not have a role in the new company. A third justification is that the materials did not indicate that the indefeasibility of the employment agreements was integral to the termination agreements.
Lever Bros contracted Bell to act as chairman of the Niger’s board of directors for £8000 a year. They then contracted Snelling to be vice-chairman for £6000 a year. Both Bell and Snelling began secretly speculating on the cocoa market using their own money.
People also ask
What is Jackson v Attorney General?
What is Jackson v AG?
Who was Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd?
Did Bell & Snelling make a misrepresentation claim?
Is a contract void if Mr Bell made a mistake?
Is Pepper v Hart a valid judicial anomaly?
Jan 2, 2018 · Abstract. This paper, which is based on a paper given at a seminar held at the University of Glasgow in November 2005, discusses the sovereignty of Parliament in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney General v Jackson, which considered the question of whether the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 were valid Acts ...
