Results.
7 judgments found.
|
|
|
| February 1987 |
|
|
Appeal concerns sufficiency of identification and proof of possession/recovery and violence for aggravated robbery.
-
Criminal law — Aggravated robbery — Identification evidence — Possession and recovery of stolen property — Proof of use of actual violence — Safety of conviction.
|
24 February 1987 |
|
Conviction quashed where stolen goods in premises did not exclude reasonable alternative explanation by another occupant.
-
Criminal law — Aggravated robbery — Possession of stolen goods found in premises associated with accused — Circumstantial evidence — Whether alternative explanation by another occupant creates reasonable doubt.
|
23 February 1987 |
|
Damages for inconvenience cannot recompense a plaintiff's efforts to recover wrongfully detained goods; special damages need supporting evidence.
-
Damages — special damages and requirement for documentary or independent evidence; transport costs — reducible if unavoidable; damages for inconvenience in tort — not recoverable for efforts to recover goods except where tort itself directly causes inconvenience (deceit, false imprisonment, nuisance)
|
18 February 1987 |
|
Plaintiff must prove the pleaded defamatory meaning; substantially similar words suffice, but maladministration differs from bribery.
-
Tort — Defamation (slander) — Proof of words — Precise words not required; material or substantially equivalent words sufficient — Pleaded defamatory meaning must be proved — Distinction between allegations of corruption and of maladministration
|
16 February 1987 |
|
A vague counterclaim alleging unspecified "unknown services" cannot defeat summary judgment; a specific, fact-based affidavit is required to defend.
-
Civil procedure — Summary judgment (Order 13) — Requirement of specific, fact-based affidavit to show bona fide defence — Vague/nebulous defences insufficient; counterclaim for unspecified "unknown services" lacking visible merit may be disallowed — defendant may be required to bring separate action.
|
13 February 1987 |
|
Vague or unspecified counterclaims do not defeat summary judgment; defendant must plead specific facts to justify a defence.
-
Civil procedure — Summary judgment (Order 13) — Defendant must disclose specific facts in affidavit to show a bona fide defence — Vague counterclaim alleging unspecified "secret" payment disallowed; defendant may sue separately
|
12 February 1987 |
|
Appeal allowed: insufficient evidence of conspiracy or intent to kill; second and third convictions quashed; first reduced to manslaughter.
-
Criminal law — murder v. manslaughter — required intent to kill; conspiracy — sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish agreement; lending unlicensed firearm — whether lending alone establishes liability for murder; exclusion of confessions and impact on safety of convictions.
|
7 February 1987 |