User:Kohlrabi Pickle/sandbox/Lord Goff of Chieveley
As Law Lord, he furthered the cause of restitution that he had developed academically. In Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd, he gave judicial recognition to the proposition that unjust enrichment is an independent branch of private law. Graham Virgo, who has disagreed with the reasoning in Lipkin Gorman, nevertheless described it as "probably the most important dictum in the modern law of restitution". His judgment in Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln CC was described by Lord Hoffmann as "one of the most distinguished of his luminous contributions to this branch of the law" and by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who dissented, as containing "yet another major contribution to the law of restitution".
Leading cases of national significance
[edit]This case caught national attention as part of the litigation flowing from Libya's nationalisation of its oilfields.[1] Two years after British Petroleum had purchased a half-share of the Sarir oilfield from Nelson Bunker Hunt, Libya nationalised it. British Petroleum claimed that the contract had been frustrated, which would entitle it to compensation under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943. The legal historian John Baker described the case as legally complex, "involving such vast fortunes that millions of dollars turned upon every nuance of meaning in the 1943 Act".[2] Goff presided over the case in the High Court, holding that the contract had been frustrated and that British Petroleum was entitled to damages. Notably, Goff wrote the headnote himself, setting a precedent in law reporting. He also reworked parts of Goff and Jones on the Law of Unjust Enrichment to accommodate the judgment.[2]
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]
Anthony Bland was a 17-year-old Liverpool supporter who had travelled with two friends to Hillsborough Stadium for an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest on 15 April 1989. A fatal human crush occurred, causing Bland serious injury and leaving him in a persistent vegetative state. Goff issued a legal ruling allowing doctors to withdraw his treatment at the request of his family, since there had been no sign of improvement in his condition, there was no reasonable possibility that he would ever emerge from his persistent vegetative state, and was unlikely to survive more than five years. The case provoked significant public discussion over the moral, legal and ethical issues of withdrawing life support from an insensate patient.
In 1985, former spy Peter Wright attempted to publish Spycatcher, a memoir detailingng his work in British intelligence in violation of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Following the British government's attempts to ban it, it saw a dramatic increase in popularity, selling nearly two million copies worldwide by October 1988.[3] The case in the House of Lords raised important questions relating to the law on breach of confidence, public policy and freedom of expression.
- Re Pinochet (No. 3) [1999]
A Spanish court requested the extradition of the former president of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, who was accused of murder, torture and conspiracy to murder. Although Lord Goff had retired by the time this case was heard, he returned on an ad-hoc basis to hear it. The case gained attention because of its implications for the law on immunities and extradition.
- Attorney General v Blake [2000]
This case concerned the MI5 double agent George Blake. Following his escape from prison and flight to the Soviet Union, he wrote a book about his experiences and work in British intelligence, which was published by Jonathan Cape. The government sought to force the publishers to give up all earnings from the sale of the book, arguing that it had harmed the public interest and that the author and publisher should not be allowed to profit from it. Goff joined the majority opinion, ruling in favour of the government.
Leading cases of legal importance
[edit]Goff dealt with the legal problem of recovering payment made by a bank after the customer had stopped the cheque. One of the earliest cases in the English law of restitution, Graham Virgo has described it as "the Donoghue v Stevenson of restitution for mistake".[4]
In this case, Goff outlined what came to be the accepted definitions for both battery and assault.
In this case, Goff introduced the principle of forum non conveniens into English law, enabling English courts to stay proceedings so that they could be decided in non-English courts instead.
This became the leading authority on anti-suit injunctions in England and Wales.
- Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988]
This was the first judicial recognition of unjust enrichment as a principle of English law, and marked the beginning of its development as an area of law.
This case clarified the legal relationship between private nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher.
This became a leading case on duty of care in tort, concerning the circumstances under which a person will be taken to have assumed responsibility for the welfare of another.
This was a leading case on the circumstances in which a resulting trusts arises.
This became a leading case on private nuisance, about whether the interference with television signal caused by large buildings constituted an unjustifiable encroachment on people's enjoyment of their property.
- ^ Chronology of the Libyan Oil Negotiations, 1970-1971 (Report). Foreign Affairs Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. 25 January 1974.
- ^ a b Baker, John (November 1979). "Frustration and Unjust Enrichment". Cambridge Law Journal. 38 (2): 266–270 – via Cambridge Core.
- ^ "1988: Government loses Spycatcher battle". 1988-10-13. Retrieved 2020-06-22.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
:02was invoked but never defined (see the help page).