Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:14

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: Quinn v Leathem

Since we're discussing Quinn and irony, a different bit of irony which brings the discussion closer to home is that the most recent authoritative Canadian comment on Lord Halsbury's view of stare decisis and common law decision-making comes from the last Supreme Court of Canada justice to informally address a good collection of the members of this list: Justice Binnie. In R v Henry 2005 SCC 67, Binnie J. - who gave the after dinner speech at last year's Emerging Issues In Tort symposium at UWO Law - devoted 8 paragraphs and some 1700 words (roughly: I estimated and eliminated from the count all citation parts other than case names) to the subject of Lord Halsbury's comment and how binding SCC obiter dicta are on inferior Canadian courts, ending with a ringing declaration paraphrasing another well-known declaration.

Cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: John Blackie
Sent: April 26, 2007 5:28 AM
Subject: RE: ODG: Quinn v Leathem

There is an ironic twist to this matter as the law relating to inducing breach of contract has developed in Scotland. Apart from a few very old cases dealing with inducing servants to leave their masters there was in effect no consideration of it in the Scots law of delict until British Motor Trade Association v Gray 1951 SC 586. The judgement of Lord President Cooper, a cultural, though not political, nationalist encapsulated the law for Scotland (at 600) by reference to a dictum of Lord Macnaghten in Quinn. A consequence has been that in two more recent first instance cases it has been held that that is the whole story for Scots law and more recent developments to in England to extend/rationalise the principle - to cover for instance turning a blind eye - are not part of the law of Scotland (in particular Rossleigh Ltd v Leader Cars Lts 1987 SLT 355 (OH)).

A little corner of old unionist law! - not likely to survive.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>