-
[Case name]: United Towns Electric Company Limited v. His Majesty’s Attorney General
[Citation]: [1939] UKPC 5
[Subject (Exact Text from Judgment)]: This is an appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland from a judgment of that Court dated the 1st May, 1937, which confirmed assessments to income tax made on the appellant for the years 1929 to 1934 inclusive in respect of all its undertakings.
[Presiding Justices (decision written by justice whose name is bold)]: Lord AtkinLord ThankertonLord Russell of KillowenLord WrightLord Porter
[Was the Lower-Court Ruling Sustained?]: Overturned
[Court of Origin]: Supreme Court of Newfoundland -
[Case name]: The Direct United States Cable Company (Ltd) and others v. The Anglo-American Telegraph Company (Ltd) and others
[Citation]: [1877] UKPC 5
[Subject (Exact Text from Judgment)]: This is an Appeal from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland against an order confirming an injunction granted against the Appellants, to prevent their infringing the rights originally granted by an Act of the Legislature of Newfoundland, 17 Vict. cap. 2, to a Company incorporated by the name of "The New York, Newfoundland, and London Telegraph Company."
[Presiding Justices (decision written by justice whose name is bold)]: Lord BlackburnSir James W. ColvileSir Barnes PeacockSir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. Collier
[Was the Lower-Court Ruling Sustained?]: Sustained
[Court of Origin]: Supreme Court of Newfoundland -
[Case name]: The Reid Newfoundland Company v. The Anglo-American Telegraph Company
[Citation]: [1910] UKPC 31
[Subject (Exact Text from Judgment)]: This is an Appeal from a Judgment of the Full Bench of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, delivered on 1 May 1909. The precise form of the Judgment it seems unnecessary to examine. It is enough to say that in substance it restrained the Appellant Company (the Railway Company) from erecting, maintaining, or operating a live of telegraph upon their own land, for the purposes of the efficient working of their own railway, with the usual incidents which naturally follow from such an injunction.
[Presiding Justices (decision written by justice whose name is bold)]: Lord MacnaghtenLord CollinsLord ShawSir Arthur Wilson
[Was the Lower-Court Ruling Sustained?]: Overturned
[Court of Origin]: Supreme Court of Newfoundland -
[Case name]: James P. Fox and others v. The Government of Newfoundland
[Citation]: [1898] UKPC 32
[Subject (Exact Text from Judgment)]: The Commercial Bank of Newfoundland suspended payment on 10 December 1894 and on 7 January 1895 an Act of the Newfoundland Legislature (58 Vict. Cap. 3) was passed for its winding-up and liquidation. The Appellants are the trustees appointed for that purpose. By Section 2 of the Act the provisions of Chapter 90 of the Consolidated Statutes of Newfoundland entitled "Of Insolvency" were made applicable to the winding=up of the Bank in the same manner as they applied to individuals and partnership. Of these Section 34 provided that next after preferential payments provided for in the preceding section all debts and claims due to the Crown or to the government of revenues of the Colony should form a prior claim upon the estate and effects of any person declared insolvent.
[Presiding Justices (decision written by justice whose name is bold)]: Lord WatsonLord HobhouseLord DaveySir Richard Couch
[Was the Lower-Court Ruling Sustained?]: Overturned Partially
[Court of Origin]: Supreme Court of Newfoundland -
[Case name]: The Commercial Cable Company v. The Attorney-General of Newfoundland
[Citation]: [1912] UKPC 51
[Subject (Exact Text from Judgment)]: In June 1905, when the Newfoundland Legislature passed the Taxing Act which imposes a tax a telegraphic cables, the only Telegraph Company doing business in the Colony was the Anglo-American. That Company, as the successors of the New York, Newfoundland, and London Telegraph Company, still possessed special rights and privileges in the island, including the right to compete for traffic with the Government. But the exclusive right of landing cables on the island which had been enjoyed by the Company and its predecessors for the period of fifty year had just expired.
[Presiding Justices (decision written by justice whose name is bold)]: Lord MacnaghtenLord AtkinsonLord Shaw
[Was the Lower-Court Ruling Sustained?]: Overturned
[Court of Origin]: Supreme Court of Newfoundland -
[Case name]: Walks v. Baird and another
[Citation]: [1892] UKPC 47
[Subject (Exact Text from Judgment)]: This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. The Respondents by their statement of claim alleged that the Appellant wrongfully entered their messuage and premises, and took possession of their lobster factory and of the gear and implements therein, and kept possession of the same for a long time, and prevented the Respondents from carrying on the business of catching and preserving lobsters at their factory.
[Presiding Justices (decision written by justice whose name is bold)]: Lord WatsonLord HobhouseLord HerschellLord MacnaghtenLord MorrisLord HannenSir Richard CouchLord Shand
[Was the Lower-Court Ruling Sustained?]: Sustained
[Court of Origin]: Supreme Court of Newfoundland
New Random Display Display All Items(33)