Gary Slapper
Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000

It is a question to excite the repressed student in every lawyer: which cases have most shaped British law over the past 200 years?
To celebrate the launch of The Times Archive, we asked Gary Slapper, Professor of Law, and director of the Centre for Law, at the Open University and long-time Times Law columnist, to trawl through more than two centuries of Times Law Reports (which, thanks to the Archive, you can now read as they originally appeared) and to pull out the 100 most important, influential and colourful cases since the newspaper began publishing in 1785.
The series will be presented in five parts over the next week, starting today. Everyone will have their favourites, from the Paisley snail to the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company: leave a comment if you disagree with any of our choices, or if you think we have missed any. Click on the case names to read the original law report as it appeared in The Times. Click here to go to the Archive and search for any article from the newspaper from 1785-1985.
Part one: 1785-1869 | Part two: 1870-1916 | Part three: 1917-1954 | Part Four: 1955-1971 | Part five: 1972-2006
Davies
v East
January 8, 1788
This decision was a classic early example of the courts holding someone to the terms of a commercial bargain over goods whose quality he had inspected and accepted. The action was in Westminster, the defendant a cabinet maker who had agreed to purchase 13 mahogany logs for £18. The seller argued that the wood should be paid for as agreed but the buyer said that the batch of logs was worthless, as it differed from some of the samples he had inspected. There were holes in it “so great that you might put your head into them”; according to one wood expert, it was the "worst he ever saw". But the verdict went in favour of the claimant, who was entitled to be paid the agreed price of £18 by the cabinet maker because the sale batch was, in general, the quality of wood he had agreed to buy.
Ormond
v Payne
July 9, 1789
This colourful case involving a butcher and a prince’s coachman embodied the metropolitan bustle of the age; it was also notable in the development of personal injury actions. It concerned an ordinary man who was injured by a royal carriage. The claimant, George Ormond, was a butcher who lived in Turnham Green, West London. The defendant, Don Payne, looked after the affairs of the Prince of Wales at Carlton House. The butcher sued Payne after the Prince’s coachman, George Smith — for whom he was legally responsible under civil law — drove into the butcher’s cart, breaking his leg. The coachman, according to Ormond’s claim, was in a terrible hurry and “in liquor”. The moment the horses were harnessed and he had mounted the box, he had “called for a glass of gin, drank it, threw the glass violently upon the pavement, flogged his horses” and sped away at a gallop. The jury found that Payne was liable for the coachman’s actions and awarded £100 damages.
The
King v Dodd
May 30, 1808
In the early 18th-century, investors poured money into the South Sea Company on the strengths of its hopes of a great trade with South America. In 1720 it collapsed. Many other companies failed around the same time, and joint stock organisations — whereby a company's capital comes from shareholders — were discredited and eventually banned under the so-called "Bubble Act". In 1808 the Act was used controversially against a businessman named Dodd. He had published a couple of prospectuses hoping to raise £50,000 by issuing shares but Lord Ellenborough, the Lord Chief Justice, ruled that such a scheme was unlawful. He said he hoped others would not engage in similar “mischievous and illegal projects”. In other words, commercial activity in 1808 was restricted to unincorporated partnerships, under which each partner is liable for all the business. Companies as we know them did not really become popular until the Companies Act 1844.
R
v Burdett
November 28, 1820
The defendant, Sir Francis Burdett, was charged with seditious libel after he wrote a letter containing strong expressions about the conduct of the Government in dispersing the "mutiny" at St Peter’s Fields in Manchester on August 16, 1819. The letter claimed that unarmed men and women had been “inhumanly cut down, maimed and killed by the King’s Troops”. On the direction of Mr Justice Best that the letter was a poisonous libel, the defendant was found guilty, fined £2,000 and sentenced to three month’s imprisonment. It was upheld on appeal.
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
05/2005
£13,500
08/2008
£109,950
2006
£10,750
Great car insurance deals online
£Excellent+ executive benefits
Torres and Partners
London
£49,229 - £62,035 pro rata
Charity Commission
London/Liverpool/Taunton
Alstom Power
Europe
Six Figure
Rolls Royce
Midlands/Europe
From £89,950
Great Investment, River Views
Special Offers now available
At the new sophisticated
Encore Las Vegas Resort!
Cruise the Islands of Hawaii - Pride of America
List your property with two leading travel websites
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths
News International associated websites: Globrix | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
I miss Tweddle v Atkinson, which made contracts for the benefit of a third party impossible until 1999.
Milan Sulc, 1580 Oleyres, Switzerland
What? No Mabo v Queensland (No 1)? I don't like the vibe of this article.
OK, I acknowledge that it did not change Britain itself but it does have a strong connection with the practices of the ex-colonial power.
Krishan, Sydney, Australia
Read the relevant period - Donoghue v Stevenson is included.
Mike, Hertfordshire, England
I very much agree that Donoghue v Stevenson should have been included amongst the list....
Chloe, Lincoln, England
I always find Finnegan v. Braithwaite most instructive in matters ecclesiastical. It covers so much that pertains to Consistatory courts and the working of the diocese that I am baffled by its exclusion from your list.
Father Ignatius Brown, London, England
Erm... I studied law and have an LLB and an LLM but Foss v Harbottle was the only case in your list that I had ever heard of! Clearly the University of London didnt attach too much importance to the rest of them. To be fair, as James pointed out, they are not significant in terms of precedent alone.
Annie, Worcestershire, UK
What about the classic Donahue vs. Stevenson. It fullfills all three of the criteria as far as I am concerned.
Mark Vickery, Sittingbourne, England
This is the greatest story EVER!! I have worked for a very long time in insurance and law in the US, and I am thoroughly enjoying both your selections and the chance to link to the actual stories! Fantastic! Thank you SO much!
Eliza, New London, PA, USA
According to highly persuasive sources, 6200 men were killed working on the railways b/w 1841-1875. After 1871, when returns of 'mere' injuries became required this showed a ratio of 1:3. Therefore apparently up to 18500 men were serioulsy injured as well. That is 24700 or 726 per annum..
Alistairs Solicitors, Bristol, UK
Actually though, Priestley v Fowler was little recognisedat the time, for until 1848 it was not seen by the British Bar as authoritative. Armsowrth v Sotu hEatern Railway proves the point, this case itself one of the first under Lord Campbell's Act of 1846 that allowed family-fatal accident claims
Alistairs Solicitors, Bristol, UK
The naysayers who wish to contest Professor Slapper's collection should read once again his writ: to select the "important, influential and colourful cases". In toto, "colourful" simply adds in weight to any selection.
Bob Evans, Anaheim, California
Very interesting collection of authorities although I would have thought that Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Exch 265 would have been worth a mention.
Jim Riley, Perth, Australia
It is slightly misleading to describe the rule in Foss v Harbottle as above without adverting to the exceptions, especially fraud on a minority. The exceptions are as important as the rule.
Toby, Sydney,
An interesting collection, but not one worthy of its title: it includes cases illustrative of the times, but of no precedential value, but omits fundamentally important cases such as Tulk v. Moxhay, a canocial decision in the law of land, and the reason why Leicester Square still exists.
James E. Petts, Burnham, England
All very interesting, but the case notes are far too short to get a flavour of what happened and what the legal principles that were involved and how things would be different today if presented with the same or similar facts.
Dale, Sydney, Australia