Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Federation, Fare Dodging and False Imprisonment - Mr Robertson's Evening Out||Contributor(s):||Lunney, Mark (author)||Publication Date:||2007||Handle Link:||https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/2226||Abstract:||The decision of the 'Privy Council in the case of Robinson v The Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd' remains a part of many tort courses, and tort textbooks, in common law countries. I am as guilty of this as the many others to whom I refer. Yet the reason for including it tends to be to dismiss it as an aberration to a general rule, a case that is non-representative rather than paradigmatic. Whilst for doctrinal explanatory purposes this is a perfectly satisfactory way of dealing with the case, it is an interesting question to consider why the case did not set any kind of general principle – why the dog did not bark rather than why it did.||Publication Type:||Conference Publication||Conference Name:||The 18th British Legal History Conference: Judges and Judging, Oxford, UK, 2-5 July 2007||Source of Publication:||Proceedings of the 18th British Legal History Conference: Judges and Judging||Place of Publication:||Oxford, UK||Field of Research (FOR):||220204 History and Philosophy of Law and Justice||HERDC Category Description:||E2 Non-Refereed Scholarly Conference Publication||Other Links:||http://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/18blhc/home.php||Statistics to Oct 2018:||Visitors: 192
|Appears in Collections:||Conference Publication|
School of Law
Files in This Item:
checked on Mar 9, 2019
Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.