In the case of Balfour v. Balfour (1919), a defendant went to England with his wife (plaintiff) on holiday. However, under the doctor’s advice his wife stayed in England for medical treatment. He promised to send her £30 every month until she could return since his wife unable goes back with him. Unfortunately, he asked for a separation and breaks a promise to send money. Therefore, his wife tried to sue him for restitution of conjugal rights and alimony amount that she deserved. Yet, the defendant appealed is successful. This was because the court held that due to a domestic agreement and purely social will not create any legal relation, thus, it would be assumed the husband did not have the intention to be bound by this agreement.
Merritt v. Merritt (1970) was one of the cases which similar to the Balfour v. Balfour. In this case, a wife was succeeded claim from the husband. …show more content…
It was not allowed refer to the Hansard stating which the rule held by the appeal of court. In Pepper v Hart (1993), one of the cases which occur was the House of Lords exercise its discretion was overruled the previous decision. This case involved the teacher at a public school to pay tax who received the benefits regard to their children will decrease the education fees from the school. In addition, the Finance Act 1976 outlined that the perk can be considered as a taxable benefit, actually the teacher do not need to pay the tax. However, due to the previous decision of Davis v Johnson, that Hansard was not allowed to refer make for the teacher is obligated to pay the tax. Since the Davis v Johnson case was overruled because it could not consider as a good law for reference, the House of Lords concluded that Hansard is allowed for referred, thus, the teacher would not need to pay the
Merritt v. Merritt (1970) was one of the cases which similar to the Balfour v. Balfour. In this case, a wife was succeeded claim from the husband. …show more content…
It was not allowed refer to the Hansard stating which the rule held by the appeal of court. In Pepper v Hart (1993), one of the cases which occur was the House of Lords exercise its discretion was overruled the previous decision. This case involved the teacher at a public school to pay tax who received the benefits regard to their children will decrease the education fees from the school. In addition, the Finance Act 1976 outlined that the perk can be considered as a taxable benefit, actually the teacher do not need to pay the tax. However, due to the previous decision of Davis v Johnson, that Hansard was not allowed to refer make for the teacher is obligated to pay the tax. Since the Davis v Johnson case was overruled because it could not consider as a good law for reference, the House of Lords concluded that Hansard is allowed for referred, thus, the teacher would not need to pay the