Case name | Citation | Subject |
Cunningham v. Homma (British Columbia, Canada) |
[1903] A.C. 151 |
Law preventing Japanese vote found valid; overridden by the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 |
Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General of Canada (Reference Appeal) (Ontario, Canada) |
[1912] A.C. 571 |
|
Royal Bank of Canada v. The King (Canada) |
[1913] A.C. 283 |
|
Canada v. Alberta[2] (Canada) |
[1922] A.C. 191 |
Emergency doctrine of Constitution of Canada |
Fort Frances Pulp and Paper v. Manitoba Free Press (Canada) |
(1923) |
|
Brooks-Bidlake and Whittall Limited v. Attorney-General for British Columbia (Canada) |
[1923] A.C. 450 (P.C.) |
|
Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider (Ontario, Canada) |
[1925] A.C. 396 |
|
Nadan v The King (Canada) |
[1926] A.C. 482(PC) |
Removal of Canadian appeal to the JCPC held unconstitutional |
1926 – criminal appeals from Canada permitted |
Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) (Canada) |
[1930] A.C. 124 |
Women's right to sit in the Senate |
Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General of Canada (Canada) |
[1931] A.C. 310 (P.C.) |
|
In re Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada[3] (Canada) |
[1932] A.C. 54 |
|
In re Regulation and Control of Radio Communication in Canada[4] (Canada) |
[1932] A.C. 304 |
|
1933 – no more criminal appeals from Canada |
British Coal Corporation v. the King (Canada) |
[1935] A.C. 500 |
Upheld authority of Canadian Parliament to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in criminal cases. |
Attorney-General of Canada v. Attorney-General of Ontario (Labour Conventions) (Ontario, Canada) |
[1937] A.C. 326 |
|
Sifton v. Sifton |
[1938] A.C. 656 |
Certainty of conditions in a devise |
Vita Food Products Inc. v. Unus Shipping Co. Ltd. (Nova Scotia, Canada) |
[1939] A.C. 277 |
An express choice of law clause in a contract should be honoured as long as the agreement was bona fide and not against public policy. |
Francis, Day & Hunter Ltd. v. Twentieth Century Fox Corp. |
[1939] 4 D.L.R. 353 |
Copyright in titles |
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada Temperance Federation (Ontario, Canada) |
(1946) |
Examined the peace, order, and good government power of the Constitution Act, 1867 |
1949 – no more civil appeals from Canada |
Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor |
[1956] 1 WLR 965 |
Hearsay exception |
Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound No. 1) (Australia) |
[1961] A.C. 388 |
Leading authority on remoteness of damage in negligence. |
Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship Co. (The Wagon Mound No. 2) (Australia) |
[1967] A.C. 617 |
Defined remoteness of damages in a nuisance tort action |
Goldman v Hargrave |
[1967] 1 A.C. 645 |
|
The Eurymedon (New Zealand) |
[1975] A.C. 154 |
Conditions of when a third party may seek protection of an exclusion clause in a contract between two parties. |
Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long (Hong Kong) |
[1980] A.C. 614 |
|
Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor (Singapore) |
[1980] UKPC 32, [1981] A.C. 648, [1981] 1 M.L.J. [Malayan Law Journal] 64, [1979–1980] S.L.R.(R.) [Singapore Law Reports (Reissue)] 710 |
Constitutionality of provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (No. 5 of 1973) creating a rebuttable presumption of drug trafficking and imposing the mandatory death penalty for certain drug trafficking offences. |
Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v. Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd |
[1980] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 851 (JCPC) |
|
1989 – appeals from Singapore restricted |
Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung (Hong Kong) |
[1990] UKPC 9 |
1994 – no more appeals from Singapore |