LW-ENG revision lab
ACCA LW-ENG Case Law: Interactive Revision Lab
Search 37 high-yield English cases, reveal their fact triggers and principles, then practise with quick tests and a case-matching lab for ACCA LW-ENG.
Updated for the 2026–27 LW-ENG syllabus
Cases are memory anchors—not decorations
Learn the rule, recognise the fact trigger and predict the legal result. This lab concentrates on 37 high-yield English cases that help you apply the current syllabus; it does not pretend that case law replaces legislation, procedure or the rest of your LW study.
Whiteley v Chappell (1868)
Principle: Under the literal rule, ordinary statutory words are applied even where the result appears absurd.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]
Principle: A sufficiently clear advertisement may be a unilateral offer to the world, accepted by performing its conditions.
Hyde v Wrench (1840)
Principle: A counter-offer rejects and destroys the original offer; it cannot later be accepted unless renewed.
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880)
Principle: Revocation of an offer is effective only when it is communicated to the offeree.
Felthouse v Bindley (1862)
Principle: The offeror cannot impose acceptance through silence; acceptance must be communicated or objectively shown by conduct.
Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879)
Principle: Where the postal rule applies, acceptance is complete on proper posting even if the letter is delayed or lost.
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd [1960]
Principle: Consideration must be sufficient in law but need not be economically adequate.
Stilk v Myrick (1809)
Principle: Merely performing an existing contractual duty is normally not fresh consideration for an extra promise.
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991]
Principle: A practical benefit from promised performance may amount to consideration for extra payment, provided there is no economic duress or fraud.
Foakes v Beer (1884)
Principle: Part-payment of an existing debt on the due date is not, by itself, consideration for a promise to discharge the whole debt.
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]
Principle: Promissory estoppel may prevent a party insisting on strict rights where a clear promise was relied on and it would be inequitable to withdraw it.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915]
Principle: At common law, only a party to a contract can enforce it, and consideration must move from the promisee.
Balfour v Balfour [1919]
Principle: Ordinary domestic arrangements are presumed not to be intended to create legal relations.
Merritt v Merritt [1970]
Principle: An agreement between separated spouses may be legally binding where the circumstances and written terms show objective intention.
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949]
Principle: A term must be incorporated before or when the contract is formed; a later notice is too late.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971]
Principle: Unusual or onerous terms require especially clear notice, and a machine contract is normally formed when the customer pays and receives the ticket.
L’Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934]
Principle: A person who signs a contractual document is generally bound by its terms even if they did not read them, absent a vitiating factor.
Hadley v Baxendale (1854)
Principle: Contract damages cover loss arising naturally in the ordinary course or special loss within both parties’ contemplation when contracting.
Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973]
Principle: Damages may include disappointment and loss of enjoyment where pleasure or relaxation was an important object of the contract.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
Principle: A person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure those closely and directly affected—the neighbour principle.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]
Principle: A novel duty of care depends on foreseeable harm, sufficient proximity, and whether imposing a duty is fair, just and reasonable.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964]
Principle: A negligent statement causing pure economic loss may create liability where there is an assumption of responsibility and reasonable reliance, subject to an effective disclaimer.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]
Principle: The claimant must prove factual causation: but for the defendant’s breach, the harm would not have occurred.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961]
Principle: Negligence damages are limited to a reasonably foreseeable type of harm.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd [1947]
Principle: The right of control is important when identifying the employer; lending equipment and a worker does not readily transfer employment to the temporary user.
Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951]
Principle: Integration into an organisation can support employee status and organisational responsibility even where skilled work is not controlled minute by minute.
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897]
Principle: A properly incorporated company is a separate legal person from its members, with its own rights, liabilities and property.
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933]
Principle: A company used as a façade to evade an existing legal obligation may not shield the individual behind it.
Kelner v Baxter (1866)
Principle: A company cannot be bound by or ratify a contract made before it existed; the promoter may be personally liable, now reflected in Companies Act 2006 s51.
Eley v Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co Ltd (1876)
Principle: The articles operate as a statutory contract only in the capacity of member; an outsider cannot enforce a separate office merely because it appears in the articles.
Panorama Developments (Guildford) Ltd v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Ltd [1971]
Principle: A company secretary has apparent authority for contracts within the administrative functions normally associated with that office.
Bushell v Faith [1970]
Principle: Articles may attach weighted voting rights to a director’s shares on a resolution to remove that director, potentially defeating the ordinary resolution.
Dorchester Finance Co Ltd v Stebbing [1989]
Principle: Directors, including non-executive directors, must exercise proper care, skill and diligence; inactivity is not a defence.
Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942]
Principle: Directors must account for a profit obtained through their office or a corporate opportunity, even without fraud or proven loss to the company.
Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v Cooley [1972]
Principle: A director must not divert for personal benefit an opportunity learned of in the course of office and may have to account for the profit.
Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1974]
Principle: Directors must exercise a power for its proper purpose; a share issue primarily intended to alter voting control is improper.
Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973]
Principle: A court may wind up a quasi-partnership company on the just and equitable ground where equitable understandings underlying participation have broken down.
Retrieval practice
Quick test
Choose before revealing the explanation. A wrong answer is useful if you inspect why it was wrong.
Connection practice
Match four cases to four principles
Select one card on each side. The round deliberately mixes syllabus areas.
Cases
Principles
Current exam application
How case knowledge helps in LW-ENG
The two-hour computer-based exam is entirely compulsory: Section A contains 45 objective-test questions for 70 marks, and Section B contains five six-mark multi-task questions for 30 marks. You are not writing a case-law essay. You are using authority to recognise a rule and apply it accurately to short scenarios.
Spot the trigger
“Acceptance posted”, “notice inside the room”, “company not yet formed” and “director took the opportunity” should each call up a legal rule.
State the rule precisely
Do not stop at a case name. Recall the qualification: when the postal rule applies, what makes notice sufficient, or which capacity the articles protect.
Apply every fact
Change one fact and the result may change. Work through timing, knowledge, purpose, authority and statutory exceptions before selecting an answer.
Cover the whole syllabus
Cases help most in obligations and company law. Capital, insolvency and corporate criminal behaviour also demand legislation and rules—never case-spot the exam.