Is [1996] A.C. 624 still good law?

This case has been given negative treatment in 1 later judgment(s) in this dataset (e.g. doubted or not followed), so its authority may be qualified — verify before relying on it.

How many times has [1996] A.C. 624 been cited?

[1996] A.C. 624 is cited by 2 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[1996] A.C. 624

· cited by 2 · influence score 12/100

Is it still good law? ⚠️ This case has negative treatment (1 citation(s): e.g. doubted / not followed / overruled). Check carefully before relying on it.

How to cite

[1996] A.C. 624

Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.

Treatment

Not followed · 1Cited · 1

Citation network

Cited by (2)

Not followed — URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited 2023-07-05
“…Similar views were expressed by Lord Lloyd in the Privy Council in Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1996] A.C. 624, another case, this time from New Zealand, of actual physical damage caused by negligent inspection. In New Zealand, the courts have not followed Murphy or Pir…”
Cited — URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited 2023-07-05
“…he great force of the reasoning of Deane J. Similar reasoning was expressed by the Privy Council in the New Zealand case of Invercargill City Council v. Hamlin [1996] A.C. 624, 646H–649A. But, as Hobhouse L.J. pointed out in Knapp (at page 397), New Zealand, and indeed Australia, have adopted different solutions to the potential inju…”

Frequently cited alongside

[1963] A.C. 758 1×
[1982] 1 W.L.R. 86 1×