The list is dominated by famous cases (for example, the trials of Oscar Wilde); gruesome criminal cases (including R v Dudley and Stephens, about shipwrecked sailors who ate a cabin boy and unsuccessfully argued a defence of necessity); and the downright odd (the case of Sir Roger Casement, who was reputedly "hanged by a comma", when it was found that the inclusion of the punctuation mark in a section of the Treason Act 1351 meant that his treasonable acts committed abroad were covered).

Some of the employment-related cases included are listed below, together with the (approximate) modern equivalent from XpertHR [subscription required to access our individual case reports].

Ormond v Payne (1789)
This is a classic case of a master being held responsible for a servant's actions within the course of employment. The Prince of Wales's coachman, "in liquor" and "rather behind his time", was speeding down Piccadilly on a horse and carriage and hit a butcher's cart, breaking the butcher's leg. The court found that the Prince of Wales was liable to compensate the butcher for his injuries, which had resulted from the negligent actions of his servant.
Modern equivalent on XpertHR: Smith v Stages and Darlington Insulation Co Ltd [1989] IRLR 177 HL

Priestly v Fowler (1837)
A butcher's employee suffered broken bones in a fall as a result of the negligence of a fellow employee. The court allowed the employer a defence of "common employment", whereby an employer could not be vicariously liable for an employee's negligence in causing injury to a co-worker. A strong line of defences for employers followed, including the dubious "assumption of the risk" principle, which allowed employers a defence on the basis that, by accepting a job, employees were implicitly agreeing to any risks involved.
Modern equivalent on XpertHR: Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] IRLR 695 HL

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)
Over half of a ship's compliment of 36 deserted. In order to complete the voyage, the master promised to give the remaining crew members an additional payment if they stayed on. When they returned to port, the master refused to pay on the grounds that the crew had merely done their jobs. A court found that the original contract did not require them to proceed with a journey that had become dangerous because of the diminished number of hands. The master's verbal promise constituted a new contract to pay them the extra amount and the crew had done its part by completing the dangerous voyage.
Modern equivalent on XpertHR: Judge v Crown Leisure Ltd [2004] All ER (D) 293 (Nov) EAT

Warner Bros Pictures Inc v Nelson (1936)
The Nelson in question is Bette Davis, born Bette Nelson, who had some titanic struggles with Jack Warner of Warner Bros studios over her contract of employment. When Davis started out with Warner Bros, she had a signed a contract agreeing that she wouldn't seek work with another studio without its written consent. After she became famous, she was frequently disillusioned with the poor quality of parts that she was given and was suspended for refusing to take them. Her case came before the UK courts when she went to Europe seeking work from other studios. The High Court granted the studio an injunction for three years or until the contract ended, whichever was the shorter period.
Modern equivalent on XpertHR: Thomas v Farr plc and another [2007] IRLR 419 CA

Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company (1944)
This case originated as an industrial injuries claim. But the judgment is important because it explains the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal can go against one of its earlier decisions. The Court of Appeal held that it could overrule itself by: choosing between two conflicting decisions of its own; rejecting a decision of its own that is inconsistent with a decision of the House of Lords; and refusing to follow a decision of its own that was given in error. Appeal courts do sometimes overrule their own earlier decisions, as the EAT did recently in Walton.
Modern equivalent on XpertHR: Walton Centre for Neurology & Neuro Surgery NHS Trust v Bewley EAT/0564/07

Eastham v Newcastle United Football Club Ltd (1963)
In 1956, George Eastham signed for Newcastle United on a rolling one-year contract. In 1959, he refused to re-sign and requested a transfer to Arsenal. The Football Association's draconian "retain and transfer" system allowed the club to prevent him from moving. The rules allowed clubs to retain players as long as they were offered terms that were "reasonable", effectively tying a player to one club until it agreed to release him. A court found that the rules were an unlawful restraint of trade. Eastham's battle and the abolition of the maximum wage around the same time changed the face of English football.
Modern equivalent on XpertHR: Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Sweeney [2004] IRLR 49 EAT

Read The cases that changed Britain on The Times website.