regard to the actual conditions under which men work in a factory or mine, at the long hours and the fatigue, to the slackening of attention which naturally comes from constant repetition of the same operation, to the noise and confusion in which the man works, to his preoccupation in what he is actually doing at the cost perhaps of some inattention to his own safety. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 With v O'Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 Attorney-General for Canada v Attorney-General for Ontario (1937), where a panel chaired by Lord Atkin struck down the Canadian New Deal, including the federal social security system and the minimum wage, as he later admitted, Wright dissented. (At that time dissents could not be recorded publicly.) Canada then abandoned appeals to London. Spense v Crawford (1939) Lowry v Consolidated African Selection Trust Ltd [1940] AC 648, directors' duty to get best price for shares Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 Luxor (Eastborne) Ltd v Cooper (1940) ‘the duty of the court is to construe such documents fairly and broadly, without being too astute or subtle in finding defects’ Liversidge v Anderson (1941), while Atkin dissented over the suspension of habeas corpus. Joseph Constantine SS Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp (1941) Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co v Veitch [1942] AC 435, a famous statement that workers have the right to strike in support of their interests and to engage in collective bargaining. Muir v. Glasgow Corporation, in which he helped clarify the principle of negligence by saying that a duty of care was only breached if somebody did something which was "obviously and inherently dangerous": as the case revolved around a tea-urn, he made the amusing remark that "to introduce a savage animal such as a lion or tiger would be obviously and inherently dangerous, but not a tea-urn" Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32, 61, recognising the basis of unjust enrichment. "It is clear that any civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is to prevent a man from retaining the money of or some benefit derived from another which it is against conscience that he should keep." Joyce v DPP [1946] AC 347, the appeal of William Joyce, aka Lord Haw-Haw, against his