Acts
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Search Results for: Judicature Act 1873
Regina v Visitors to the Inns of Court ex parte Calder: CA 1993
Two barristers had been struck off for disciplinary offences. Their appeals were heard by three High Court judges sitting as Visitors, who dismissed the appeals. The barristers now sought judicial review of that decision. Held: Justices sitting as visitors were not sitting as judges as such, but in a domestic forum, and their decisions were … Continue reading Regina v Visitors to the Inns of Court ex parte Calder: CA 1993
Burchell v Thompson: CA 1920
A printed form of bill of sale set out that in consideration of andpound;250 being ‘now paid by the grantees to’ and then identifying a third person ‘at the request of the grantor’ chattels were assigned by way of security for the repayment of the loan with interest at andpound;55 per cent per annum. The … Continue reading Burchell v Thompson: CA 1920
Fairclough v Marshall: CA 1878
The plaintiff owned land charged by a previous owner who had rented it subject to the defendant’s predecessor subject to a covenant not to use it as an beerhouse. The defendant now used it as a beerhouse, and said that since the plaintiff had mortgaged his interest he had no right to enforce the covenant. … Continue reading Fairclough v Marshall: CA 1878
S v McC; W v W: HL 1972
The distinction between the court’s ‘custodial’ and ‘protective’ jurisdictions was recognised. The case concerned the ordering of blood tests with a view to determining the paternity of a child involved in divorce proceedings. This was not a matter of upbringing in which the child’s interests (which might well be prejudiced by a finding that he … Continue reading S v McC; W v W: HL 1972
The Fore Street Warehouse Company Ltd v Durrant and Co: 1883
A writ had been served on the lunatic defendant’s business manager. The Court Rules provided: ‘When a lunatic or person of unsound mind not so found by inquisition is a defendant to the action, service on the committee of the lunatic, or on the person with whom the person of unsound mind resides or under … Continue reading The Fore Street Warehouse Company Ltd v Durrant and Co: 1883
Harrison v Tew: HL 1990
The court considered whether a court could order an assessment of a solicitor’s bill of costs more than 12 months after it had been paid. It was argued that the Court has no power to order taxation under section 70(4) outside the statutory period of 12 months after the bill has been paid, and the … Continue reading Harrison v Tew: HL 1990
Matthews v Usher: CA 1900
Section 25(5) of the 1873 Act did not give to a mortgagor any power of re-entry or right of forfeiture which he did not have before the Act. Romer LJ described the mortgagor’s position before the 1873 Act: ‘He had certain equitable rights and certain restricted legal rights. As an example of the former, he … Continue reading Matthews v Usher: CA 1900
Fourie v Le Roux and others: HL 24 Jan 2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for want of jurisdiction, because it had not been ancillary to any proceedings which had even been formulated … Continue reading Fourie v Le Roux and others: HL 24 Jan 2007
AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co Solicitors: SC 5 Nov 2014
Bank not to recover more than its losses The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to be secured by … Continue reading AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co Solicitors: SC 5 Nov 2014
Flower v Lloyd: CA 11 Jun 1877
The plaintiffs tried to restrain the defendant from infringing their patent. They succeeded at first instance but the order was overturned on appeal. An expert went to inspect the process at the defendant’s works. Later, employees gave affidavits suggesting that, on that visit, the defendant had fraudulently concealed a part of the process. The plaintiffs … Continue reading Flower v Lloyd: CA 11 Jun 1877
Friern Barnet UDC v Adams: CA 1927
The plaintiff sought the cost of certain streetworks from the relevant frontagers. They did not know their names and issued a writ against ‘the owners of’ certain land clearly identified by name. It was pointed out that only owners of that land at the date of the completion of the works could be liable. In … Continue reading Friern Barnet UDC v Adams: CA 1927
Boyer v Warbey: CA 1953
The tenant had vacated without notice, whereas he was bound to give three months’ notice. The landlord did re-let, and sued for the rent due up to the date of the re-letting (some three months) which the tenant resisted, claiming that the landlord should have re-let more quickly. Held: Denning LJ said: ‘He [the tenant] … Continue reading Boyer v Warbey: CA 1953
Cox v Hakes: HL 5 Aug 1890
No Appeal from Order granting Habeas Corpus Where a person has been discharged from custody by an order of the High Court under a habeas corpus the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. So held by Lord Halsbury L.C. and Lords Watson, Bramwell, Herschell, and Macnaghten, Lords Morris and Field dissenting. … Continue reading Cox v Hakes: HL 5 Aug 1890
Performing Right Society Limited v London Theatre of Varieties Limited: HL 1924
The parties, the plaintiff who was the equitable assignee of performing rights and the infringing defendant, joined specific issue on the absence of the legal owner of the rights. Held: His absence was critical. PRS failed to obtain a perpetual injunction against music hall proprietors to prevent unlicensed public performances of ‘the Devonshire Wedding’ and … Continue reading Performing Right Society Limited v London Theatre of Varieties Limited: HL 1924
Torkington v Magee: 11 Jul 1902
Chose in Action defined The effect of the 1873 Act was essentially procedural and it did not render choses in action that had not previously been assignable in equity capable of assignment. Channell J defined a debt or other legal chose in action: ”Chose in Action’ is a known legal expression used to describe all … Continue reading Torkington v Magee: 11 Jul 1902
Federal Commerce Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc; (The “Nanfri”): CA 1978
The court considered whether claim as against a shipowner could be set off against sums due under a time charter hire.
Held: Save for any contractual provision to the contrary a tenant is entitled to deduct from the rent payable, so as to . .
Provincial Cinematograph Theatres Ltd v Newcastle upon Tyne Profiteering Committee: HL 1921
Under Section 1 of the Profiteering Act 1919, the Board of Trade had power to receive and investigate complaints of excessive profiteering. Section 2 of the Act gave a power to establish local committees to make such reports with a view to . .
Ex parte Pulbrook: QBD 11 Mar 1892
A judge in chambers gave permission pursuant to the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 to bring proceedings for criminal libel. The proposed defendant sought to appeal. This raised the question whether the order was made in ‘criminal proceedings’ . .
Lowsley and Another v Forbes: CA 21 Mar 1996
The statutory time limit under the Limitation Act applied only to the right to take substantive proceedings and had nothing whatever to do with the procedural machinery for enforcing a judgment when one was obtained. The Act of 1875 brought about a fundamental change. The old absolute time bar on execution after 20 years, subsequently … Continue reading Lowsley and Another v Forbes: CA 21 Mar 1996
Beddow v Beddow: CA 1878
The power in the section embraced the grant of an injunction ‘in any case where it would be right or just to do so’. Judges: Sir George Jessel MR Citations: (1878) 9 ChD 89 Statutes: Judicature Act of 1873 25 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Applied – Rasu Maritima SA v Perusahaan (the Pertamina) … Continue reading Beddow v Beddow: CA 1878
Lowsley and Another v Forbes (Trading As I E Design Services): HL 29 Jul 1998
The plaintiffs, with the leave of the court, had obtained garnishee and charging orders nisi against the debtor 11 and a half years after they had obtained a consent judgment. Held: An application by the judgment debtor to set aside the orders on the ground that they were statute barred under section 24(1) should be … Continue reading Lowsley and Another v Forbes (Trading As I E Design Services): HL 29 Jul 1998
Turner v Walsh: CA 1909
The landlord sought to enforce the tenant’s repairing covenants. After the tenancy had been created, he had charged his interest. The tenant said that, since the lessor had conveyed his interest by way of mortgage, the right to sue lay exclusively with the mortgagee. Held: Section 10 of the 1881 Act conferred on a mortgagor, … Continue reading Turner v Walsh: CA 1909
North London Railway Co v The Great Northern Railway Co: CA 9 Jun 1883
The Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-S. 8, has given no power to the High Court to issue an injunction in a case in which no Court before that Act had power to give any remedy whatever. Therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction to restrain a party from proceeding with … Continue reading North London Railway Co v The Great Northern Railway Co: CA 9 Jun 1883
Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA: HL 1979
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed the company to have no other assets from which to meet the hoped-for damages award … Continue reading Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA: HL 1979
British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd: ChD 19 Dec 1978
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence at law to a claim for unpaid rent; and where the tenant has suffered damage by the breach rather than paid money to remedy it, an equitable … Continue reading British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd: ChD 19 Dec 1978
