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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 . .
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 . .
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’ . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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
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 . .
The power in the section embraced the grant of an injunction ‘in any case where it would be right or just to do so’. . .
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 . .
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 . .