Weinberger v Inglis and Others: HL 1919

A member of enemy birth was excluded from the Stock Exchange, and it was held that the Committee had heard him before acting.
Held: The power to admit persons to membership was held to be both an administrative power and a fiduciary power. The Committee had been entitled so to decide. The exercise of the power to refuse re-election did not depend on a finding that the plaintiff had committed any misconduct, indeed, none was suggested.
Lord Birkenhead LC said : ‘If I took the view that the appellant was condemned upon grounds never brought to his notice, I should not assent to the legality of this course, unless compelled by authority’ He said this although the rule under which the Committee acted was in the widest possible terms – that the Committee should each year re-elect such members as they should deem eligible as members of the Stock Exchange.
Lord Birkenhead LC s
[1919] AC 606
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal FromWeinberger v Inglis ChD 1918
The plaintiff (who had been born in Germany) applied to become a member of the London Stock Exchange. The committee of the Stock Exchange, in the exercise of their discretion, refused the application. The plaintiff brought proceedings challenging . .

Cited by:
CitedRidge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.653100