Court Filter

Apply Filter
Judge Filter
Filter by Judge (Beta)
Judge Name
Other Filters
To
2021 Onwards13
From 2011 To 202025
From 2001 To 201035
From 1991 To 20004
From 1981 To 19902
From 1971 To 19803
From 1961 To 19704
From 1951 To 19600
Before 195016

Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for.

...ex abundanti cautela is supported, if somewhat tenuously, by a decision of the Privy Council (see Standard Portland Cement Co Pty Ltd v Good...Kevern v Ayres [2014] EWHC 165 at [15].    [Back] Note 10 ...Cement was an Australian appeal to the Privy Council.    [Back] Note 11   Other perhaps than to render academic, and thus head off, an appeal against the decision on construction (though this could not obtain in the Standard ...

...Cyclists should always wear properly fitted protective helmets", and made no reference to moped riders. In Hilder v. Associated Portland Cement Co. ((1961) 1 Weekly Law...

...abundanti cautela: see Standard Portland Cement Co Pty Ltd v Good [1982] 57 ALJR 151 and...the High Court and simultaneously in the tax tribunal, an arrangement which I understand to be possible by suitable liaison and co-operation in listing. It would however require a notice of...

.... Thomson & Co., December 13, 1901, 8 S.L.T. No. 313; Tolhurst v. Associated Portland Cement Co. (1901), 2 Q.B. 811. The English cases referred to by the other side...personœ was not assignable without Duchêne's consent— Ross v. Macfarlane, June 19, 1894, 21 R. 396, 31 S.L.R. 305; Tinnevelley Sugar Refining Co. v.... Mirrlees, Watson and Yaryan Co., July 17, 1894, 21 R. 1009, 31 S.L.R. 823; Grierson, Oldham, & Co. v. Forbes, Maxwell, & Co., June 27, 1895...

.... In the Rugby Cement case (Rugby Portland Cement Co. v. L. & N .-W . Railway Co., [1908] 2 K .B . 606), a case very like the present, the contention which was sustained by... P a r t V I.] T h e G le n b o i g U n io n F i r e c l a y C o ., L t d . v . 427 T h e Co m m is s io n e r s o f I n l a n d R e v e n u e . N o . 32* .— C o u r t o...annexed hereto and forms part of this Case.P a b 't V I.] T h e Co m m is s io n e r s o f I n l a n d R e v e n u e . 4 2 9 3. Since 1882 the Company has carried on business as manu­...

...to limit his argument. Whilst I would not myself read Bevan v The London Portland Cement Co Ltd (1892) 67 LT (NS) 615 as authority, as Mr Wonnacott argued...Fairweather v St Marylebone Property Co Ltd [1963] AC 510 at 536, 544. 77. Secondly, there can...behind it any cloud on the title of the rightful owner" see Agency Co Ltd v Short (1888) 13 App Cas 793 JCPC 798-799. Mr Wonnacott also draws attention to...

...(Bevan v London Portland Cement Co Ltd (1892) 67 LT 615 or horizontal part of a building such as a flat (Ramroop...Wharf (the present "open space"). The remainder of what was already called Downing's Wharf was occupied by J Crisp & Co, shipwrights, and the plan recorded a slipway immediately to the west of the...moorings are known to exist and ownership is claimed by the Tower Bridge Yacht and Boat Co Ltd, whose director is Mr Nicholas Lacy. The company has craft berthed at some of these moorings, including...

...and together with Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co. v. M'Ferrin1926 A.C. 377 and Harris v. Associated Portland Cement Manu-facturers Ld. 1939 A.C. 71 which deals with the...Portland Cement Manufacturers, Ltd. (1939,A.C. 71, at pp. 78 and 79). I venture to add a comment on the proposition that in answeringthe question whether Sub-section (2) applies, the.... Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers,Ltd., 1939 A.C. 71. It is enough here to say that Clarke's case waswrongly decided. Indeed the contrary is unarguable. Judgment inthe present case...

...difficulty may be illustrated by comparing South Eastern Railway Co. v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) Ltd. with Sharpe v. Durrant....grant of an immediate right requiring works in the future to allow the work to be exercised see S E Railway Co v Association Cement...Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) Ltd and Sharpe v...

...it would happen on that particular day than it was "in the stars" that the delayed vessel in Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900)Ltd v Houlder Brothers & Co Ltd...261. The case note by the co-author of the seminal treatise on causation is particularly interesting. Professor Honoré said, at p 8: In my view Professor Honoré was right to...Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B) [1949] AC 196 and...

...in danger of being frozen in, unless she sailed promptly. On the other hand, in Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900), Limited v. Houlder Brothers & Co., where...Europa and Kish v. Charles Taylor, Sons & Co. Undoubtedly deviation necessarily made to remedy...case was not like Smith, Hogg & Co. v. Black Sea and Baltic General...

...inferences from the perspective of the pursuer's case but it should draw such inferences: Ross v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers 1964 1 WLR 768 and O'Donnell v Murdoch McKenzie & Co Ltd...assessed the roof from a ground level and identified it as being constructed from corrugated asbestos-cement panels. Mr McIntyre considered that the roof should not be walked on during the course of the...

..., and taking into account where necessary the guidance in Ross v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers and O'Donnell v Murdoch McKenzie & Co., cit. sup...Cement Manufacturers [1964] 1 W.L.R. 768, at pages 775, 784-5, and 788; and O'Donnell v Murdoch McKenzie & Co, 1967 S.C...second defender nor his accident expert Dr Lambourn had given evidence, the court should wherever possible draw inferences favourable to the pursuer. Reference was made to Ross v Associated Portland...

...cited Ross v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers [1964] 1 WLR 768 and O'Donnell v. Murdoch M'Kenzie & Co 1967...co-operate over many governmental matters does not on its own establish that the two bodies would share information about someone in the position of the appellant. We find it surprising that Dr...

..., the defender choses to lead no evidence, only the most favourable inferences should be drawn from the pursuers’ evidence:  Ross v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturing Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 768, O’Donnell v Murdoch McKenzie & Co Ltd...

...Shipping Co. Ltd. (The Georgios C) [1971] 1 Ll.R. 7 and Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd. v. Teigland Shipping A/S...Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Dominion Coal Co. Ltd. [1926] AC 108, Empresa Cubana de Fletes v. Lagonisi...granted injunctive relief amounting juristically to specific performance: see e.g. Hill v. C. A. Parsons & Co. Ltd. [1972] Ch. 305 (CA...

.... 205; Strick v. Regent Oil Co. L td . 43 T.C. 1; [1966] A .C. E 295; Associated Portland Cement M anufacturers L td . v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue...& Son Ltd. 25 T.C. 353; [1943] K.B. 671; Coltness Iron Co. v. Black (1881) 1 T.C. 287; 6 App. Cas. 315; Jones v...Coal Co. Ltd. v. Francis 7 T.C. 1; 1913 S.C. 602; Littlew oods M ail F Order Stores Ltd. v. McGregor page 519 pose, [1968] 1 W .L.R. 1820; D...

...Edition, Section 1459, Tolhurst v. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers, [1903] A.C. 414, and Scottish Australian Mining Co. v. The New Red­ head Estate...W .France, Fenwick and Co., L td .), [1918] 1 K .B . 143; Williamson Film Printing Co. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, [1918] 2 K.B. 720; and...and Coal Co., L td ., decided in the Privy Council, (1919) 89 L .J .P .C .. But no question is raised as to the transferability of the rights under said contracts in this case. But such rights are not...

...cited Ross v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers [1964] 1 WLR 768 and O'Donnell v. Murdoch M'Kenzie & Co 1967...adverse interest from the authorities in Baghdad far-fetched. The fact that the KRG have 10,000 soldiers in Baghdad and that the KRG authorities and those in control in Baghdad co-operate over many...

...is not a recurring paym ent and m ust be treated as a capital outlay. [Reference was made to Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd. v. Commissioners o f Inland R evenue^); Pyrah v. Annis & ...Atherton v. British Insulated and Helsby Cables, L td ., 10 T.C. 155; United S teel Companies, L td . v. Cullington, 23 T .C . 71; and Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers...) v. Regent Oil Co. Ltd.)1) D Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Regent Oil Co. Ltd. E Income tax, Schedule D— Profits tax— Deduction— Oil dealing company— Exclusivity agreement with...