Results: 27

  • Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd

    22 May 1946 [1946] KB 501, KBD

    01 Dec 1947 [1948] 1 KB 291, CA

    28 Feb 1949 [1949] AC 398, HL

    Subsequent considerations : 12 positive; 4 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 76.
    GAMINGBettingDog-racing track
  • Perera v Peiris

    13 Oct 1948 [1949] AC 1, PC

    Subsequent citations: 15.
    DEFAMATIONCeylonDefamation
  • Hill v William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd

    29 Jul 1949 [1949] AC 530, HL

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 7.
    GAMINGGaming and wageringBetting
  • Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan v John East Iron Works

    13 Oct 1948 [1949] AC 134, PC

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 5.
    EMPLOYMENTCanadaSaskatchewan
  • Tyne Improvement Comrs v Armement Anversois S/A (The Brabo)

    19 Jan 1949 [1949] AC 326, HL

    Subsequent considerations : 3 positive. Subsequent citations: 40.
    PRACTICEWritService out of jurisdiction
  • Inland Revenue Comrs v Reid’s Trustees

    20 Jan 1949 [1949] AC 361; [1949] 1 All ER 354; 30 TC 431, HL(Sc)

    Subsequent considerations : 3 positive; 1 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 5.
    REVENUEIncome taxCapital and income
  • Prudential Assurance Co Ld v Chatterley-Whitfield Collieries Ld

    06 May 1949 [1949] AC 512, HL

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    COMPANYReduction of CapitalColliery company
  • Mohanlal Hargovind Of Jubbulpore, Messrs v Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Provinces and Berar, Nagpur

    28 Jul 1949 [1949] AC 521, PC

    REVENUEIncome taxAllowance
  • Scottish Insurance Corpn Ltd v Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd

    06 May 1949 [1949] AC 462, HL

    Subsequent considerations : 3 positive; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 3.
    COMPANYReduction of CapitalImpending liquidation
  • Tankexpress A/S v Compagnie Financière Belge des Petroles SA

    09 Nov 1948 [1949] AC 76; [1948] 2 All ER 939, HL

    Subsequent considerations : 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 21.
    Nov. 9. LORD PORTER. My Lords, the case for the appellants can be put in the simplest possible terms. The charterparty, they say, requires payment on a specific date, which, in the events which happened, is the twenty-seventh of each month, with the right of withdrawal of the ship if payment is not made on that date: the respondents failed to pay on the due date, and consequently the ship was rightly with drawn. It matters not that the respondents carried out their part in the way usually adopted: their duty was to pay in London on the due date,

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies