THE LAW OF CONTRACT
Fourteenth Edition
THE LAW OF CONTRACT
Fourteenth Edition
EDWIN PEEL, B.C.L., M.A.
Professor of Law
Clarendon Harris Fellow in Law, Keble College, Oxford
Barrister, One Essex Court
First Edition 1962
Second Edition 1966
Third Edition 1970
Fourth Edition 1975
Fifth Edition 1979
Sixth Edition 1983
Seventh Edition 1987
Eighth Edition 1991
Ninth Edition 1995
Tenth Edition 1999
Eleventh Edition 2003
Twelfth Edition 2007
Reprinted 2010
Thirteenth Edition 2011
Fourteenth Edition 2015
Published in 2015 by Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited trading as Sweet & Maxwell, Friars
House, 160 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8EZ (Registered in England & Wales, Company No 1679046.
Registered Office and address for service: 2nd floor, 1 Mark Square, Leonard Street, London EC2A 4EG)
For further information on our products and services, visit www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk
Typeset by Letterpart Limited, Caterham on the Hill, Surrey, CR3 5XL.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
A CIP catalogue record of this book is available for the British Library.
Thomson Reuters and the Thomson Reuters logo are trademarks of Thomson Reuters.
Sweet & Maxwell ® is a registered trademark of Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited.
Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s
Printer for Scotland.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted in any form, or by any
means, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without prior written permission, except for
permitted fair dealing under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or in accordance with the terms
of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in respect of photocopying and/or reprographic
reproduction. Application for permission for other use of copyright material, including permission to
reproduce extracts in other published works, shall be made to the publishers. Full acknowledgement of the
author, publisher and source must be given.
© 2015 G.H. Treitel
Preface to the Fourteenth Edition
In the four years since the last edition the more significant changes in the law
have been the result of legislation rather than decisions of the courts. The most
significant of such developments have been the amendments made to the
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the passing of
the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, the
Insurance Act 2015 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
At the time of writing, neither of the two Acts of 2015 are yet in force. Most
of the changes to the law introduced by the Insurance Act 2015 will come into
force on 12 August 2016 and affect the duties of disclosure and liability for
misrepresentation of insureds. They are therefore anticipated in various parts of
Ch.9, which also includes the changes already made by the 2012 Act.
The timing of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 created a particular dilemma. It
only received royal assent a few weeks before this edition had to be submitted
for publication and it is understood that it will come into force in October 2015.
However, for several years at least, and certainly for the duration of this edition,
the courts are more likely to be required to consider contracts which were
entered into under the law as it currently stands. Given the extensive changes
introduced by the 2015 Act, in terms of where the law is to be found if not
always in terms of substance, it is covered by way of a separate chapter which
can be consulted if the 2015 Act is applicable. In other chapters, most notably
Ch.7, the current law is stated but the reader is alerted, where appropriate, to the
changes that will be introduced by the 2015 Act; so, for example, Ch.7 still
covers the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, but they will
be revoked and replaced by provisions in Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act
2015. Once the date upon which the 2015 Act is in force is known, it is hoped
that, by reference to the date when the contract in hand has been entered, it will
be possible for the reader to locate the applicable law.
The amendments made to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008 have resulted in civil remedies for consumers who have been
the victims of certain “prohibited practices”, including “misleading action” and
“aggressive practice”. These changes are reflected in Chs 9 and 10.
If the more significant developments have taken place in Parliament, this is
not to say that the courts have been quiet. In the last edition, Ch.6 took into
account the decision of the Court of Appeal on the limits of “purposive”
interpretation in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank and it now assesses the reversal
of that decision by the Supreme Court. It must be a source of some regret that
the defence of illegality should have been considered by the Supreme Court on
three occasions (Allen v Hounga; Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc;and
Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd) and yet it still was observed by Lord Neuberger, on
the last of these occasions, that “the proper approach to the defence of illegality
needs to be addressed by this court (certainly with a panel of seven and
conceivably with a panel of nine Justices) as soon as appropriately possible.”
The continued uncertainty in this “notoriously knotty territory” (Sir Robin Jacob
in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd) is reflected in Ch.11. In Geys v
Société Générale a majority of the Supreme Court endorsed the view long held
in this book that a contract, including a contract of employment, is not
automatically terminated by a repudiatory breach (see Ch.18) and in Benedetti v
Sawiris the Court provided welcome clarification on the valuation of services
provided pursuant to a “failed” contract (see Ch.22).
In the Court of Appeal, the decisions in Makdessi v Cavendish Square
Holdings BV and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis have invigorated the debate about the
scope of the rule against penalties, as has the decision of the High Court of
Australia in Andrews v ANZ Banking Group Ltd to return to its equitable origins
and reject the limitation of its application to sanctions imposed only for a breach
of contract by the payer. All three decisions are assessed in Ch.20 and the
appeals to the Supreme Court in Makdessi and ParkingEye represent the more
eagerly anticipated of the decisions which will need to be reflected in the next
edition. Mention might also be made of the decision of the Court of Appeal in
Daventry District Council v Daventry & District Housing Ltd. The observations
of the Lords Justices in that most unusual of cases, along with those of many
other judges, have called into question the suggested approach of Lord
Hoffmann in Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes Ltd to claims for rectification on
the basis of “common mistake”. This debate is considered in Ch.8.
At first instance, there have been several intriguing developments. Most
notable among them is the decision of Leggatt J. in Yam Seng Pte Ltd v
International Trade Corp Ltd to acknowledge the existence of a duty to perform
a contract in good faith, based on the methodology of terms implied in fact. That
has received something of a mixed reception, but it is a development which
looks like it is here to stay and it is assessed in Chs 1 and 6. In part prompted by
the decision in Yam Seng, Teare J. has also inflicted another blow on the
proposition that there is no enforceable obligation to negotiate in good faith in
Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime Mineral Exports Private Ltd (see Ch.2).
In The Glory Wealth the same judge directly challenges the proposition advanced
in this book that, in the assessment of damages, it should not be required of the
claimant to prove that he could have performed his future obligations after he
has terminated the contract on the basis of the defendant’s breach (see Chs 17
and 20). Teare J. based his conclusion on this issue on the decision of the House
of Lords in The Golden Victory, the scope and effect of which is also carefully
considered by Popplewell J. in Ageas (UK) Ltd v Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd (see Ch.20).
Finally, a particular mention may be made of Credit Suisse International v
Stichting Vestia Groep and Andrew Smith J.’s assessment of the actions
potentially available to protect against corporate incapacity (see Ch.12).
I welcome the opportunity to place on record my thanks to the fellows and
staff of Keble College and the Oxford Law Faculty for providing the support and
infrastructure which made the work on this edition possible, not least the
provision of the IT services which are so essential when everything which is
decided in the courts is so readily available. I have continued to benefit from
invaluable discussions about the development of the law with my colleagues in
the faculty and at One Essex Court, in particular: Andrew Burrows; Adrian
Briggs; Andrew Dickinson; James Goudkamp; Laurence Rabinowitz; Adam
Rushworth; and Steven Elliott. I am also very grateful for the valuable insights
provided by supervising the research of Niranjan Venkatesan and Andrew
Dyson, and examining the thesis of Dr. Carmine Conte. Stefan Enchelmaier very
kindly provided guidance on the short section in Ch.11 which endeavours to give
an account of competition law in the context of restraint of trade. The Senior
Publishing Editor, Nicola Thurlow, once again has seen through the work on this
edition and was kind enough to extend the deadline for submission of the text to
the maximum extent possible. This was further assisted by the House Editor,
Alice Batley, who very kindly accommodated the restrictions on my time for
consideration of the proofs. This has allowed me to endeavour to state the law as
I understand it to be as at 30 April 2015.
As always, my greatest thanks go to my family: my wife Helen and children
Emily and Charlotte. In the latter stages of working on this edition, it was
necessary to sacrifice too many weekends and spring evenings for my liking, or
theirs, but I was offered only patience, support and encouragement in return.
This edition is dedicated to my father, who was always an inspiration. He sadly
died shortly before the work on this book was completed.
Edwin Peel
Oxford, 1 May 2015
The cover image is a painting of the vessel “The Peerless”. It is known that
the vessel shown was employed on the Indian route at the time of the events
which led to the decision in Raffles v Wichelhaus (see para.8–042), but it is not
known whether this is one of the vessels that was the subject of that case itself.
Given the issue before the court, this seems entirely apt.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface to the Fourteenth Edition
Table of Cases
Table of Statutes
Table of Statutory Instruments
Table of European Legislation
PAGE
v
xxix
ccix
ccxxvii
ccxxxi
PARA
1. INTRODUCTION
2. AGREEMENT
1. OFFER
(a) Offer Defined
(b) Offer Distinguished from Invitation to
Treat
(c) Where and When an offer Takes
Effect
2. ACCEPTANCE
(a) Acceptance Defined
(b) Communication of Acceptance
(i) General rule
(ii) Exceptional cases
(iii) Acceptance by post
(c) Prescribed Method of Acceptance
(d) Acceptance by Silence
(e) Acceptance in Ignorance of Offer
(f) Acceptance in Unilateral Contracts
3. TERMINATION OF OFFER
(a) Withdrawal
(b) Rejection
(c) Lapse of Time
(d) Occurrence of Condition
2–002
2–006
2–015
2–016
2–024
2–025
2–029
2–040
2–043
2–048
2–051
2–058
2–062
2–064
2–066
(e) Death
(f) Supervening Incapacity
2–067
2–070
4. SPECIAL CASES
2–075
5. CERTAINTY
(a) vagueness
(b) Incompleteness
(i) Agreement in principle only
(ii) Agreements “subject to contract”
(iii) Execution of formal document
required
(iv) Terms left open
(v) Facts to be ascertained
(vi) Agreement to negotiate
2–078
2–079
2–084
2–085
2–088
2–089
6. CONDITIONAL AGREEMENTS
(a) Classification
(b) Degrees of Obligation
2–090
2–097
2–098
2–102
2–104
3. CONSIDERATION
1. INTRODUCTION
(a) General
(b) Definitions
3–001
3–004
2. ADEQUACY
(a) Consideration Need Not Be Adequate
(b) Nominal Consideration
(c) Attitude of Equity
3–013
3–014
3–016
3. PAST CONSIDERATION
3–017
4. CONSIDERATION MUST MOVE FROM THE
PROMISEE
3–023
5. CONSIDERATION MUST BE OF SOME VALUE
(a) Must be of Economic value
(b) Illusory Consideration
(c) Trivial Acts or Objects
(d) Gift of onerous Property
(e) Compromise and Forbearance to Sue
3–027
3–028
3–031
3–033
(i) Valid claims
(ii) Invalid and doubtful claims
(iii) Actual forbearance
(f) Performance of Existing Duty
(i) Duty imposed by law
(ii) Duty imposed by contract with
promisor
(iii) Duty imposed by contract with a
third party
3–034
3–036
3–040
3–043
3–044
3–047
3–053
6. RESCISSION AND VARIATION
(a) Rescission
(b) variation
(c) Waiver
(i) At common law
(ii) In equity
(d) Part Payment of a Debt
(i) General rule
(ii) Common law limitations
(iii) Equitable evasion
3–056
3–057
3–062
7. PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL
(a) Nature and Scope of the Doctrine
(b) Requirements
(i) Representation or Assurance
(ii) Reliance
(iii) Detriment
(c) Effects of the Doctrine
(i) Revocability
(ii) Operation of proprietary estoppel
(iii) Proprietary and promissory
estoppels contrasted
(iv) Proprietary estoppel and contract
contrasted
3–118
3–119
3–124
3–125
3–130
3–134
8. SPECIAL CASES
(a) Defective Promises
(b) Unilateral Contracts
(c) Bankers’ Irrevocable Credits
(d) Firm Offers
3–066
3–076
3–100
3–102
3–111
3–135
3–138
3–147
3–152
3–153
3–158
3–159
3–160
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Auction sales Without Reserve
Novation of Partnership Debts
Gratuitous Bailments
Gratuitous Services
3–162
3–163
3–166
3–168
9. PROMISES IN DEEDS
3–170
10. PROPOSALS FOR REFORM
3–174
4. CONTRACTUAL INTENTION
1. PROOF OF INTENTION
2. ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Mere Puffs
(b) Other Statements Inducing a Contract
(c) Intention Expressly Negatived
(i) Honour clauses
(ii) “Subject to contract”
(iii) Other phrases
(d) Social and Domestic Arrangements
(e) Agreements Giving Wide Discretion
to One Party
(f) Letters of Intent or of Comfort
(g) Collective Agreements
(h) Other Cases
4–002
4–004
4–005
4–007
4–008
4–009
4–015
4–016
4–020
4–021
4–022
4–023
5. FORM
1. GENERAL RULE
5–001
2. STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS
(a) Contracts which must be made by
Deed
(b) Contracts which must be in Writing
(i) Bills of exchange, etc
(ii) Consumer credit agreements
(iii) Contracts for the sale or
disposition of an interest in land
(c) Contracts which must be Evidenced in
Writing
(i) In general
5–004
5–005
5–006
5–007
5–008
5–013
(ii) Contracts of guarantee
(d) Formal Requirements and Electronic
Documents
3. FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RESCISSION
AND VARIATION
(a) Rescission
(b) Variation
5–014
5–028
5–029
5–030
5–031
6. THE CONTENTS OF A CONTRACT
1. EXPRESS TERMS
(a) Joinder of Documents
(b) Interpretation
(c) The Parol Evidence Rule
(i) Statement of the rule
(ii) Cases in which extrinsic evidence
is admissible
6–002
6–003
6–006
2. IMPLIED TERMS
(a) Terms Implied in Fact
(i) A broad approach?
(ii) Tests
(iii) Factors to be taken into account
(iv) Examples
(b) Terms Implied in Law
(c) Terms Implied by Custom or Trade
Usage
6–032
6–014
6–015
6–033
6–035
6–039
6–041
6–043
6–048
7. EXEMPTION CLAUSES AND UNFAIR TERMS
1. EXEMPTION CLAUSES AT COMMON LAW
(a) Incorporation in the Contract
(i) Signature
(ii) Notice
(b) Construction
(i) Contra proferentem
(ii) Seriousness of breach
(iii) Negligence
(c) Other Common Law Limitations
7–003
7–004
7–005
7–014
7–015
7–025
7–033
7–039
2. OTHER STANDARD TERMS AT COMMON
LAW
7–046
3. LEGISLATIVE LIMITATIONS
(a) The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
(i) Preliminary definitions
(ii) Ineffective terms
(iii) Terms subject to the requirement
of reasonableness
(iv) Partly effective terms
(v) The test of reasonableness
(vi) Restrictions on evasions
(vii) Situations not covered by UCTA
(b) The Unfair Terms in Consumer
Contracts Regulations 1999
(i) Relation with Unfair Contract
Terms Act 1977
(ii) Preliminary definitions
(iii) The test of unfairness
(iv) Examples of unfair terms
(v) Excluded terms
(vi) Excluded contracts
(vii) Drafting and interpretation
(viii) Effects of unfairness
(ix) Restriction on evasion
7–049
7–051
7–052
7–057
7–062
4. OTHER LEGISLATIVE TECHNIQUES
7–123
7–073
7–076
7–084
7–086
7–093
7–096
7–100
7–103
7–110
7–115
7–117
7–118
7–119
7–122
8. MISTAKE
1. INTRODUCTION
2. COMMON MISTAKE
(a) Common Law
(i) In general
(ii) Mistake as to the existence of the
subject-matter
(iii) Mistake as to the identity of the
subject-matter
(iv) Mistake as to the possibility of
8–001
8–002
8–008
8–011
8–012
performing the contract
(v) Mistake as to quality
8–015
(vi) Mistake as to quantity
(vii) Mistake of law
(b) Equity
(i) General
(ii) No separate doctrine of common
mistake in equity
(iii) Refusal of specific performance
8–021
8–022
3. UNILATERAL MISTAKE
(a) Types of Mistake
(i) Mistake as to the person
(ii) Mistake as to the subject-matter
(iii) Mistake as to the terms of the
contract
(b) Mistake must Induce the Contract
(c) When Mistake is operative
(i) Contract generally valid
(ii) Exceptional cases in which
mistake is operative
(iii) Mistake may operate against one
party only
(d) Theoretical Basis
(e) Equity
8–033
8–026
8–027
8–031
8–034
8–042
8–044
8–045
8–047
8–048
8–053
8–054
8–055
4. RECTIFICATION
(a) In General
(b) Common Mistake
(c) Unilateral Mistake
(d) Potential Limitations on the Remedy
8–059
8–063
8–069
8–071
5. DOCUMENTS MISTAKENLY SIGNED
(a) Development
(b) Scope of the Doctrine
8–079
8–081
9. MISREPRESENTATION
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF LIABILITY
(a) False statement of fact or law
9–004
9–005
(b) Material
(c) Reliance
2. DAMAGES FOR MISREPRESENTATION
(a) Liability
(i) Fraud
(ii) Negligence at common law
(iii) Misrepresentation Act 1967
section 2(1)
(iv) Contractual statements
(v) Damages in lieu of rescission
(b) Basis of Assessment and Remoteness
(i) Basis of assessment
(ii) Remoteness
(iii) Fluctuations in value
(iv) Misrepresentation Act 1967,
section 2(2)
(v) Limit of the right to damages
3. RESCISSION
(a) Introduction
(b) Rescission for Misrepresentation
(i) Contract voidable
(ii) Mode of rescission
(iii) Misrepresentation as a defence
(iv) Application to sale of goods
(c) Incorporated Misrepresentation
9–020
9–024
9–032
9–033
9–037
9–043
9–050
9–059
9–064
9–065
9–071
9–073
9–077
9–079
9–083
9–089
9–094
9–096
9–098
9–099
4. LIMITS TO THE RIGHT TO RESCIND
(a) Effects of Misrepresentation Act 1967
(b) Bars to Rescission
(i) Restitution impossible
(ii) Third party rights
(iii) Affirmation
(iv) Lapse of time
9–102
9–103
5. EXCLUDING LIABILITY FOR
MISREPRESENTATION
(a) Scope of the Misrepresentation Act
1967 section 3
9–123
9–105
9–115
9–116
9–121
9–124
(b) The Reasonableness Test
(c) Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999
6. NON-DISCLOSURE
(a) General Rule
(i) No duty of disclosure
(ii) Representation by conduct
(iii) Latent defects
(b) Exceptions
(i) Representation falsified by later
events
(ii) Statement literally true, but
misleading
(iii) Custom
(iv) Contracts uberrimae fidei
(v) Contracts in which there is a
limited duty of disclosure
(vi) Fiduciary relationship
(vii) Legislation
(viii) Duty to clarify legal relationship
(ix) Duty of disclosure in performance
of contract
(c) Effects of Non-disclosure
(i) In general
(ii) Effects of Misrepresentation Act
1967
7. MISREPRESENTATION AND ESTOPPEL
9–133
9–135
9–136
9–137
9–138
9–139
9–141
9–143
9–144
9–145
9–154
9–158
9–160
9–161
9–162
9–163
9–166
9–167
10. DURESS, UNDUE INFLUENCE AND UNCONSCIONABLE
BARGAINS
1. DURESS
(a) In General
(b) Duress of the Person
(c) Duress of Goods
(d) Economic Duress
(e) Unlawful Demands for Payment
10–002
10–003
10–004
10–005
10–011
2.
(f) Remedies
10–012
UNDUE INFLUENCE
10–013
10–015
10–018
10–019
10–020
(a) Actual Undue Influence
(b) Presumed Undue Influence
(i) Types of presumptions
(ii) The presumption of undue
influence
(iii) Rebutting the presumption
(c) Remedies
(d) Undue Influence and Third Parties
10–027
10–030
10–036
3. UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAINS
(a) Catching Bargains
(b) Dealing with “Poor and Ignorant”
Persons
10–043
10–044
10–045
4. CONSUMER PROTECTION
(a) Unfair Credit Relationships
(b) Unfair Commercial Practices
10–046
10–047
10–048
5. INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER
10–049
11. ILLEGALITY
1. THE PROBLEM OF CLASSIFICATION
2. TYPES OF ILLEGALITY
(a) Contracts Involving the Commission
of a Legal Wrong
(i) Contracts amounting to a legal
wrong
(ii) Contracts to commit a crime
(iii) Contracts to commit a civil wrong
(iv) Use of subject-matter for unlawful
purpose
(v) Unlawful method of performance
(vi) Contracts to indemnify against
liability for unlawful acts
(vii) Promises to pay money on the
commission of an unlawful act
11–002
11–011
11–014
11–015
11–018
11–019
11–022
11–027
(viii) Effect of changes in the law
(b) Contracts Contrary to Public Policy
(i) Agreements by married persons to
marry
11–028
11–032
11–038
(ii) Agreements in contemplation of
divorce
(iii) Agreements inconsistent with
parental responsibility
(iv) Agreements in restraint of
marriage
(v) Marriage brokage contracts
(vi) Contracts promoting sexual
immorality
(vii) Contracts interfering with the
course of justice
(viii) Contracts purporting to oust the
jurisdiction of the courts
(ix) Contracts to deceive public
authorities
(x) Sale of offices and honours
(xi) Lobbying & Bribery
(xii) Trading with the enemy
(xiii) Contracts which involve doing an
illegal act in a friendly foreign
country
(xiv) Contracts restricting personal
liberty
11–039
3. CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
(a) Introduction
(b) Sale of a Business and Employment
(i) Interest
(ii) Reasonableness
(iii) Public interest
(iv) No actual covenant against
competition
(v) Restraint operating during
employment
11–040
11–041
11–042
11–043
11–046
11–047
11–056
11–057
11–058
11–059
11–060
11–061
11–062
11–066
11–067
11–074
11–080
11–083
11–084
(vi) Establishing validity of restraint
(c) Restrictive Trading and Similar
Agreements
(d) Trade Unions and Employers’
Associations
(e) Exclusive Dealing
11–085
11–086
(i) In general
(ii) Whether such agreements are
within the restraint of trade
doctrine
(iii) Requirements of validity
(f) Covenants Affecting the Use of Land
(g) Other Agreements
(h) Competition Law
(i) Other Aspects of European Union
Law
11–092
11–094
4. EFFECTS OF ILLEGALITY
(a) Enforcement
(i) Position of guilty party
(ii) Position of innocent party
(iii) De facto enforcement
(b) Restitution
(i) General rule
(ii) Class-protecting statutes
(iii) Oppression
(iv) Misrepresentation
(v) Mistake
(vi) Repudiation of illegal purpose
(vii) No reliance on illegal transaction
(viii) Restitution in respect of services
(c) Severance
(i) Severance of consideration
(ii) Severance of promises
(iii) Statutory severance
(d) Collateral Transactions
(e) Evaluation
11–110
11–111
11–112
11–117
11–128
11–130
11–131
11–133
11–134
11–136
11–138
11–139
11–142
11–152
11–153
11–154
11–160
11–166
11–167
11–169
12. CAPACITY
11–091
11–095
11–100
11–102
11–105
11–109
1. MINORS
(a) Valid Contracts
(i) Necessaries
(ii) Service contracts
(b) Voidable Contracts
(i) Cases of voidable contracts
(ii) Loans for voidable contracts
(iii) Rules relating to repudiation
(iv) Why are these contracts voidable?
(c) Other contracts
(d) Liability in Tort
(e) Liability in Restitution
(i) Minors’ Contracts Act 1987
section 3(1)
(ii) Effects of fraud
(iii) Liability in restitution at common
law
12–001
12–003
12–011
12–017
12–022
12–023
12–025
12–027
12–033
12–036
12–037
12–043
12–048
2. MENTAL INCAPACITY
(a) In General
(i) Incapacity known to other party
(ii) Property and affairs subject to
control of the court
(b) Necessaries
12–052
12–054
12–055
12–056
3. DRINK AND DRUGS
12–062
4. CORPORATIONS
(a) Common Law Corporations
(b) Statutory Corporations
(i) Companies created under the
Companies Act 2006
(ii) Limited Liability Partnerships
(iii) Corporations incorporated by
special statute
12–058
12–064
12–065
12–066
12–071
12–072
13. PLURALITY OF PARTIES
1. PLURALITY OF DEBTORS
(a) Definitions
13–002
(b) Differences Between Joint, and Joint
and Several, promises
(i) Parties to the action
(ii) Judgment
(iii) Survivorship
13–005
13–007
13–009
(c) Similarities Between Joint, and Joint
and Several, promises
(i) Defence of one
(ii) Release of one
(iii) Contribution
13–011
13–013
13–017
2. PLURALITY OF CREDITORS
(a) Definitions
(b) Parties to the Action
(c) Survivorship
(d) Defence Against One
(e) Release by One
(f) Payment to One
(g) Consideration Moving from One
13–020
13–023
13–025
13–027
13–030
13–032
13–034
14. THIRD PARTIES
1. INTRODUCTION
14–001
2. THE COMMON LAW DOCTRINE
(a) Parties to the Agreement
(i) Collateral contracts
(ii) Agency
(iii) Multilateral contracts
(iv) Corporations
(b) Party to the Consideration
(c) Reasons for the Doctrine
(d) Development
(e) Operation of the Doctrine
(i) Promisee’s remedies
(ii) Position between promisee and
third party
14–004
14–005
14–006
14–009
14–010
14–012
14–014
14–015
14–016
14–018
14–019
14–039
3. SCOPE
(a) General
14–044
(b) Liability in Negligence to Third
Parties
(c) Intimidation
(d) Restitution?
14–045
4. EXEMPTION CLAUSES AND THIRD PARTIES
(a) The Benefit
14–057
(i) Privity and exceptions
(ii) Himalaya clauses
(iii) Other drafting devices
(iv) Clauses defining duties
(b) The Burden
(i) General rule
(ii) Exceptions
5. EXCEPTIONS
(a) Judge-made Exceptions
(i) Covenants concerning land
(ii) Agency
(iii) Assignment
(iv) Trusts of promises
(v) Covenants in marriage settlements
(b) Contracts (Rights of Third Parties)
Act 1999
(i) Third party’s right of enforcement
(ii) Right to rescind or vary the
contract
(iii) Promisor’s defences against third
party
(iv) Exceptions to third party’s
entitlement
(v) Third party’s other rights
unaffected
(vi) Nature of the third party’s rights
(vii) Effect on Unfair Contract Terms
Act 1977 section 2
(viii) Promisee’s rights
(c) Other Statutory Exceptions
(i) Insurance
14–055
14–056
14–058
14–062
14–069
14–070
14–071
14–072
14–077
14–078
14–079
14–080
14–081
14–089
14–090
14–100
14–108
14–113
14–116
14–119
14–120
14–121
14–123
14–124
(ii) Law of Property Act 1925 section
56
6. IMPOSING LIABILITY ON THIRD PARTIES
14–131
14–134
15. ASSIGNMENT
1. AT COMMON LAW
15–002
2. EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENTS
15–006
3. STATUTORY ASSIGNMENTS
(a) Absolute Assignment
(b) Debt or Other Legal Thing in Action
15–009
15–011
15–015
4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
(a) Formalities
(b) Intention to Assign
(c) Communication to Assignee
(d) Notice to Debtor
(i) How to give notice
(ii) Effects of notice
15–016
15–017
15–019
15–020
15–021
5. CONSIDERATION
(a) Assignments of Future Property
(b) Statutory Assignments
(c) Equitable Assignments
(i) Before the Judicature Act 1873
(ii) After the Judicature Act 1873
15–024
15–025
15–026
15–027
15–028
15–033
6. SUBJECT TO EQUITIES
(a) Defects of Title
(b) Claims by Debtor against Assignor
(i) Claims arising out of the contract
assigned
(ii) Claims arising out of other
transactions
(iii) Assignee cannot recover more
than assignor
15–037
15–038
15–039
15–040
7. NEGOTIABILITY
15–046
8. RIGHTS WHICH ARE NOT ASSIGNABLE
15–042
15–045
(a) Contracts Expressed to be Not
Assignable
(b) Personal Contracts
(c) Mere Rights of Action
(i) Claims in tort
(ii) Liquidated claims
(iii) Unliquidated claims
(iv) Public policy
9. ASSIGNMENT BY OPERATION OF LAW
(a) Death
(b) Bankruptcy
10. ASSIGNMENT DISTINGUISHED FROM
TRANSFER OF LIABILITIES
(a) Novation
(b) Benefit and Burden
(c) Operation of Law
15–050
15–051
15–058
15–059
15–061
15–062
15–067
15–071
15–073
15–077
15–078
15–079
15–082
16. AGENCY
1. DEFINITION
(a) Agreement
(b) Intention to Act on Behalf of
Principal
(i) Agency distinguished from other
relationships
(ii) Whose agent?
(c) Commercial Agents
16–001
16–002
16–004
2. CAPACITY
16–013
3. CREATION OF AGENCY
(a) Agency by Agreement
(i) Express authority
(ii) Implied authority
(b) Agency without Agreement
(i) Apparent authority
(ii) Usual authority
(iii) Authority of necessity
(c) Ratification
16–015
16–005
16–009
16–012
16–016
16–018
16–021
16–030
16–032
(i) What amounts to ratification
(ii) When ratification possible
(iii) Effect of ratification
4. EFFECTS OF AGENCY
(a) Between Principal and Third Party
(i) Rights of principal against third
party
(ii) Liability of principal to third party
(b) Between Agent and Third Party
(i) Under the contract
(ii) Under a collateral contract
(iii) Implied warranty of authority
(iv) Other liability for
misrepresentation
(c) Between Principal and Agent
(i) Rights of agent
(ii) Duties of agent
(d) Effects of Non-consensual Agency
5. TERMINATION
(a) Modes of Termination
(i) Consensual agency
(ii) Non-consensual agency
(b) Irrevocable Agency
16–043
16–046
16–051
16–054
16–055
16–063
16–067
16–068
16–077
16–078
16–084
16–085
16–094
16–101
16–102
16–103
16–110
16–111
17. PERFORMANCE AND BREACH
1. METHOD OF PERFORMANCE
17–002
2. VICARIOUS PERFORMANCE
(a) With the Creditor’s Consent
(b) without the Creditor’s consent
(c) Vicarious Performance Distinguished
from Assignment
17–007
17–008
17–009
17–012
3. ORDER OF PERFORMANCE
(a) Condition Precedent
(b) Concurrent condition
(c) Independent Promises
17–014
17–015
17–018
17–019
(d) Criteria for Drawing the Distinction
(e) Effects of the Distinction
(f) Wrongful Refusal to Accept
Performance
(i) Where injured party terminates the
contract
(ii) Where injured party does not
terminate the contract
(iii) Evaluation
4. ENTIRE AND SEVERABLE OBLIGATIONS
(a) Entire Obligations
(b) Severable obligations
(c) Distinction Between Entire and
Severable Obligations
(d) So-called Doctrine of Substantial
Performance
(e) Voluntary Acceptance of Benefit
(f) Apportionment Act 1870
(g) Criticism
5. BREACH
(a) Failure or Refusal to Perform
(b) Defective Performance
(c) Incapacitating Oneself
(d) Without Lawful Excuse
(e) Standard of Duty
(i) Strict liability
(ii) Liability based on fault
(iii) Fault and excuses for nonperformance
(iv) Conditional contracts
(f) Breach Distinguished from Lawful
Termination
6. ANTICIPATORY BREACH
(a) The Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach
(b) Acceptance of the Breach
(c) Effects of Accepting the Breach
17–020
17–024
17–025
17–029
17–030
17–031
17–035
17–037
17–040
17–041
17–047
17–048
17–049
17–050
17–056
17–057
17–059
17–065
17–067
17–070
17–071
17–072
17–074
17–079
(i) Damages for anticipatory breach
(ii) Termination for anticipatory
breach
(d) Effects of Not Accepting the Breach
17–080
17–083
17–090
18. TERMINATION FOR BREACH
1. INTRODUCTION
18–001
2. NATURE AND EFFECT OF TERMINATION
(a) Nature
18–005
(b) Effects of Termination or Affirmation
(i) Termination
(ii) Affirmation or failure to terminate
(iii) Change of course
18–015
18–024
18–026
3. AVAILABILITY OF THE RIGHT TO
TERMINATE
(a) General Requirement of Substantial
Failure
(b) Exceptions to the Requirement of
Substantial Failure
(i) Conditions, warranties and
intermediate terms
(ii) Express provision for
determination
(iii) Unilateral contracts and options
18–028
4. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE
(a) Affirmation, Waiver & Estoppel
(b) Acceptance
(c) Both Parties in Breach
18–077
18–079
18–089
18–094
5. STIPULATIONS AS TO TIME
18–096
6. CRITICISM
18–108
18–030
18–040
18–042
18–063
18–074
19. FRUSTRATION
1. DEVELOPMENT
2. APPLICATIONS
19–002
(a) Impossibility
(i) Destruction of a particular thing
(ii) Death or incapacity
(iii) Unavailability
(iv) Failure of a particular source
(v) Method of performance impossible
(vi) Impossibility and impracticability
19–009
19–010
19–016
19–017
19–024
19–030
19–032
(b) Frustration of Purpose
(c) Illegality
(i) Illustrations
(ii) Supervening and antecedent
prohibition
(iii) Partial and temporary illegality
(d) Prospective Frustration
(e) Alternative Obligations
(f) Events Affecting Only One Party’s
Performance
(g) Special Factors Affecting Land
(i) Leases
(ii) Sale of land
(h) A Question of Fact or Law?
19–041
19–044
19–045
19–047
3. LIMITATIONS
(a) Contractual Provision for the Event
(i) In general
(ii) Qualifications
(iii) Provision for non-frustrating
events
(b) Foreseen and Foreseeable Events
(i) In general
(ii) Qualifications
(c) Self-induced Frustration
(i) Events brought about by one
party’s conduct
(ii) Negligence
(iii) Choosing between several
contracts
(iv) Burden of proof
19–069
19–049
19–051
19–053
19–056
19–057
19–062
19–066
19–070
19–072
19–075
19–076
19–077
19–082
19–083
19–085
19–086
19–089
4. EFFECTS OF FRUSTRATION
(a) In General
(b) Problems of Adjustment
(i) Rights accrued before frustration
(ii) Rights not yet accrued
(iii) Casus omissus?
(iv) Special cases
(v) Contracts excluded from the 1943
Act
5. JURISTIC BASIS
(a) Theories of Frustration
(b) Practical Importance
(c) Frustration and Mistake
19–090
19–092
19–093
19–099
19–105
19–106
19–109
19–114
19–120
19–121
20. DAMAGES
1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
(a) Damages are Compensatory
(i) Loss to claimant the criterion
(ii) What constitutes loss?
(iii) Breach having no adverse effect
(iv) Damages based on the gain made
by the defendant
(v) Punitive damages
(b) Compensation For What?
(i) Loss of bargain
(ii) Reliance loss
(iii) Restitution
(iv) Relationship between loss of
bargain, reliance loss and
restitution
(v) Incidental loss
2. QUANTIFICATION
(a) The Bases of Assessment
(i) Reliance and restitution
(ii) Loss of bargain
(b) Actual and Market Values
20–004
20–005
20–008
20–009
20–019
20–020
20–021
20–026
20–029
20–030
20–036
20–037
20–038
20–039
20–047
(i) Where there is a market
(ii) Where there is no market
(iii) Other loss
(c) Speculative Damages
(d) Interest
(e) Taxation
(f) Alternative Modes of Performance
(g) Time for Assessment
(i) Time of breach
(ii) Time of discovery of breach
(iii) Possibility of acting on knowledge
of breach
(iv) Reasonableness of acting on
knowledge of breach
(v) Late performance
(vi) Damages for anticipatory breach
20–048
20–055
20–057
20–059
20–060
20–066
20–069
20–071
20–072
20–073
20–074
20–075
20–076
3. NON-PECUNIARY LOSSES
(a) Mental Distress
(i) General principle
(ii) Exceptions
(b) Loss of Reputation
20–082
20–085
20–090
4. METHODS OF LIMITING DAMAGES
(a) Causation
(b) Remoteness
(c) Mitigation
(i) The duty to mitigate
(ii) Mitigation in fact
(d) Contributory Negligence
20–093
20–094
20–098
20–114
20–115
20–120
20–122
5. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, DEPOSIT AND
PART-PAYMENT
(a) Liquidated Damages
(i) Distinction between penalty and
liquidated damages
(ii) Effects of the distinction
(iii) Analogous provisions
(iv) Unfair Terms in Consumer
Contracts Regulations 1999
20–129
20–139
20–142
20–146
(b) Deposit and Part-payment
20–147
21. SPECIFIC REMEDIES
1. ACTION FOR AN AGREED SUM
(a) Distinguished from Damages
(b) Availability of the Action
(i) Duty to pay the price
(ii) Rules of law
(iii) Conduct of the injured party
2. SPECIFIC RELIEF IN EQUITY
(a) Specific Performance
(i) Granted where damages not
“adequate”
(ii) Discretion
(iii) Contracts not specifically
enforceable
(iv) Mutuality of remedy
(v) Specific performance and third
parties
(b) Injunction
(i) General
(ii) No indirect specific performance
(c) Damages and Specific Performance or
Injunction
21–001
21–005
21–006
21–008
21–016
21–017
21–029
21–036
21–047
21–049
21–052
21–056
21–061
22. RESTITUTION
1. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(a) Recovery of Money Paid
(i) Failure of consideration
(ii) Money paid under a void contract
(b) Recovery of non-money benefits
22–001
22–002
22–003
22–013
22–019
23. CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015
1. KEY DEFINITIONS
23–005
2. CONTRACTS FOR GOODS
(a) The Consumer’s Rights
23–011
23–014
(b) The Consumer’s Remedies
(c) Exclusion or Restriction of the
Trader’s Liability
23–018
23–027
3. CONTRACTS FOR DIGITAL CONTENT
(a) The Consumer’s Rights.
(b) The Consumer’s Remedies
(c) Exclusion or Restriction of the
Trader’s Liability
23–032
23–033
23–036
4. CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES
23–048
(a) The Consumer’s Rights.
(b) The Consumer’s Remedies
(c) Exclusion or Restriction of the
Trader’s Liability
5. UNFAIR TERMS
(a) Scope of Part 2
(b) Test of fairness
(c) Effect of Unfairness.
(d) Drafting and Interpretation
(e) Negligence Liability
(f) Restrictions on evasion
(g) Enforcement by a Regulator
Index
23–044
23–049
23–053
23–059
23–064
23–066
23–069
23–078
23–080
23–082
23–084
23–086
1317
TABLE OF CASES
1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton; sub nom Higham v Horton;
3–025
Horton v 1 Pump Court Chambers; Horton v Higham [2004]
EWCA Civ 941; [2004] 3 All E.R. 852
20:20 London Ltd v Riley [2012] EWHC 1912 (Ch)
11–083
20th Century Lites v Goodman, 149 P. 2d. 88 (1944)
19–043
21st Century Logistic Solutions Ltd (In Liquidation) v Madysen
11–056
Ltd [2004] EWHC 231; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 92 QBD
29 Equities v Bank Leumi (UK) Ltd [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1490;
18–105
[1987] 1 All E.R. 108; (1987) 54 P. & C.R. 114; [1986] 2
E.G.L.R. 251; (1986) 83 L.S.G. 3597; (1986) 130 S.J. 802
CA (Civ Div)
4 Eng Ltd v Harper [2008] EWHC 915 (Ch); [2009] Ch. 91;
9–068, 20–035
[2008] 3 W.L.R. 892 Ch D
A v B (Copyright: Diary Pages) [2000] E.M.L.R. 1007 Ch D
11–044
A v Lord Grey’s School. See Ali v Lord Grey School Governors
A Ltd v B Ltd [2015] EWHC 137 (Comm)
2–042
A Roberts & Co v Leicestershire CC [1961] Ch. 555; [1961] 2
8–069
W.L.R. 1000 Ch D
A Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay (formerly
7–001, 10–050, 11–064, 11–070, 11–073,
Instone); sub nom Macaulay (formerly Instone) v A
11–079, 11–084, 11–094, 11–097, 11–
Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1308;
098,11–099, 21–059
[1974] 3 All E.R. 616; (1974) 118 S.J. 734 HL
A to Z Bazaars (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Agriculture, 1974 (4)
2–038
S.A. 392(C)
A Turtle Offshore SA v Superior Trading Inc [2008] EWHC
7–028,7–030
3034; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177
A/S Tankexpress v Compagnie Financière Belge des Petroles SA
3–072
[1949] A.C. 76; [1948] 2 All E.R. 939; (1948–49) 82 Ll. L.
Rep. 43; [1949] L.J.R. 170; (1949) 93 S.J. 26 HL
AA Dickinson & Co v O’Leary (1979) 254 E.G. 731; 124 S.J.
16–088
48 CA
Aaron’s Reefs v Twiss [1896] A.C. 273 HL (UK-Irl)
9–028, 9–121, 9–143
AB v CD. See B v D
AB v CD Ltd [2013] EWHC 1376; [2013] B.L.R. 435
2–019
AB Corp v CD Co (The Sine Nomine) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
20–004
805 Arb
AB Marintrans v Comet Shipping Co Ltd (The Shinjitsu Maru
20–126
No.5) [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1270; [1985] 3 All E.R. 442 QBD
(Comm)
Abbar v Saudi Economic and Development Co (Sedco) Real
20–015,20–016
Estate Ltd [2013] EWHC 1414 (Ch)
Abbey National Bank Plc v Stringer [2006] EWCA Civ 338;
10–014, 10–019
[2006] 2 P. & C.R. DG15
Abbott v Condici Ltd [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 CC (Central
16–109
London)
Abbott v Sullivan; Abbott v Isett Cornporters Committee
6–046
Members [1952] 1 K.B. 189; [1952] 1 All E.R. 226 CA
Aberfoyle Plantations v Cheng [1960] A.C. 115; [1959] 3
18–105
W.L.R. 1011; [1959] 3 All E.R. 910; (1959) 103 S.J. 1045
PC (Fed Mal States)
Abrahams v Herbert Reiach Ltd [1922] 1 K.B. 477 CA
20–069
Abrahams v Performing Right Society Ltd [1995] I.C.R. 1028;
16–104, 17–054, 20–134
[1995] I.R.L.R. 486 CA (Civ Div)
Abu Dhabi Investment Co Ltd v H Clarkson & Co [2008]
9–035
EWCA Civ 699
Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping (The
2–096, 2–108, 6–042, 18–037
Product Star (No.2)) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 397 CA (Civ
Div)
AC Yule & Son Ltd v Speedwell Roofing & Cladding Ltd
2–045
[2007] EWHC 1360 (TCC); [2007] B.L.R. 499
Accidia Foundation v Simon C Dickinson Ltd [2010] EWHC
16–098
3058 (Ch)
Acer Investment Management Ltd v Mansion Group Ltd [2014]
6–042
EWHC 3011 (QB)
Acetylene Corp of Great Britain v Canada Carbide Co (No.2)
19–020, 19–035
(1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 456 CA
Achille Lauro Fu Gioacchino & C v Total Societa Italiana Per
19–007
Azioni [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 CA (Civ Div)
Achilleas, The. See Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping
Inc (The Achilleas)
Acmé Mills v Johnson, 133 S.W. 784 (1911)
20–004
Acre 1127 Ltd (In Liquidation) (formerly Castle Galleries Ltd) v
17–030, 18–037
De Montfort Fine Art Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 87
Actionstrength Ltd (t/a Vital Resources) v International Glass
5–027
Engineering IN.GL.EN SpA [2003] UKHL 17; [2003] 2
A.C. 541; [2003] 2 W.L.R. 1060; [2003] 2 All E.R. 615;
[2003] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 331; [2005] 1 B.C.L.C. 606;
[2003] 1 C.L.C. 1003; [2003] B.L.R. 207; 88 Con. L.R. 208;
(2003) 153 N.L.J. 563; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 418
Acton v Graham Pearce & Co [1997] 3 All E.R. 909 Ch D
20–059
Acute Property Developments Ltd v Apostolou [2013] EWHC
16–027
200 (Ch)
Adam Opel GmbH v Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd [2008]
3–043, 3–051, 10–005, 10–007, 10–008,
EWHC 3205 (QB); [2008] C.I.L.L. 2561
10–009
Adam v Newbigging; sub nom Newbigging v Adam (1888) L.R.
9–033, 9–082, 9–082, 9–107
13 App. Cas. 308 HL
Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd;
6–004
sub nom Anglo Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd v Adamastos
Shipping Co Ltd [1959] A.C. 133; [1958] 2 W.L.R. 688;
[1958] 1 All E.R. 725; [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 73; (1958) 102
S.J. 290 HL
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B. &Ald. 681
2–015,2–030,2–031, 2–058
Adams v Morgan & Co Ltd [1924] 1 K.B. 751 CA
16–092
Adamson v Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing. 66
11–026, 16–092
Addax Ltd v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 493
20–054
QBD (Comm)
Adderley v Dixon (1824) 1 C. & S. 607
21–020, 21–026
Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] A.C. 488 HL
20–082, 20–083, 20–084, 20–090, 20–091,
20–092
Addison v Brown [1954] 1 W.L.R. 779; [1954] 2 All E.R. 213
11–048
QBD
Adelfa, The. See Adelfamar SA v Silos e Mangimi Martini SpA
(The Adelfa)
Adelfamar SA v Silos e Mangimi Martini SpA (The Adelfa)
19–017, 19–052, 19–082
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 QBD (Comm)
Adler v Ananhall Advisory & Consultancy Services Ltd [2009]
6–037, 16–088
EWCA Civ 586
Adler v Dickson (No.1) [1955] 1 Q.B. 158; [1954] 3 W.L.R. 696 14–058, 14–059, 14–060, 14–061, 14–062
CA
Admiralty Commrs v Owners of the SS Amerika [1917] A.C. 38
14–022
HL
Advocate (Lord) v Scotsman Publications Ltd [1990] 1 A.C.
11–069
812; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 358; [1989] 2 All E.R. 852; 1989 S.C.
(H.L.) 122; 1989 S.L.T. 705; [1989] 1 F.S.R. 580; (1989)
86(38) L.S.G. 32; (1989) 139 N.L.J. 971 HL
AE Farr Ltd v Admiralty [1953] 1 W.L.R. 965; [1953] 2 All E.R.
7–034
512 QBD
AEG Telefunken AG v Commission of the European
11–107
Communities (107/82) [1983] E.C.R. 3151; [1984] 3
C.M.L.R. 325 ECJ
Aegean Dolphin, The. See Dolphin Hellas Shipping SA v
Itemslot (The Aegean Dolphin)
Aello, The. See Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices SA v
Agrimpex Hungarian Trading Co for Agricultural Products
(The Aello)
Aercap Partners 1 Ltd v Avia Asset Management AB [2010]
20–056
EWHC 2431 (Comm)
Aerial Advertising v Batchelors Peas Ltd (Manchester) [1938] 2
18–039, 18–089
All E.R. 788 KBD
Aerospace Publishing v Thames Water [2007] EWCA Civ 3;
20–036
[2007] Bus L.R. 726
Afovos Shipping Co SA v R Pagnan & Fratelli (The Afovos)
17–084, 18–028, 18–063, 18–064, 18–066,
[1983] 1 W.L.R. 195; [1983] 1 All E.R. 449; [1983] 1
18–071, 18–098
Lloyd’s Rep. 335; [1983] Com. L.R. 83; (1983) 127 S.J. 98
HL
Afovos, The. See Afovos Shipping Co SA v R Pagnan & Fratelli
(The Afovos)
AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 A.C.
6–016
417; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 1205; [1988] 3 All E.R. 1058; (1989)
21 H.L.R. 79; (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 17; [1988] 47 E.G. 193;
[1988] E.G. 153 (C.S.); (1989) 86(1) L.S.G. 39; (1988) 138
N.L.J. Rep. 325; (1988) 132 S.J. 1638 HL
Agapitos v Agnew (The Aegeon (No.1)) [2002] EWCA Civ 247;
9–021, 9–140
[2003] Q.B. 556
Agathon, The. See Kissavos Shipping Co SA v Empresa Cubana
de Fletes (The Agathon)
Ageas (UK) Ltd v Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd [2014] EWHC 2178
20–080
(QB); [2014] Bus. L.R. 1338; [2015] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 1
Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The
20–123, 21–058
Angelic Grace) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 87 CA (Civ Div)
Agip SpA v Navigazione Alta Italia SpA (The Nai Genova and
3–082, 8–062, 8–065, 8–069
The Nai Superba) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 353 CA (Civ Div)
Agnew v Landsförsäkringsbolagens AB [2001] 1 A.C. 223;
9–150
[2000] 2 W.L.R. 497; [2000] 1 All E.R. 737; [2000] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 321; [2000] C.L.C. 848; [2001] I.L.Pr. 25;
[2000] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 317; (2000) 97(9) L.S.G. 39; (2000)
144 S.J.L.B. 109 HL
Agra Bank, Ex p. See Worcester Ex p. Agra Bank, Re
Agrabele, The. See Gebr Van Weelde Scheepvaart Kantoor BV v
Compania Naviera Sea Orient SA (The Agrabele (No.2))
Agroexport State Enterprise for Foreign Trade v Compagnie
Européenne de Céréales [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 499 QBD
(Comm)
Agrokor AG v Tradigrain SA [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 497 QBD
(Comm)
Ahmad v Secret Garden (Cheshire) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1005;
[2013] 3 E.G.L.R. 42; [2014] 1 P. & C.R. DG3
AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014]
UKSC 58; [2014] 3 W.L.R. 1367; [2015] 1 All E.R. 747;
[2015] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 189; [2015] P.N.L.R. 10; [2015]
W.T.L.R. 187; (2014) 158(43) S.J.L.B. 49
AIB Group (UK) Plc (formerly Allied Irish Banks Plc and AIB
Finance Ltd) v Martin; sub nom AIB Group (UK) Ltd v
Martin; AIB Group (UK) Plc (formerly Allied Irish Bank Plc
and AIB Finance Ltd) v Martin; AIB Group (UK) Plc
(formerly Allied Irish Bank Plc and AIB Finance Ltd) v
Gold [2001] UKHL 63; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 94; [2002] 1 All
E.R. 353; [2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 209; [2002] 1 E.G. 75
(C.S.); (2002) 99(7) L.S.G. 34; (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 13;
[2001] N.P.C. 183
AIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (The Kriti Palm)
[2006] EWCA Civ 1601; [2007] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 667;
[2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 555
Aiken v Stewart Wrightson Members Agency Ltd [1996] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 577; [1997] 6 Re. L.R. 79 CA (Civ Div)
Ailion v Spiekermann [1976] Ch. 158; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 556 Ch
D
Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd (The
Strathallan); Malvern Fishing Co Ltd v Ailsa Craig Fishing
Co Ltd[1983] 1 W.L.R. 964; [1983] 1 All E.R. 101 HL
Aiolos, The. See Central Insurance Co Ltd v Seacalf Shipping
Corp (The Aiolos)
Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Ltd v Lombard North Central Plc
[2012] EWHC 3162 (QB); [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 63
Air Transworld Ltd v Bombardier Inc [2012] EWHC 243
(Comm); [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 60; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 349; [2012] 1 C.L.C. 145; [2012] Bus. L.R. D109
AJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner [2013] EWHC 484
(QB); [2015] T.C.L.R. 3; [2013] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 629
Ajayi (t/a Colony Carrier Co) v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd [1964]
1 W.L.R. 1326; [1964] 3 All E.R. 556 PC (Nig)
Aker Oil & Gas Technology UK Plc v Sovereign Corporate Ltd
[2002] C.L.C. 557 QBD (TCC)
Akerhielm v De Mare; sub nom Baron Uno Carl Samuel
Akerhielm v Rolf de Mare [1959] A.C. 789; [1959] 3 W.L.R.
2–109
18–010, 18–038, 19–075
8–065, 8–074
20–094
6–014, 6–015, 6–023
9–034, 9–141
16–099, 20–123
11–019, 11–157
7–001, 7–018, 7–025
20–055
2–002, 2–048, 7–016, 7–054, 7–090, 7–
092
7–118
3–113,3–114
9–168
9–010, 9–034
108 PC (EA)
Akici v LR Butlin Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1296; [2006] 1 W.L.R.
18–065
201
Akiens v Salomon (1993) 65 P. & C.R. 364; [1993] 14 E.G. 97;
3–127
[1993] 1 E.G.L.R. 10 CA (Civ Div)
Aktieselskabet de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v Bajamar Compania
18–050
Naviera SA (The Torenia) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 210 QBD
(Comm)
Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd; sub nom A/S Reidar v Acros
7–031
Ltd [1927] 1 K.B. 352; (1926) 25 Ll. L. Rep. 513 CA
Aktion Maritime Corp of Liberia v S Kasmas & Bros (The
15–003, 18–037, 18–043, 18–050, 20–074
Aktion) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 283 QBD (Comm)
Aktion, The. See Aktion Maritime Corp of Liberia v S Kasmas
& Bros (The Aktion)
Aktor, The. See PT Berlian Laju Tanker TBK v Nuse Shipping
Ltd (The Aktor)
AL Barnes Ltd v Time Talk (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 402;
11–152
[2003] B.L.R. 331
Al Kishtaini v Shanshal; sub nom Shanshal v Al Kishtaini
11–113
[2001] EWCA Civ 264; [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 601
Al Nakib Investments (Jersey) Ltd v Longcroft [1990] 1 W.L.R.
9–039
1390; [1990] 3 All E.R. 321 Ch D
Al Tawfiq, The. See Linnett Bay Shipping Co Ltd v Patraicos
Gulf Shipping Co SA (The Al Tawfiq)
Alan Estates Ltd v WG Stores Ltd [1982] Ch. 511; [1981] 3
2–106, 3–173
W.L.R. 892 CA (Civ Div)
Alaskan Trader, The. See Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil
International (The Alaskan Trader)
Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds
11–107
Textielindustrie (C–67/96) [1999] E.C.R. I–5751; [2000] 4
C.M.L.R. 446 ECJ
Albazero, The. See Owners of Cargo Laden on Board the
Albacruz v Owners of the Albazero
Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau [1972] A.C. 301; [1971] 3
4–016
W.L.R. 291 HL
Albion Sugar Co v Williams Tankers [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457
17–017
QBD (Comm)
Albright & Wilson UK Ltd v Biachem Ltd [2002] UKHL 37;
16–009
[2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 753; [2003] 1 C.L.C. 637; (2002)
146 S.J.L.B. 241
Alder v Moore [1961] 2 Q.B. 57; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 426 CA
11–083, 20–130, 20–143
Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd [1945] K.B. 189; [1945] 1
7–037, 17–068
All E.R. 244 CA
Aldridge v Turner [2004] EWHC 2768 (Ch)
10–020
Alec Lobb Garages Ltd v Total Oil Great Britain Ltd [1985] 1 10–010, 10–045, 10–051, 11–063, 11–079,
W.L.R. 173; [1985] 1 All E.R. 303; [1985] 1 E.G.L.R. 33;
11–097, 11–098, 11–100, 11–165
(1985) 273 E.G. 659; (1985) 82 L.S.G. 45; (1985) 129 S.J.
83 CA (Civ Div)
Alecos M, The. See Sealace Shipping Co Ltd v Oceanvoice Ltd
(The Alecos M)
Alegro Capital LLP v Allproperty Media Pte Ltd [2013] EWHC
6–012
3376 (QB)
Alev, The. See Vantage Navigation Corp v Suhail and Saud
Bahwan Building Materials (The Alev)
Alexander v Gibson (1811) 2 Camp. 555
16–019
Alexander v Railway Executive [1951] 2 K.B. 882; [1951] 2 All
7–006, 7–028
E.R. 442 KBD
Alexander v Rayson [1936] 1 K.B. 169; 114 A.L.R. 357 CA
11–056, 11–112, 11–114, 11–141
Alexander v Rolls Royce Motor Cars Ltd [1996] R.T.R. 95 CA
20–088
(Civ Div)
Alexander v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd (No.1); Wall v
6–049, 21–056
Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd (No.1) [1990] I.C.R. 291;
[1990] I.R.L.R. 55 Ch D
Alexander v Steinhardt Walker & Co [1903] 2 K.B. 208 KBD
15–019
(Comm Ct)
Alexander Hamilton Institute v Jones, 234 Ill. App. (1924)
2–044
Alf Vaughan & Co Ltd (In Receivership) v Royscot Trust Plc
10–004
[1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 856 Ch D
Alfa Finance Holdings AD v Quarzwerke GmbH [2015] EWHC
21–041
243 (Ch)
Alfred C Toepfer v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co; sub nom Toepfer
18–038
v Cremer [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 118; (1975) 119 S.J. 506 CA
(Civ Div)
Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH v Itex Itagrani Export SA
17–076
[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 360 QBD (Comm)
Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd [2005]
20–137
EWHC 281; [2005] B.L.R. 271 QBD (TCC)
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd (No.1); sub 14–002, 14–022, 14–023, 14–024, 14–026,
nom Panatown Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd
14–028, 14–029, 14–030, 14–031, 14–
[2001] 1 A.C. 518; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 946; [2000] 4 All E.R.
032, 14–033, 14–035, 14–036, 14–076,
97; [2000] C.L.C. 1604; [2000] B.L.R. 331; (2000) 2
14–094, 15–045, 20–008, 20–089
T.C.L.R. 547; 71 Con. L.R. 1; [2000] E.G. 102 (C.S.);
(2000) 97(38) L.S.G. 43; (2000) 150 N.L.J. 1299; (2000)
144 S.J.L.B. 240; [2000] N.P.C. 89 HL
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd (No.2)
2–093
[2001] EWCA Civ 485; 76 Con. L.R. 224
Alfred McAlpine Plc v BAI (RunOff) Ltd [2000] 1 All E.R.
18–043, 18–050, 18–054
(Comm) 545; [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 437 CA (Civ Div
Alghussein Establishment v Eton College [1988] 1 W.L.R. 587;
18–005
[1991] 1 All E.R. 267 HL
Ali v Lord Grey School Governors; sub nom A v Headteacher
21–037
and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14;
[2006] 2 A.C. 363; [2006] 2 W.L.R. 690; [2006] 2 All E.R.
457; [2006] H.R.L.R. 20; [2006] U.K.H.R.R. 591; 20
B.H.R.C. 295; [2006] E.L.R. 223
Aliakmon, The. See Leigh & Sillivan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping
Co Ltd (The Aliakmon)
Alicia Hosiery v Brown Shipley & Co [1970] 1 Q.B. 195;
9–168, 14–008
[1969] 2 W.L.R. 1268 QBD
Al-Kandari v JR Brown & Co [1988] Q.B. 665; [1988] 2 W.L.R.
14–054
671 CA (Civ Div)
Allan Janes LLP v Johal [2006] EWHC 286; [2006] I.C.R. 742
11–076
Ch D
Allardyce v Roebuck; sub nom Gray (Deceased), Re [2004]
3–160, 18–076
EWHC 1538; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 815 Ch D
Allcard v Skinner (1887) L.R. 36 Ch. D. 145 CA
10–013, 10–020, 10–023, 10–027, 10–031,
10–033
Allcard v Walker [1896] 2 Ch. 369 Ch D
8–024, 8–026
Allen v Bloomsbury HA [1993] 1 All E.R. 651; [1992] P.I.Q.R.
1–008, 12–004
Q50 QBD
Allen v Hounga [2014] UKSC 47; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 2889; [2014]
11–110, 11–114, 11–172
4 All E.R. 595; [2014] I.C.R. 847; [2014] I.R.L.R. 811;
[2014] H.R.L.R. 23; [2014] Eq. L.R. 559
Allen v Pink (1838) 4 M. & W. 140
6–015
Allen v Rescous (1676) 2 Lev 174
11–015
Allen v Robles [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1193; [1969] 3 All E.R. 154 CA
18–085
(Civ Div)
Allhusen v Borries (1867) 15 W.R. 739
21–045
Alliance & Leicester Building Society v Edgestop Ltd
9–028
(Application for Leave); Alliance & Leicester Building
Society v Dhanoa; Alliance & Leicester Building Society v
Samra; Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Lancaster; Alliance &
Leicester Building Society v Hamptons, LTA 94/5856/B CA
(Civ Div)
Alliance Bank v Broom (1864) 2 Dr. & Sm. 289
3–041, 3–042
Alliance Property Group Plc v Prestwich [1995] I.R.L.R. 25 CA
11–073, 11–075, 11–089
(Civ Div)
Alliance v Tishby [2011] EWHC 1015 (Ch) at [42]. In Woodford
8–061
Land Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2011] EWHC 984 (Ch)
Allianz Insurance Co (Egypt) v Aigaion Insurance Co SA [2008]
2–017,2–021
EWCA Civ 1455; [2008] 2 C.L.C. 1013
Allied Dunbar (Frank Weisinger) Ltd v Frank Weisinger [1988]
11–073, 11–074, 11–079
I.R.L.R. 60
Allied Irish Bank Plc v Byrne [1995] 2 F.L.R. 325; [1995] 1
10–040
F.C.R. 430 Ch D
Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1
20–059
W.L.R. 1602; [1995] 4 All E.R. 907; [1996] C.L.C. 153; 46
Con. L.R. 134; [1955–95] P.N.L.R. 701; (1995) 145 N.L.J.
1646; [1995] N.P.C. 83; (1995) 70 P. & C.R. D14 CA (Civ
Div)
Allied Marine Transport v Vale do Rio Doce Navegacao SA
2–003, 2–005, 2–024, 2–043, 3–035, 3–
(The Leonidas D); Vale do Rio Doce Navegacao SA v Ocean
082
Freighters Corp [1985] 1 W.L.R. 925; [1985] 2 All E.R. 796
CA (Civ Div)
Allison v Clayhills (1907) 97 L.T. 709
10–023
Allnutt v Wilding [2007] EWCA Civ 412
8–060
Alloway v Phillips (Inspector of Taxes) [1980] 1 W.L.R. 888;
15–006
[1980] 3 All E.R. 138 CA (Civ Div)
Allseas International Management v Panroy Bulk Transport SA
21–024
(The Star Gazer and The Star Delta) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
370 QBD (Comm)
Allwood v Clifford [2002] E.M.L.R. 3 Ch D
16–098
Alma Shipping Corp of Monrovia v Mantovani (The Dione)
20–110
[1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 115; (1974) 119 S.J. 164
Almare Seconda, The. See Blackgold Trading of Monrovia v
Almare SpA Navigazione of Genoa (The Almare Seconda)
Alpenstow Ltd v Regalian Properties Plc [1985] 1 W.L.R. 721;
[1985] 2 All E.R. 545 Ch D
Alpha Trading Ltd v Dunnshaw-Patten Ltd [1981] Q.B. 290;
[1981] 2 W.L.R. 169 CA (Civ Div)
Alpstream AG v PK Airfinance Sarl [2013] EWHC 2370;
[2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 441
Al-Saudi Banque v Clark Pixley (A Firm) [1990] Ch. 313;
[1990] 2 W.L.R. 344 Ch D
Alsey Steam Fishing Co Ltd v Hillman (The Kirknes) [1957] P.
51; [1957] 2 W.L.R. 20, PDAP
Alstom Signalling Ltd (t/a Alstom Transport Information
Solutions) v Jarvis Facilities Ltd [2004] EWHC 1232; 95
Con. L.R. 55 QBD (TCC)
Alstom Transport v Tilson [2010] EWCA Civ 1308; [2011]
I.R.L.R. 169
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co v John Walker & Sons
[1977] 1 W.L.R. 164; [1976] 3 All E.R. 509 CA (Civ Div)
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd (In Liquidation) v
Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] Q.B. 84;
[1981] 3 W.L.R. 565; [1981] 3 All E.R. 577; [1982] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 27; [1981] Com. L.R. 236; (1981) 125 S.J. 623
CA (Civ Div)
Amalgamated Metal Trading Ltd v Department of Trade and
Industry, Times, 21 March 1989; Financial Times, 28
February 1989 QBD
Amar Singh v Kulubya [1964] A.C. 142; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 513
PC (EA)
Amazonia, The. See Furness Withy (Australia) Ltd v Metal
Distributors (UK) Ltd (The Amazonia)
AMB Imballaggi Plastici Srl v Pacflex Ltd [1999] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 249; [1999] C.L.C. 1391 CA (Civ Div)
Amberley UK Ltd v West Sussex CC [2011] EWCA Civ 11
Amble Assets LLP (In Administration) v Longbenton Foods Ltd
(In Administration) [2011] EWHC 3774 (Ch); [2012] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 764
Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Cheshire CC [1999] B.L.R. 303
QBD (TCC)
Amec Developments Ltd v Jury’s Hotel Management (UK) Ltd
(2000) 82 P. & C.R. 286
AMEC Properties v Planning Research & Systems [1992]
B.C.L.C. 1149; [1992] 1 E.G.L.R. 70 CA (Civ Div)
Amer Energy, The. See ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd
of England (The Amer Energy)
American Accord, The. See United City Merchants
(Investments) Ltd v Royal Bank of Canada (The American
Accord)
American Airlines Inc v Hope; sub nom Banque Sabbag SAL v
Hope [1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 301 HL
American Cyanamid Co (No.1) v Ethicon Ltd [1975] A.C. 396;
[1975] 2 W.L.R. 316; [1975] 1 All E.R. 504; [1975] F.S.R.
101; [1975] R.P.C. 513; (1975) 119 S.J. 136 HL
4–013,21–042
2–110,6–041, 16–086, 16–091
7–028
9–030, 9–039
14–058, 14–060
2–096
4–003, 14–006
8–032, 19–043, 19–062, 19–083
3–090, 3–095, 3–096, 3–097, 3–098, 3–
119, 3–151, 6–026, 9–017
9–042
11–146
16–005
2–096
20–152
20–121
20–014
21–019, 21–024
2–093
21–054
American Trading & Production Corp v Shell International
Marine Ltd (The Washington Trader) [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
463; 453 F. 2d. 939, US Ct
Amer-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 C.L.R. 170
Amherst v James Walker Goldsmith & Silversmith Ltd [1983]
Ch. 305; [1983] 3 W.L.R. 334 CA (Civ Div)
Amiri Flight Authority v BAE Systems Plc [2003] EWCA Civ
1447; [2004] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 385; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
767
Amoco Australia Pty v Rocco Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty.
See Amoco Australian Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor
Engineering Co Pty Ltd
Amoco Australian Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co
Pty Ltd; sub nom Amoco Australia Pty v Rocco Bros Motor
Engineering Co Pty [1975] A.C. 561; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 779
PC (Aus)
Ampleforth Abbey Trs v Turner & Townsend Management Ltd
[2012] EWHC 2137 (TCC); [2012] T.C.L.R. 8; 144 Con.
L.R. 115; [2012] C.I.L.L. 3252
Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside)
Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 577; [2013] 4 All E.R. 377; [2013]
B.L.R. 400; 148 Con. L.R. 1; [2013] 23 E.G. 76 (C.S.)
Amsprop Trading Ltd v Harris Distribution Ltd [1997] 1 W.L.R.
1025; [1997] 2 All E.R. 990 Ch D
Anangel Atlas Compania Naviera SA v Ishikawajima-Harima
Heavy Industries Co (No.1) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 167 QBD
(Comm)
Anangel Atlas Compania Naviera SA v Ishikawajima-Harima
Heavy Industries Co (No.2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 QBD
(Comm)
Anchor Line v Keith Rowell (The Hazelmoor) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 351 CA (Civ Div)
Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche SA v Woodhouse Drake and
Carey (Sugar) Ltd; Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche SA v
EF Hutton & Co (London) Ltd [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 516;
[1983] E.C.C. 405 QBD (Comm)
Anctil v Manufacturers Life Insurance Co [1899] A.C. 604 PC
(Can)
Andersen v Fitzgerald (1853) 4 H.L.C. 484
Anderson v Martindale (1801) 1 East 487
Anderson v Pacific Fire & Marine Insurance Co (1871–72) L.R.
7 C.P. 65 CCP
Anderson v Thornton (1853) 8 Exch. 425
Anderton v Clwyd CC; sub nom Bryant v Pech; Home Office v
Dorgan; Cummins v Shell International Trading & Shipping
Ltd; Bryant v Mike Beer Transport Ltd; Dorgan v Home
Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services
Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd
[2002] EW CA Civ 933; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 3174; [2002] 3 All
E.R. 813
Anderton v Rowland, Times, 5 November 1999 QBD (Merc)
Andra, The. See DGM Commodities Corp v Sea Metropolitan
19–031
18–070
2–003, 2–005, 3–082, 18–100
7–004, 7–090
11–100, 11–111, 11–165
7–078
18–031, 18–086
14–133, 15–081
16–098
3–050, 3–102, 3–106
17–082, 18–038
11–020
11–047
9–021
13–012, 13–021, 13–022, 13–025
9–012
9–096
8–022
2–076
SA (The Andra)
André & Cie SA v Cook Industries Inc [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
463 CA (Civ Div)
André et Cie SA v Etablissements Michel Blanc et Fils [1979] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 427 CA (Civ Div)
André et Cie SA v Marine Transocean Ltd (The Splendid Sun)
[1981] Q.B. 694; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 43 CA (Civ Div)
André & Cie SA v Tradax Export SA [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 254;
[1983] Com. L.R. 2 CA (Civ Div)
Andrew Millar & Co Ltd v Taylor & Co Ltd [1916] 1 K.B. 402
CA
Andrews v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2012] H.C.A. 30; (2012)
290 C.L.R. 595
Andrews v Hopkinson [1957] 1 Q.B. 229; [1956] 3 W.L.R. 732
Assizes (Leeds)
Andrews v Ramsay & Co [1903] 2 K.B. 635 KBD
Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Ltd (In Liquidation) v Johnson
& Higgins Ltd; sub nom Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting
Ltd v Johnson & Higgs Ltd [2001] UKHL 51; [2001] 2 All
E.R. (Comm) 929; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 157; [2002] C.L.C.
181; [2002] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 91; [2002] P.N.L.R. 8
Anemone, The. See Clipper Maritime Ltd v Shirlstar Container
Transport Ltd (The Anemone)
Angel v Jay [1911] 1 K.B. 666 KBD
Angel Bell, The. See Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey
Shipping Co SA (The Angel Bell)
Angelia, The. See Trade and Transport Inc v Iino Kaiun Kaisha
Ltd (The Angelia)
Angelic Grace, The. See Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima
SA v Pagnan SpA (The Angelic Grace)
Angelic Star, The. See Oresundsvarvet AB v Lemos (The
Angelic Star)
Angell v Duke (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 174; (1875) 32 L.T. 320
QBD
Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1972] 1 Q.B. 60; [1971] 3 W.L.R.
528 CA (Civ Div)
Anglian Water Services Ltd v Crawshaw Robbins & Co Ltd
[2001] B.L.R. 173; [2001] N.P.C. 32 QBD
Anglo African Merchants Ltd v Bayley; Exmouth Clothing Co
Ltd v Bayley [1970] 1 Q.B. 311; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 686 QBD
(Comm)
Anglo African Shipping Co of New York Inc v J Mortner Ltd
[1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 610 CA QBD (Comm)
Anglo Auto Finance Co v James [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1042; [1963] 3
All E.R. 566 CA
Anglo Continental Holidays v Typaldos (London) [1967] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 61; (1967) 111 S.J. 599 CA (Civ Div)
Anglo Petroleum Ltd v TFB (Mortgages) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ
456; [2008] 1 B.C.L.C. 185
Anglomar Shipping Co v Swan Hunter Shipbuilders and Swan
Hunter Group (The London Lion) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 456
CA (Civ Div)
17–062
3–096, 9–017, 9–066, 9–166
2–003, 2–005, 2–043, 2–047, 19–083
19–036
19–046, 19–051
20–143
14–006
16–098
9–146, 20–023, 20–024
9–103
5–009, 6–030, 9–056
20–027, 20–028, 20–033
20–118
16–011, 16–097
21–012
20–144
7–066, 20–092
11–018
7–020
Angus v Clifford [1891] 2 Ch. 449 CA
Annadale v Harris (1727) 2 P.Wms. 432; affd 1 Bro.P.C. 250
Anns v Merton LBC; sub nom Anns v Walcroft Property Co Ltd
[1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R.
492; 75 L.G.R. 555; (1977) 243 E.G. 523; (1988) 4 Const.
L.J. 100; [1977] J.P.L. 514; (1987) 84 L.S.G. 319; (1987)
137 N.L.J. 794; (1977) 121 S.J. 377 HL
9–035
11–044
14–049
Annulment Funding Co Ltd v Cowey [2010] EWCA Civ 711
Anon. (1478) Y.B. 17 Edw. IV Pasch, f.1–pl.2, cited in Fifoot
Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA and Neste Oy v Marlucidez
Armadora SA (The Filiatra Legacy) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
337 CA (Civ Div)
Anscombe & Ringland v Butchoff (1984) 134 N.L.J. 37
Anscombe & Ringland v Watson [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 28; [1991]
38 E.G. 230
Antaios, The. See Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen
Rederierna AB (The Antaios); Maritime Transport Overseas
GmbH v Unitramp SA (The Antaios)
Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB (The
Antaios) [1985] A.C. 191; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 592; [1984] 3 All
E.R. 229; [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 235; (1984) 81 L.S.G. 2776;
(1984) 128 S.J. 564 HL
Antama, The. See Marina Shipping v Laughton (The Antama)
Antares, The. See Kenya Railways v Antares Co Pte Ltd (The
Antares (Nos 1 and 2))
Antclizo, The. See Food Corp of India v Antclizo Shipping Corp
(The Antclizo)
Anton Durbeck GmbH v Den Norske Bank ASA [2005] EWHC
2497; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93 QBD (Comm)
Antonis P Lemos, The. See Samick Lines Co v Owners of the
Antonis P Lemos
Antrobus v Smith (1805) 12 Ves. 39
Antwerpen, The. See Glebe Island Terminals Pty v Continental
Seagram Pty (The Antwerpen)
Anwar Al Sabar, The. See Gulf Steel Co Ltd v Al Khalifa
Shipping Co Ltd (The Anwar Al Sabar)
Apex Supply Co, Re [1942] Ch. 108 Ch D
Apley Estates Co Ltd v De Bernales [1947] Ch. 217; [1947] 1
All E.R. 213; 63 T.L.R. 71; [1947] L.J.R. 705; 176 L.T. 182;
(1947) 91 S.J. 12
Appleby v Myers; sub nom Appleby v Meyers (1866–67) L.R. 2
C.P. 651 Ex Chamber
Appleby v Sleep [1968] 1 W.L.R. 948; [1968] 2 All E.R. 265
DC
Applegate v Moss; sub nom Archer v Moss [1971] 1 Q.B. 406;
[1971] 2 W.L.R. 541 CA (Civ Div)
Appleson v Littlewoods [1939] 1 All E.R. 464
Appleton v Binks (1804) 5 East 148
Appleton v Campbell (1826) 2 C. & P. 347
Aquafaith, The. See Isabella Shipowner SA v Shagang Shipping
Co Ltd (The Aquafaith)
Arab Bank Plc v John D Wood (Commercial) Ltd; Arab Bank
9–018, 10–015, 10–028, 10–036
2–024
14–050
11–075, 11–163
16–087
6–013, 18–050, 18–064, 20–118
14–140
15–029
20–144
13–014
19–012, 19–015, 19–099, 19–103
1–008
20–072
4–008
16–074
11–044
20–121
Plc v Browne [2000] 1 W.L.R. 857; [2000] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R.
471 CA (Civ Div)
Arab Bank Plc v Zurich Insurance Co; Banque Bruxelles
Lambert SA v Zurich Insurance Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
262; [1998] C.L.C. 1351 QBD (Comm)
Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No.9) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
589 CA (Civ Div)
Araci v Fallon [2011] EWCA Civ 668; [2011] L.L.R. 440;
(2011) 155(23) S.J.L.B. 39
Aragon, The. See Phibro Energy Inc v Coastal (Bermuda) Ltd
(The Aragon)
Aramis, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213 CA (Civ Div)
13–027
16–098
11–080, 21–020, 21–035, 21–052, 21–054
2–002, 2–075, 3–008, 3–053, 4–003, 4–
024, 6–046
Arawa, The. See Producers Meats Ltd v Shaw Savill & Albion
Co Ltd (The Arawa)
Arbitration between Anglo Russian Merchant Traders Ltd and
2–109
John Batt & Co (London) Ltd, Re [1917] 2 K.B. 679 CA
Arbitration between Comptoir Commercial Anversois and
6–035, 6–036, 19–041, 19–067, 19–076
Power Son & Co, Re; sub nom Comptoir Commercial
Anversois v Power, Son & Co [1920] 1 K.B. 868; (1919) 1
Ll. L. Rep. 266 CA
Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd v S Spanglett Ltd [1961] 1 Q.B.
11–119,11–121, 11–123
374; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 170 CA
Archer v Brown [1985] Q.B. 401; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 350; [1984]
9–028, 9–033, 9–059, 9–061, 9–066, 9–
2 All E.R. 267; (1984) 81 L.S.G. 2770; (1984) 134 N.L.J.
071, 20–019, 20–112
235; (1984) 128 S.J. 532 QBD
Archer v Stone (1898) 78 L.T. 34
16–060
Arcos Ltd v Aronson (1930) 36 Ll.L.R. 108
2–096
Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son; sub nom Ronaasen & Son v 17–062, 18–036, 18–048, 18–057, 18–109
Arcos Ltd [1933] A.C. 470; (1933) 45 Ll. L. Rep. 33 HL
Arctic Shipping Co Ltd v Mobilia AB (The Tatra) [1990] 2
9–161, 16–029
Lloyd’s Rep. 51 QBD (Comm)
Ardagh Group SA v Pillar Property Group Ltd [2013] EWCA
6–013
Civ 900; [2014] S.T.C. 26; [2013] S.T.I. 2564
Ardennes, The. See Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the
Ardennes v Owners of the Ardennes
Argo Caribbean Group v Lewis [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 289 CA
5–015
(Civ Div)
Argo Fund Ltd v Essar Steel Ltd; sub nom Essar Steel Ltd v
2–027, 3–057, 15–017
Argo Fund Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 241; [2006] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 104; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 134
Argo Hellas, The. See Richard Adler (t/a Argo Rederei) v Sutos
(Hellas) Maritime Corp (The Argo Hellas)
Argo Systems FZE v Liberty Insurance (PTE) [2011] EWHC
3–081, 9–120, 18–087
301 (Comm)
Argo Systems FZE v Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd [2011] EWCA
3–081, 9–120, 18–087
Civ 1572; [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 126; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 129; [2012] 1 C.L.C. 81; [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 67
Argonaut, The. See Neptune Maritime Co of Monrovia v
Koninklijke Bunge BV (The Argonaut)
Argy Trading Development Co v Lapid Developments [1977] 1
3–088, 3–090, 3–168, 9–141
W.L.R. 444; [1977] 3 All E.R. 785 QBD
Aribisala v St James Homes (Grosvenor) Dock Ltd [2007]
EWHC 1694 (Ch); [2007] 37 E.G. 234
Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd (The Aries) [1977] 1
W.L.R. 185; [1977] 1 All E.R. 398 HL
Aries, The. See Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd (The
Aries)
Ariston SRL v Charly Records, Independent, 13 April 1990;
Financial Times, 21 March 1990 CA (Civ Div)
Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (The Ocean Frost) [1986] A.C.
717; [1986] 2 W.L.R. 1063; [1986] 2 All E.R. 385; [1986] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 109; (1986) 2 B.C.C. 99197; (1986) 83 L.S.G.
2002; (1986) 130 S.J. 430 HL
Armitage Ex p. Good, Re (1877) L.R. 5 Ch. D. 46 CA
Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch. 241; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 1046 CA
(Civ Div)
Armstrong v Jackson [1917] 2 K.B. 822 KBD
Armstrong v Sheppard & Short [1959] 2 Q.B. 384; [1959] 3
W.L.R. 84 CA
Armstrong v Stokes (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 598
Armstrong v Strain [1952] 1 K.B. 232; [1952] 1 All E.R. 139
CA
Armstrong & Holmes Ltd v Holmes; Armstrong & Holmes Ltd
v Dodds [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1482; [1994] 1 All E.R. 826 Ch D
Arnhold Karberg & Co v Blythe Green Jourdain & Co; Theodor
Schneider & Co v Burgett & Newsam [1916] 1 K.B. 495 CA
Arnison v Smith (1889) L.R. 41 Ch. D. 348 CA
Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 1593;
[2015] H.L.R. 31; [2015] C.I.L.L. 3689
Aroso v Coutts & Co [2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 241; [2001]
W.T.L.R. 797 Ch D
Arpad, The (No.2) [1934] P. 189; (1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 313 CA
Arrale v Costain Civil Engineer [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 98;
(1975) 119 S.J. 527 CA (Civ Div)
Arroyo v Equion Energia Ltd [2013] EWHC 315 (TCC)
Arthur White (Contractors) Ltd v Tarmac Civil Engineering Ltd;
sub nom Spalding v Tarmac Civil Engineering Ltd [1967] 1
W.L.R. 1508; [1967] 3 All E.R. 586 HL
Artistic Upholstery Ltd v Art Forma (Furniture) Ltd [1999] 4 All
E.R. 277; [2000] F.S.R. 311 Ch D
Aruna Mills Ltd v Dhanrajmal Gobindram [1968] 1 Q.B. 655;
[1968] 2 W.L.R. 101 Ch D
Asbeek Brusse v Jahani BV (C-488/11) [2013] 3 C.M.L.R. 45;
[2014] C.E.C. 3; [2013] H.L.R. 38 ECJ (1st Chamber)
Asfar & Co v Blundell [1896] 1 Q.B. 123 CA
Ashburn Anstalt v WJ Arnold & Co [1989] Ch. 1; [1988] 2
W.L.R. 706 CA (Civ Div)
Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co Ltd v Riche; sub nom
Riche v Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co Ltd (1874–75)
L.R. 7 H.L. 653 HL
Ashby v Costin (1888) L.R. 21 Q.B.D. 401 QBD
Ashia Centur v Barker Gillette LLP [2011] EWHC 148 (QB)
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd; sub nom
11–047, 20–150
17–037
20–131
16–022, 16–025, 16–027, 16–030
13–014
7–043
9–107, 9–121, 9–158, 16–097
3–122, 3–139
16–065
9–036
3–160
8–010
9–049
6–012,6–013
13–036
20–055, 20–057, 20–102
3–029, 3–104, 3–113, 3–117, 10–051
20–016
7–037
2–076
18–042, 18–103, 20–120
7–098
19–010
2–053, 2–080, 14–134, 21–019
12–066, 12–075, 16–047
14–040
3–008
20–106
Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd; Christopher
Hill Ltd v Fur Farm Supplies Ltd, Norsildmel (Third Parties)
[1972] A.C. 441; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1051; [1971] 1 All E.R.
847; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 245; (1971) 115 S.J. 223 HL
Ashmore v Corp of Lloyd’s (No.2) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 620
QBD (Comm)
Ashmore Benson Pease & Co Ltd v AV Dawson Ltd [1973] 1
W.L.R. 828; [1973] 2 All E.R. 856 CA (Civ Div)
Ashton v Corrigan (1871) L.R. 13 Eq. 76
Ashton v Turner [1981] Q.B. 137; [1980] 3 W.L.R. 736 QBD
Ashville Investments Ltd v Elmer Contractors Ltd; sub nom
Elmer Contractors Ltd v Ashville Investments Ltd [1989]
Q.B. 488; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 867 CA (Civ Div)
Ashworth v Royal National Theatre [2014] EWHC 1176 (QB);
[2014] 4 All E.R. 238
Asiatic Banking Corp, Re; sub nom Symon’s Case (1869–70)
L.R. 5 Ch. App. 298 CA in Chancery
Askey v Golden Wine Co Ltd [1948] 2 All E.R. 35; 64 T.L.R.
379 QBD
ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England (The Amer
Energy) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 QBD
Aspden v Seddon; Preston v Seddon (1875–76) L.R. 1 Ex. D.
496 CA
Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al Zayat [2007] EWCA Civ 1001
Aspinalls v Powell and Scholefield (1889) 60 L.T. 595
ASRS v Osborne. See Osborne v Amalgamated Society of
Railway Servants (No.1)
Assicurazioni Generali SpA v Arab Insurance Group (BSC)
[2002] EW CA Civ 1642; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 577
Associated British Ports v Ferryways NV [2009] EWCA Civ
189; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 595; [2009] 1 C.L.C. 350
Associated Distributors Ltd v Hall [1938] 2 K.B. 83 CA
Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Crédit du Nord
SA [1989] 1 W.L.R. 255; [1988] 3 All E.R. 902; [1989] Fin.
L.R. 117; (1989) 86(8) L.S.G. 43; (1988) 138 N.L.J. Rep.
109; (1989) 133 S.J. 81 QBD
Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd v Teigland
Shipping A/S (The Oakworth) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581;
(1974) 119 S.J. 97 CA (Civ Div)
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp
[1948] 1 K.B. 223; [1947] 2 All E.R. 680; (1947) 63 T.L.R.
623; (1948) 112 J.P. 55; 45 L.G.R. 635; [1948] L.J.R. 190;
(1947) 177 L.T. 641; (1948) 92 S.J. 26 CA
Association of British Travel Agents Ltd v British Airways Plc
[2000] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 204; [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 209
CA (Civ Div)
Astea (UK) Ltd v Time Group Ltd [2003] EWHC 725 QBD
(TCC)
Astilleros Canarios SA v Cape Hatteras Shipping Co Inc (The
Cape Hatteras) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 518 QBD (Comm)
Astley v Austrust Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 758 HC (Bar)
Astley v Reynolds (1731) 2 Str. 915
6–041, 6–044
11–018, 11–115, 11–152
21–020
11–014, 11–114
8–064
21–035
12–019
11–022, 11–023
20–111
15–080
2–047
18–033
9–024, 9–028
4–021, 5–015, 20–143
20–144
6–040, 8–001, 8–003, 8–005, 8–006, 8–
009, 8–017, 8–018, 8–020, 8–028, 19–
121
21–020, 21–058
2–096, 6–042
6–037
18–097
16–069
20–126
10–004, 10–008
Astley Industrial Trust v Grimley [1963] 1 W.L.R. 584; [1963] 2
All E.R. 33 CA
Aston Hill Financial Inc v African Minerals Finance Ltd; sub
nom BMA Special Opportunity Hub Fund Ltd v African
Minerals Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 416
Astra, MV. See Kuwait Rocks Co v AMN Bulkcarriers Inc
Astra Trust v Adams and Williams [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81
QBD (Comm)
AstraZeneca UK Ltd v Albemarle International Corp [2011]
EWHC 1574 (Comm); [2011] 2 C.L.C. 252; [2012] Bus.
L.R. D1
Astro Exito Navegacion SA v Southland Enterprise Co (The
Messiniaki Tolmi (No.2)) [1983] 2 A.C. 787; [1983] 3
W.L.R. 130 HL
Asty Maritime Co Ltd v Rocco Guiseppe & Figli SNC (The
Astyanax) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 CA (Civ Div)
Astyanax, The. See Asty Maritime Co Ltd v Rocco Guiseppe &
Figli SNC (The Astyanax)
Ateni Maritime Corp v Great Marine Ltd (The Great Marine
(No.1)) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 245 QBD (Comm)
Athanasia Comninos and Georges Chr Lemos, The [1990] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 277 QBD (Comm)
Athenaeum Soc v Pooley (1853) 3 D. & J. 294
Athenian Harmony, The. See Derby Resources AG v Blue
Corinth Marine Co Ltd (The Athenian Harmony)
Athos, The. See Telfair Shipping Corp v Athos Shipping Co SA
(The Athos)
Atisa SA v Aztec AG [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 579 QBD (Comm)
Atkinson v Denby (1862) 7 H. & N. 934
Atkinson v Ritchie (1809) 10 East 530
Atlantic Baron, The. See North Ocean Shipping Co v Hyundai
Construction Co (The Atlantic Baron)
Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co Inc v Didymi Corp (The
Didymi); Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co Inc v Leon Corp
(The Leon) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 583; (1984) 81 L.S.G. 740
CA (Civ Div)
Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co Inc v Hallam Ltd (The Lucy)
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 188 QBD (Comm)
Atlantic Shipping & Trading Co Ltd v Louis Dreyfus & Co (The
Quantock); sub nom Louis Dreyfus & Co v Atlantic
Shipping & Trading Co Ltd [1922] 2 A.C. 250; (1922) 10 Ll.
L. Rep. 707 HL
Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd
[1989] Q.B. 833; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 389 QBD (Comm)
Atlas Maritime Co SA v Avalon Maritime Ltd (The Coral Rose)
(No.1) [1991] 4 All E.R. 769; [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 563 CA
(Civ Div)
Atlas Shipping Agency (UK) Ltd v Suisse Atlantique Société
d’Armement Maritime SA (The Gulf Grain and The El
Amaan) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 188; [1995] C.L.C. 633 QBD
(Comm)
Att Gen v Barker (Worldwide Injunction) [1990] 3 All E.R. 257
14–006, 18–046, 18–061
6–012
2–108
2–094, 7–028, 7–030
21–023
16–046, 16–058
18–064, 18–085
17–065
15–037
19–048, 19–115
11–134
19–003
19–054
9–060, 9–110, 9–143
3–058, 3–067, 11–050
3–048, 10–009
16–005
14–082, 14–086
11–069, 11–076, 21–054
CA (Civ Div)
Att Gen v Blake [2001] 1 A.C. 268; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 625;
11–069, 20–005, 20–011, 20–012, 20–013,
[2000] 4 All E.R. 385; [2000] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 487;
20–014, 20–015, 20–016, 20–017, 20–
[2001] I.R.L.R. 36; [2001] Emp. L.R. 329; [2000] E.M.L.R.
019, 20–046
949; (2000) 23(12) I.P.D. 23098; (2000) 97(32) L.S.G. 37;
(2000) 150 N.L.J. 1230; (2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 242 HL
Att Gen v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.2). See Att Gen v
Observer Ltd
Att Gen v Observer Ltd; sub nom Att Gen v Guardian
11–044, 11–069, 20–010
Newspapers Ltd (No.2) [1990] 1 A.C. 109; [1988] 3 W.L.R.
776; [1988] 3 All E.R. 545; [1989] 2 F.S.R. 181; (1988)
85(42) L.S.G. 45; (1988) 138 N.L.J. Rep. 296; (1988) 132
S.J. 1496 HL
Att Gen v Tomline (No.2) (1877–78) L.R. 7 Ch. D. 388 Ch D
8–058
Att Gen of Australia v Adelaide Steamship [1913] A.C. 781 PC
11–080
(Aus)
Att Gen of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10;
6–033, 6–034, 6–035, 6–036, 6–047, 19–
[2009] 1 W.L.R. 1988; [2009] 2 All E.R. 1127; [2009] 2 All
118
E.R. (Comm) 1; [2009] Bus. L.R. 1316; [2009] B.C.C. 433;
[2009] 2 B.C.L.C. 148
Att Gen of Ceylon v Silva (AD) [1953] A.C. 461; [1953] 2
16–025, 16–030
W.L.R. 1185 PC (Cey)
Att Gen of Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate (Queen’s Gardens)
3–121, 3–127, 3–128, 3–134, 4–012
Ltd [1987] A.C. 114; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 343 PC (HK)
Att Gen of Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 A.C. 324; [1993] 3
16–096, 16–098, 16–099
W.L.R. 1143; [1994] 1 All E.R. 1; (1993) 143 N.L.J. 1569;
(1993) 137 S.J.L.B. 251; [1993] N.P.C. 144 PC (NZ)
Attfield v DJ Plant Hire & General Contractors Co Ltd [1987]
21–019
Ch. 141; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 432 Ch D
Attia v British Gas Plc [1988] Q.B. 304; [1987] 3 W.L.R. 1101
20–085
CA (Civ Div)
Attica Sea Carriers Corp v Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei
6–035, 18–050, 20–039, 21–001, 21–010,
GmbH (The Puerto Buitrago) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 250 CA
21–013
(Civ Div)
Attika Hope, The. See G&N Angelakis Shipping Co SA v
Compagnie National Algerienne de Navigation (The Attika
Hope)
Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 394; [2013]
2–003, 2–027, 2–081, 2–086, 2–096, 3–
3 All E.R. 607; [2013] I.R.L.R. 548; [2013] I.C.R. D30
059, 4–002, 4–003, 4–020
Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 K.B. 571 CA
11–070, 11–077, 11–085, 11–163
Attwood v Small (1838) 6 Cl. & F. 232
9–027
Auld Associates Ltd v Rick Pollard Associates [2008] EWCA
18–037
Civ 655; [2008] B.L.R. 419
Austin v Great Western Ry; sub nom Austin v Great Western Ry
14–045
Co (1866–67) L.R. 2 Q.B. 442 QB
Austin v Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Co Ltd
14–126
[1945] K.B. 250; (1945) 78 Ll. L. Rep. 185 CA
Austin Knight (UK) Ltd v Hinds [1994] F.S.R. 52 Ch D
11–075
Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Compagnie
11–046
Noga d’Importation et d’Exportation SA [2007] EWHC 293
(Comm); [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 487
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41; [2011] 4 All E.R.
4–023
745; [2011] I.C.R. 1157; [2011] I.R.L.R. 820; (2011) 161
N.L.J. 1099; (2011) 155(30) S.J.L.B. 31
Autry v Republic Productions, 180 P. 2d 888 (1947)
AV Pound & Co v MW Hardy & Co Inc [1956] A.C. 588;
[1956] 2 W.L.R. 683; [1956] 1 All E.R. 639; [1956] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 255; (1956) 100 S.J. 208 HL
Avery v Bowden (1855) 5 E. & B. 714
Avimex SA v Dewulf & Cie [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 57 QBD
(Comm)
Aviva Life & Pensions UK Ltd v Strand Street Properties Ltd
[2010] EWCA Civ 444
Avon CC v Howlett [1983] 1 W.L.R. 605; [1983] 1 All E.R.
1073 CA (Civ Div)
Avon Finance Co v Bridger [1985] 2 All E.R. 281; (1979) 123
S.J. 705 CA (Civ Div)
Avon Insurance Plc v Swire Fraser Ltd [2000] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 573; [2000] C.L.C. 665 QBD (Comm)
Avraamides v Colwill [2006] EWCA Civ 1533; (2006) 103(46)
L.S.G. 31; [2006] N.P.C. 120
Avrora Fine Arts Investment Ltd v Christie, Manson & Woods
Ltd [2012] EWHC 2198 (Ch); [2012] P.N.L.R. 35
Awilco of Oslo A/S v Fulvia SpA di Navigazione of Cagliari
(The Chikuma) [1981] 1 W.L.R. 314; [1981] 1 All E.R. 652;
[1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 371; [1981] Com. L.R. 64; (1981) 125
S.J. 184 HL
Awwad v Geraghty & Co; sub nom Geraghty & Co v Awwad
[2001] Q.B. 570; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1041 CA (Civ Div)
Axa General Insurance Ltd v Gottlieb; sub nom Gottleib v Axa
General Insurance Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 112; [2005] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 445
AXA Sun Life Services Plc v Campbell Martin Ltd [2011]
EWCA Civ 133; [2012] Bus. L.R. 203; [2011] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 1; [2011] 1 C.L.C. 312; 138 Con. L.R. 104
Ayerst v Jenkins (1873) L.R. 16 Eq. 275 Ld Ch
Aylesford (Earl of) v Morris (1872–73) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 484 CA
in Chancery
Azimut-Benetti SpA v Healey [2010] EWHC 2234 (Comm);
[2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473; [2010] T.C.L.R. 7; 132 Con. L.R.
113; [2010] C.I.L.L. 2921
Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa
(Catalunyacaixa) (C–415/11) EU:C:2013:164; [2013] 3
C.M.L.R. 5; [2013] All E.R. (EC) 770 ECJ
Azov Shipping Co v Baltic Shipping Co (No.3) [1999] 2 All
E.R. (Comm) 453; [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 QBD (Comm)
Azzurri Communications Ltd v International
Telecommunications Equipment Ltd (t/a SOS
Communications) [2013] EWPCC 17
B v D; sub nom AB v CD [2014] EWCA Civ 229; [2015] 1
W.L.R. 771; [2014] 3 All E.R. 667; [2014] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 242; [2014] C.P. Rep. 27; [2014] 1 C.L.C. 899;
[2014] B.L.R. 313; 153 Con. L.R. 70; [2014] C.I.L.L. 3497
B&S Contracts and Design v Victor Green Publications [1984]
19–020, 19–081
2–109, 19–048
17–092
3–081
3–055
8–022
8–082, 8–086, 10–016, 10–41
9–006, 9–072
14–095
9–009, 9–012, 9–126
18–063, 18–066, 18–109
11–013, 11–111, 11–152
9–165
7–040, 7–055, 7–066, 7–079, 9–126
11–044
10–043, 10–044
11–036, 13–012, 20–137, 20–143
7–105, 7–106
2–076, 3–081, 3–088, 3–089, 3–098
20–036
21–021
3–048, 3–051, 10–008, 10–009, 19–036
I.C.R. 419; (1984) 81 L.S.G. 893 CA (Civ Div)
B Sunley & Co Ltd v Cunard White Star Ltd [1940] 1 K.B. 740
Babcock v Lawson (1879–80) L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 284 CA
Bacardi-Martini Beverages Ltd v Thomas Hardy Packaging Ltd;
sub nom Messer UK Ltd v Bacardi-Martini Beverages Ltd;
Messer UK Ltd v Thomas Hardy Packaging Ltd [2002]
EWCA Civ 549; [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 335; [2002] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 379
Backhouse v Backhouse; sub nom B v B [1978] 1 W.L.R. 243;
[1978] 1 All E.R. 1158, Fam Div
Bacon v Cooper (Metals) Ltd [1982] 1 All E.R. 397 QBD
Badagry, The. See Terkol Rederierne v Petroleo Brasileiro SA
and Frota Nacional de Petroleiros (The Badagry)
Baden v Société Générale pour Favoriser le Développement du
Commerce et de l’Industrie en France SA [1993] 1 W.L.R.
509; [1992] 4 All E.R. 161 Ch D
Badgerhill Properties Ltd v Cottrell [1991] B.C.C. 463; [1991]
B.C.L.C. 805; 54 B.L.R. 23 CA (Civ Div)
Badische Co Ltd, Re; Bayer Co Ltd, Re; Griesheim Elektron
Ltd, Re; Kalle & Co Ltd, Re; Berlin Aniline Co Ltd, Re;
Meister Lucius & Bruning Ltd, Re [1921] 2 Ch. 331; (1921)
9 Ll. L. Rep. 20 Ch D
Bagot v Stevens Scanlan & Co Ltd [1966] 1 Q.B. 197; [1964] 3
W.L.R. 1162 QBD
Bagot Pneumatic Tyre Co v Clipper Pneumatic Tyre Co [1902] 1
Ch. 146 CA
Bailey v Angove’s Pty Ltd. See D&D Wines International Ltd
(In Liquidation), Re
Bailey v Bullock [1950] 2 All E.R. 1167; 66 T.L.R. (Pt. 2) 791
KBD
Baily v De Crespigny (1868–69) L.R. 4 Q.B. 180 QB
Bainbridge v Firmstone (1838) 8 A. & E. 743
Bainbrigge v Browne (1880–81) L.R. 18 Ch. D. 188 Ch D
Bainham v Manning (1691) 2 Vern. 242
Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer Plc; sub nom
Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer Plc [2001]
EWCA Civ 274; [2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 737; [2001]
C.L.C. 999
Bairstow Eves London Central Ltd v Darlingtons. See Bairstow
Eves London Central Ltd v Smith
Bairstow Eves London Central Ltd v Smith; sub nom Bairstow
Eves London Central Ltd v Darlingtons [2004] EWHC 263;
[2004] 2 E.G.L.R. 25; [2004] 29 E.G. 118
Baker v Baker [1993] 2 F.L.R. 247; (1993) 25 H.L.R. 408 CA
(Civ Div)
Baker v Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd; sub nom
Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd v Baker
[1998] 1 W.L.R. 974; [1998] 2 All E.R. 833; [1998] C.L.C.
820; [1998] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 327; (1998) 95(23) L.S.G. 26;
(1998) 148 N.L.J. 782; (1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 171 HL
Baker v JE Clark & Co (Transport) UK Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ
464; [2006] Pens. L.R. 131
20–104
9–016
7–079, 14–048
10–045, 10–051
20–007
8–069
16–073
19–027, 19–045, 19–072
17–069, 20–123
15–081
20–086
19–061, 19–076
3–004, 3–032, 3–166
10–023, 10–037
11–044
2–081, 2–099, 3–079, 3–081, 3–088, 3–
089, 3–090, 3–094, 3–098, 3–113, 3–
129, 4–002, 4–003, 4–026
7–108, 7–109
3–145
6–036, 6–045, 6–050
7–063
Baker v Walker (1845) 14 M. & W. 465
Baker v White (1690) 2 Vern. 215
Bal v Van Staden [1902] T.S. 128
Balchin v Chief Constable of Hampshire; sub nom Bankway
PropertiesLtd v Pensfold Dunsford [2001] EWCA Civ 538
Balder London, The. See Gatoil Anstalt v Omenial Ltd (The
Balder London (No.1))
Baldry v Marshall [1925] 1 K.B. 260 CA
Baldwyn v Smith [1900] 1 Ch. 588 Ch D
Baleares, The. See Geogas SA v Trammo Gas Ltd (The
Baleares)
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 K.B. 571 CA
Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Power
Plc, 1994 S.C. (H.L.) 20; 1994 S.L.T. 807 HL
Balgobin v South West RHA [2012] UKPC 11; [2013] 1 A.C.
582; [2012] 3 W.L.R. 698; [2012] 4 All E.R. 655
Ball v Coggs (1710) 1 Bro. P.C. 140
Ballett v Mingay [1943] K.B. 281; [1943] 1 All E.R. 143 CA
Ballyalton, The. See Owners of Steamship Ballyalton v Preston
Corp (The Ballyalton)
Balmoral Group Ltd v Borealis (UK) Ltd [2006] EWHC 1900;
[2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 629 QBD (Comm)
Balmoral Group Ltd v Borealis (UK) Ltd [2006] EWHC 2228
(Comm); (2006) 156 N.L.J. 1364
Balsamo v Medici [1984] 1 W.L.R. 951; [1984] 2 All E.R. 304
Ch D
Balston Ltd v Headline Filters Ltd (No.2) [1990] F.S.R. 385 Ch
D
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 C.L.R. 344
3–040
11–041
2–032
3–013
22–005
12–056
4–016, 4–017, 4–019
20–102
13–008
21–020
12–034
7–078, 7–090
7–011
14–056, 16–099
9–162, 11–071
2–012, 7–008, 17–037, 20–035, 20–087,
22–004
9–048
14–022, 20–118
Banbury v Bank of Montreal [1918] A.C. 626 HL
Banco de Portugal v Waterlow & Sons Ltd; Waterlow & Sons
Ltd v Banco de Portugal [1932] A.C. 452; [1932] All E.R.
Rep. 181 HL
Banco Exterior Internacional SA v Thomas [1997] 1 W.L.R.
10–027
221; [1997] 1 All E.R. 46 CA (Civ Div)
Banco Santander SA v Bayfern Ltd; sub nom Banco Santander
13–014, 15–041
SA v Banque Paribas [2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 776; [2000]
Lloyd’s Rep. Bank. 165 CA (Civ Div)
Bangladesh Export Import Co Ltd v Sucden Kerry SA [1995] 2
11–060, 19–043, 19–070
Lloyd’s Rep. 1 CA (Civ Div)
Banham Marshalls Services Unlimited v Lincolnshire CC [2007]
20–063
EWHC 402 (QB)
Bank Leumi (UK) Plc v Wachner [2011] EWHC 656 (Comm);
9–126
[2011] 1 C.L.C. 454
Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel & Co [1919] A.C. 435 HL
19–005, 19–017, 19–020, 19–051, 19–056,
19–074, 19–075, 19–076, 19–081, 19–
082, 19–090, 19–091
Bank Melli Iran v Samadi-Rad [1995] 2 F.L.R. 367; [1995] 3
9–087
F.C.R. 735 CA (Civ Div)
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v
21–003
Chrismas (The Kyriaki) [1994] 1 All E.R. 401; [1993] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 137 QBD (Comm)
Bank of Baroda v Panessar [1987] Ch. 335; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 208
10–024, 17–002
Ch D
Bank of Boston Connecticut (formerly Colonial Bank) v
15–040, 17–019, 17–032, 18–016
European Grain & Shipping Ltd (The Dominique); sub nom
Colonial Bank v European Grain & Shipping Ltd [1989]
A.C. 1056; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 440 HL
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd (In
20–022, 20–094
Liquidation) v Price Waterhouse (No.4) [1999] B.C.C. 351
Ch D
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Aboody
10–016, 10–017, 10–029, 10–022
[1990] 1 Q.B. 923; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 759; [1992] 4 All E.R.
955; [1990] 1 F.L.R. 354; [1989] C.C.L.R. 63; [1989] Fam.
Law 435; (1988) 132 S.J. 1754 CA (Civ Div)
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation)
3–034, 6–010, 6–011, 7–016, 8–024, 9–
v Ali (No.1) [2001] UKHL 8; [2002] 1 A.C. 251; [2001] 2
156
W.L.R. 735; [2001] 1 All E.R. 961; [2001] I.C.R. 337;
[2001] I.R.L.R. 292; [2001] Emp. L.R. 359; (2001) 98(15)
L.S.G. 32; (2001) 151 N.L.J. 351; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 67;
(2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 70
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation)
v Ali (No.2). SeeBank of Credit and Commerce International
SA (In Liquidation) v Ali (No.3)
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation)
20–059,20–091
v Ali (No.3); sub nomBank of Credit and Commerce
International SA (In Liquidation) v Ali (No.2; Husain v
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [2002]
EWCA Civ 82; [2002] 3 All E.R. 750; [2002] I.C.R. 1258;
Bank of Cyprus (London) Ltd v Markou [1999] 2 All E.R. 707;
10–038
[1999] 2 F.L.R. 17 Ch D
Bank of India v Trans Continental Commodity Merchants Ltd
11–111
(Application for Leave to Amend) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
427 CA (Civ Div)
Bank of Ireland v Evan’s Charities Trs (1855) 5 H.L. Cas. 389
16–028
Bank of Liverpool v Holland (1926) 43 T.L.R. 29
15–012
Bank of Montreal v Stuart [1911] A.C. 120 PC (Can)
10–016, 10–023
Bank of New Zealand v Simpson [1900] A.C. 182 PC (NZ)
6–022
Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risk Association
6–035, 7–032, 9–146, 9–150, 18–007, 18–
(Bermuda) Ltd (The Good Luck) [1992] 1 A.C. 233; [1991]
023, 18–043, 20–106, 20–124, 20–127
2 W.L.R. 1279; [1991] 3 All E.R. 1; [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
191; (1991) 141 N.L.J. 779 HL
Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Co Ltd (No.1),
6–023
1998 S.C. 657; 1999 S.L.T. 470 IH (1 Div)
Bank of Scotland v Wright [1990] B.C.C. 663; [1991] B.C.L.C.
3–095
244 QBD
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd v Baskan Gida Sanayi Ve
9–020, 9–024
Pazarlama AS [2009] EWHC 1276 (Ch)
Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Slatford (No.2); sub
16–003
nom Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Administrator
of Hungarian Property [1954] A.C. 584; [1954] 2 W.L.R.
867 HL
Bankers Insurance Co Ltd v South [2003] EWHC 380; [2004]
7–107, 18–050
Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 1
Bankers Trust Co v PT Jakarta International Hotels and
Development [1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 785; [1999] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 910 QBD (Comm)
Bankway PropertiesLtd v Pensfold Dunsford. See Balchin v
Chief Constable of Hampshire
Banner Homes Holdings Ltd (formerly Banner Homes Group
Plc) v Luff Developments Ltd (No.2) [2000] Ch. 372; [2000]
2 W.L.R. 772 CA (Civ Div)
Bannerman v White (1861) 10 C.B.(N.S.) 844
Banning v Wright [1972] 1 W.L.R. 972; [1972] 2 All E.R. 987
HL
Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd.
See South Australia Asset Management Corp v York
Montague Ltd
Banque de l’Indochine et de Suez SA v JH Rayner (Mincing
Lane) Ltd [1983] Q.B. 711; [1983] 2 W.L.R. 841; [1983] 1
All E.R. 1137; [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 228; (1983) 127 S.J.
361 CA (Civ Div)
Banque Financière de la Cité SA (formerly Banque Keyser
Ullmann SA) v Westgate Insurance Co (formerly Hodge
General & Mercantile Co Ltd) [1991] 2 A.C. 249; [1990] 3
W.L.R. 364; [1990] 2 All E.R. 947; [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
377; (1990) 87(35) L.S.G. 36; (1990) 140 N.L.J. 1074;
(1990) 134 S.J. 1265
Banque Financière de la Cité SA v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1
A.C. 221; [1998] 2 W.L.R. 475; [1998] 1 All E.R. 737;
[1998] C.L.C. 520; [1998] E.G. 36 (C.S.); (1998) 95(15)
L.S.G. 31; (1998) 148 N.L.J. 365; (1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 101
HL
Barbados Trust Co Ltd (formerly CI Trs (Asia Pacific) Ltd) v
Bank of Zambia [2007] EWCA Civ 148
Barber v Fox (1682) 2 Wms. Saund. 134n
Barber v Manchester Regional Hospital Board [1958] 1 W.L.R.
181; [1958] 1 All E.R. 322 QBD
Barber v NWS Bank Plc [1996] 1 W.L.R. 641; [1996] 1 All E.R.
906; [1996] R.T.R. 388; [1996] C.C.L.R. 30; (1995) 145
N.L.J. 1814 CA (Civ Div)
Barber v Vincent (1680) Free.K.B. 581
Barbudev v Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria Eood [2012]
EWCA Civ 548; [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 963
Barclay v Messenger (1874) 43 L.J. Ch. 449
Barclay v Pearson [1893] 2 Ch. 154 Ch D
Barclay v Prospect Mortgages, Ltd [1974] 1 W.L.R. 837; [1974]
2 All E.R. 672 Ch D
Barclays Bank Ltd v WJ Simms Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd
[1980] Q.B. 677; [1980] 2 W.L.R. 218 QBD (Comm)
Barclays Bank Plc v Boulter [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1919; [1999] 4 All
E.R. 513; [2000] Lloyd’s Rep. Bank. 29; [2000] C.P. Rep.
16; [1999] 2 F.L.R. 986; [1999] 3 F.C.R. 529; (2000) 32
H.L.R. 170; [1999] 3 E.G.L.R. 88; [1999] 49 E.G. 97; [2000]
Fam. Law 25; [1999] E.G. 121 (C.S.); (1999) 96(42) L.S.G.
21–017
2–089, 3–123
9–053, 18–044
3–073, 3–086, 3–114, 18–082
3–035, 14–012, 16–003, 16–063
9–138, 9–146, 9–150, 9–166, 20–094
14–044
14–086, 14–088, 15–029, 15–050
3–023
1–007
18–047, 22–009
12–005
2–084, 2–100, 4–002
18–106
11–112, 11–133
11–133
17–008
10–039
44; (1999) 96(42) L.S.G. 41; (1999) 149 N.L.J. 1645; (1999)
143 S.J.L.B. 250; [1999] N.P.C. 124; (2000) 79 P. & C.R. D1
HL
Barclays Bank Plc v Caplan [1998] 1 F.L.R. 532; (1999) 78 P. &
10–030, 11–079
C.R. 153 Ch D
Barclays Bank Plc v Coleman [2001] Q.B. 20; [2000] 3 W.L.R.
10–026, 10–042
405 CA (Civ Div)
Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd (No.1) [1995]
20–124
Q.B. 214; [1994] 3 W.L.R. 1057 CA (Civ Div)
Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd (No.2) (1995)76
20–126
B.L.R. 1; 44 Con. L.R. 35; [1995] I.R.L.R. 605; [1995]
P.I.Q.R. P152
Barclays Bank Plc v Goff [2001] EWCA Civ 635; [2001] 2 All
10–042
E.R. (Comm) 847
Barclays Bank Plc v Khaira [1993] 1 F.L.R. 343; [1993] Fam.
9–162
Law 124 CA (Civ Div)
Barclays Bank Plc v Kufner [2008] EWHC 2319; [2009] 1 All
7–100, 7–101
E.R. (Comm) 1
Barclays Bank Plc v O’Brien [1994] 1 A.C. 180; [1993] 3
9–118, 10–016, 10–018, 10–022, 10–024,
W.L.R. 786; [1993] 4 All E.R. 417; [1994] 1 F.L.R. 1; [1994]
10–025, 10–036, 10–039, 10–041, 11–
1 F.C.R. 357; (1994) 26 H.L.R. 75; (1994) 13 Tr. L.R. 165;
045
[1994] C.C.L.R. 94; [1994] Fam. Law 78; [1993] E.G. 169
(C.S.); (1993) 143 N.L.J. 1511; (1993) 137 S.J.L.B. 240;
[1993] N.P.C. 135 HL
Barclays Bank Plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All E.R. 363;
16–007
[1988] 1 F.T.L.R. 507 QBD (Comm)
Barclays Bank Plc v Schwartz, Times, 2 August 1995 CA (Civ
7–004, 10–045
Div)
Barclays Bank Plc v Unicredit Bank AG (formerly Bayerische
4–006
Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG) [2014] EWCA Civ 302; [2014]
2 All E.R. (Comm) 115; [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 59; [2014] 1
B.C.L.C. 417; [2014] 1 C.L.C. 342; [2014] Bus. L.R. D15
Barclays Bank Plc v Weeks Legg & Dean; sub nom Barclays
3–024
Bank Plc v Dean; Barclays Bank Plc v Layton Lougher &
Co; Mohamed v Fahiya; Barclays Bank Plc v NE Hopkin
John & Co [1999] Q.B. 309; [1998] 3 W.L.R. 656; [1998] 3
All E.R. 213 CA (Civ Div)
Barclays Plc v HHY Luxembourg SARL [2010] EWCA Civ
6–012, 6–013
1248
Barex Brokers Ltd v Morris Dean & Co [1999] P.N.L.R. 344 CA
14–054
(Civ Div)
Barings Plc (In Administration) v Coopers & Lybrand [1997]
9–039
B.C.C. 498; [1997] 1 B.C.L.C. 427 CA (Civ Div)
Barings Plc (In Liquidation) v Coopers & Lybrand (No.5);
9–024
Barings Futures (Singapore) Pte Ltd (In Liquidation) v
Mattar (No.4) [2002] EWHC 461; [2002] 2 B.C.L.C. 410
Barings Plc (In Liquidation) v Coopers & Lybrand (No.8)
20–096
[2003] EWHC 1319 (Ch)
Barker v Stickney [1919] 1 K.B. 121 CA
14–138, 15–081
Barker v Walters (1844) 8 Beav 92
9–096
Barker’s Estate, Re (1875) 44 L.J. Ch. 487
3–020
Barkworth v Young (1856) 1 Drew. 1
19–053
Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd, Re [1992] Ch. 208; [1992] 2
W.L.R. 36 Ch D (Companies Ct)
Barnard Marcus & Co v Ashraf [1988] 18 E.G. 67; [1988] E.G.
6 (C.S.) CA (Civ Div
Barnes v Eastenders Group. See Crown Prosecution Service v
Eastenders Group
Barnes & Co v Toye (1883–84) L.R. 13 Q.B.D. 410 QBD
Barnett v Javeri & Co [1916] 2 K.B. 390 KBD
Barranduna, The. See Scancarriers A/S v Aotearoa International
(The Barranduna and The Tarago)
Barrett v Great Northern Ry (1904) 20 T.L.R. 175
Barrett v Inntrepreneur Pub Co (GL) Ltd [2000] E.C.C. 106;
[1999] E.G. 93 (C.S.) Ch D
Barrett v Lounova (1982) Ltd [1990] 1 Q.B. 348; [1989] 2
W.L.R. 137 CA (Civ Div)
Barrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd [2006] EWHC 1009;
[2006] E.M.L.R. 21 Ch D
Barrow v Chappell & Co [1976] R.P.C. 355 Ch D
Barrow Lane & Ballard Ltd v Phillip Phillips & Co Ltd [1929] 1
K.B. 574; (1928) 32 Ll. L. Rep. 228 KBD
Barry v Davies (t/a Heathcote Ball & Co); sub nom Barry v
Heathcote Ball & Co (Commercial Auctions) Ltd; Heathcote
Ball & Co (Commercial Auctions) Ltd v Barry [2000] 1
W.L.R. 1962; [2001] 1 All E.R. 944 CA (Civ Div)
Bartlett v Wells (1862) 1 B. & S. 836
Barton (Alexander) v Armstrong (Alexander Ewan) [1976] A.C.
104; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 1050 PC (Aus)
Barton v County NatWest Ltd [1999] Lloyds Rep. Banking 408
Basham (Deceased), Re [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1498; [1987] 1 All
E.R. 405 Ch D
Bashir v Ali [2011] EWCA Civ 707; [2011] 2 P. & C.R. 12
Basildon DC v JE Lesser (Properties) Ltd [1985] Q.B. 839;
[1984] 3 W.L.R. 812; [1985] 1 All E.R. 20 QBD
Baskcomb v Beckwith (1869) L.R. 8 Eq. 100 Ct of Ch
Basma (Abdul Karim) v Weekes [1950] A.C. 441; [1950] 2 All
E.R. 146 PC (West Africa)
Bass Holdings Ltd v Morton Music Ltd [1988] Ch. 493; [1987]
3 W.L.R. 543 CA (Civ Div)
Batard v Hawes (1853) 2 E. & B. 287
Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 K.B. 530 CA
Bates v Robert Barrow Ltd; Ansell v Robert Barrow Ltd [1995]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 680; [1995] C.L.C. 207 QBD (Comm)
Bath & North East Somerset DC v Mowlem Plc [2004] EWCA
Civ 115 [2004] B.L.R. 153
Batis Maritime Corp v Petroleos Mediterraneo SA (The Batis)
[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 345 QBD (Comm)
Batis, The. See Batis Maritime Corp v Petroleos Mediterraneo
SA (The Batis)
Baumwoll Manufactur Von Carl Scheibler v Furness; sub nom
Baumvoll Manufactur Von Scheibler v Gilchrest & Co;
Baumvoll Manufactur Von Scheibler v Gilchrist & Co
[1893] A.C. 8 HL
11–069
16–086
12–006
17–065, 20–074
14–058
11–163
21–043
13–032
21–038
8–009, 8–021
2–008, 3–162, 16–077, 20–048
12–043
9–024, 9–025, 10–002, 10–003, 10–006
9–031
3–132, 3–133
6–013, 8–065
17–012, 17–069, 20–124, 20–126
8–057
16–069
18–076
13–009
15–020
20–097, 20–101, 20–112
21–021
22–020, 22–022
14–141
Bawden v London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Assurance Co
9–026, 16–011
[1892] 2 Q.B. 534 CA
Baxendale v London, Chatham & Dover Ry (1874) L.R. 10 Ex.
20–118
38
Baxter v Portsmouth (1826) 5 B. & C. 170
12–059
Bay Ridge, The. See Manatee Towing Co Ltd v Oceanbulk
Maritime SA (The Bay Ridge)
Baybut v Eccle Riggs Country Park Ltd, Times, 13 November
7–115
2006 Ch D
Bayley v Boulcott (1828) 4 Russ. 345
15–029
Bayley v Homan (1837) 3 Bing.N.C. 915
3–060
Baylis v Dineley (1815) 3 M. & S. 477
12–029, 16–047
Baynham v Philips Electronics (UK) Ltd [1995] O.P.L.R. 253
2–080
QBD
BC Saw-Mill Co Ltd v Nettleship (1868) L.R. 3 C.P. 499
20–107, 20–110
BCCI v Ali. See Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
(In Liquidation) v Ali
BCM Group Plc v Visualmark Ltd [2006] EWHC 1831 QBD
11–069
BCT Software Solutions Ltd v Arnold Laver & Co Ltd [2002]
7–041
EWHC 1298; [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 85 Ch D
BDW Trading Ltd (t/a Barratt North London) v JM Rowe
6–040, 6–047, 18–005, 18–080, 18–087,
(Investments) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 548; [2011] 20 E.G.
21–041
113 (C.S.)
Beach v Reed Corrugated Cases [1956] 1 W.L.R. 807; [1956] 2
20–066
All E.R. 652 QBD
Beale v Kyte [1907] 1 Ch. 564 Ch D
8–060, 8–074
Beale v Taylor [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1193; [1967] 3 All E.R. 253 CA
9–054
(Civ Div)
Beaney (Deceased), Re 31505; sub nom Beaney v [1978] 1
12–053
W.L.R. 770; [1978] 2 All E.R. 595 Ch D
Bear Stearns Bank Plc v Forum Global Equity Ltd [2007]
2–081, 2–084, 2–086, 2–093, 18–013
EWHC 1576 (Comm)
Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme Trs v Yardley
8–081
[2011] EWHC 1380 (QB)
Beaton v McDivitt (1988) 13 N.S.W.L.R. 162
3–002, 3–123
Beattie v E&F Beattie Ltd [1938] Ch. 708; [1938] 3 All E.R.
14–012
214 CA
Beattie v Lord Ebury (1874–75) L.R. 7 H.L. 102 HL
12–080
Beauchamp v Winn; sub nom Earl Beauchamp v Winn (1873)
8–028
L.R. 6 H.L. 223 HL
Beaumont v Reeve (1846) 8 Q.B. 483
11–044
Beavan (No.1), Re; sub nom Davies Banks & Co v Beavan
12–061
(No.1) [1912] 1 Ch. 196 Ch D
Beazley Underwriting Ltd v Travelers Companies Inc [2011]
2–019, 2–106, 3–161
EWHC 1520 (Comm); [2012] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1241;
[2012] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 78; (2011) 108(27) L.S.G. 25
Beckett v Nurse [1948] 1 K.B. 535; [1948] 1 All E.R. 81 CA
5–022
Beckett Investment Management Group Ltd v Hall [2007]
11–071, 11–076, 11–078
EWCA Civ 613; [2007] I.C.R. 1539
Beckham v Drake (1841) 9 M. & W. 79
5–003
Beckham v Drake (1849) 2 H.L.C. 579
15–074
Bedford Insurance Co Ltd v Instituto de Resseguros do Brasil
11–020, 11–119, 11–122, 16–027, 16–049,
[1985] Q.B. 966; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 726; [1984] 3 All E.R.
766; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 210; [1985] Fin. L.R. 49; (1985)
82 L.S.G. 37; (1984) 134 N.L.J. 34; (1984) 128 S.J. 701
QBD (Comm)
Beech v Keep (1854) 18 Beav 285
Beer v Beer (1852) 12 C.B. 60
Beer v Bowden [1981] 1 W.L.R. 522
Beer v Foakes. See Foakes v Beer
Beesly v Hallwood Estates Ltd [1961] Ch. 105; [1961] 2 W.L.R.
36; [1961] 1 All E.R. 90; (1961) 105 S.J. 61 CA
Begbie v Phosphate Sewage Co Ltd (1875–76) L.R. 1 Q.B.D.
679 CA
Behn v Burness (1863) 3 B. & S. 751
Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 K.B. 649; (1927) 27
Ll. L. Rep. 24 KBD
Behzadi v Shaftesbury Hotels Ltd [1992] Ch. 1; [1991] 2 W.L.R.
1251 CA (Civ Div)
Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group v Golden Ocean Group
Ltd [2013] EWHC 1063 (Comm); [2013] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
436; [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 61; [2013] 1 C.L.C. 906; [2013]
Bus. L.R. D58
Bell v Balls [1897] 1 Ch. 663 Ch D
Bell v Lever Bros Ltd; sub nom Lever Bros Ltd v Bell [1932]
A.C. 161 HL
Bell v Marsh [1903] 1 Ch. 528 CA
Bell v Peter Browne & Co [1990] 2 Q.B. 495; [1990] 3 W.L.R.
510 CA (Civ Div)
Bell Electric Ltd v Aweco Appliance Systems GmbH & Co KG
[2002] EWHC 872; [2002] C.L.C. 1246 QBD
Bell Houses Ltd v City Wall Properties Ltd (No.1) [1966] 2 Q.B.
656; [1966] 2 W.L.R. 1323 CA
Bell’s Indenture, Re; sub nom Bell v Hickley [1980] 1 W.L.R.
1217; [1980] 3 All E.R. 425 Ch D
Bellefield Computer Services Ltd v E Turner & Sons Ltd;
Unigate (UK) Ltd v E Turner & Sons Ltd [2000] B.L.R. 97;
(2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 759 CA (Civ Div)
Bellingham v Dhillon [1973] Q.B. 304; [1972] 3 W.L.R. 730 Ch
D
Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee
Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 38; [2012] 1 A.C. 383; [2011] 3
W.L.R. 521; [2012] 1 All E.R. 505; [2011] Bus. L.R. 1266;
[2011] B.C.C. 734; [2012] 1 B.C.L.C. 163; [2011] B.P.I.R.
1223
Belvoir Finance Co Ltd v Harold G Cole & Co Ltd [1969] 1
W.L.R. 1877; [1969] 2 All E.R. 904 QBD
Belvoir Finance Co Ltd v Stapleton [1971] 1 Q.B. 210; [1970] 3
W.L.R. 530 CA (Civ Div)
Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK Ltd [1998] Q.B.
87; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 205; [1997] 1 All E.R. 979; [1997]
16–050
15–028
13–021
2–093
3–172, 4–024
11–015
9–051, 18–043, 18–044
21–024
18–101, 18–107
11–060
8–053
3–017, 8–001, 8–004, 8–009, 8–013, 8–
017, 8–018, 8–019, 8–020, 8–021, 8–
028, 8–029, 8–030, 9–162, 18–039,
19–121, 19–122, 22–013
9–161
14–054
18–012, 18–084
12–085
20–072
14–049
20–121
11–035
11–143
11–014, 11–143, 11–151
20–051
C.L.C. 373; (1996) 93(40) L.S.G. 24; (1996) 146 N.L.J.
1577; (1996) 140 S.J.L.B. 227 CA (Civ Div)
Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50; [2014] A.C. 938; [2013] 3
W.L.R. 351; [2013] 4 All E.R. 253; [2013] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 801; 149 Con. L.R. 1
Benincasa v Dentalkit Srl (C–269/95) [1998] All E.R. (EC) 135;
[1997] E.C.R. I–3767; [1997] E.T.M.R. 447 ECJ
Bennett v Bennett [1952] 1 K.B. 249; [1952] 1 All E.R. 413 CA
Bennett, Walden & Co v Wood [1950] 2 All E.R. 134; 66 T.L.R.
(Pt. 2) 3 CA
Benourad v Compass Group Plc [2010] EWHC 1882 (QB)
Bent v Wakefield and Barnsley Union Bank (1878–79) L.R. 4
C.P.D. 1, CPD
Bentall Horsley & Baldry v Vicary [1931] 1 K.B. 253 KBD
Bentley v Mackay (1851) 15 Beav 12
Benton v Campbell Parker & Co Ltd [1925] 2 K.B. 410 KBD
Bentsen v Taylor Sons & Co (No.2) [1893] 2 Q.B. 274 CA
Bentworth v Lubert [1968] 1 Q.B. 680; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 378 CA
(Civ Div)
Benyon v Nettlefold (1850) 3 Mac. & G. 94
Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd [1995] Q.B. 137; [1994] 3
W.L.R. 1179 CA (Civ Div)
Beresford v Royal Exchange Assurance [1938] A.C. 586; [1938]
2 All E.R. 602 HL
Berezovsky v Edmiston & Co Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 431;
[2011] 1 C.L.C. 922
Berg v Blackburn Rovers Football Club & Athletic Plc [2013]
EWHC 1070 (Ch); [2013] I.R.L.R. 537
Berg v Sadler and Moore [1937] 2 K.B. 158 CA
Berge Sisar, The. See Borealis AB (formerly Borealis Petrokemi
AB and Statoil Petrokemi AB) v Stargas Ltd (The Berge
Sisar)
Berge Sund, The. See Sig Bergesen DY & Co v Mobil Shipping
and Transportation Co (The Berge Sund)
Bergerco USA v Vegoil Ltd [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 440 QBD
(Comm)
Berkeley Administration Inc v McClelland (Costs) [1990] F.S.R.
565 QBD
Berkeley Community Villages Ltd v Pullen [2007] EWHC 1330
(Ch); [2007] 24 E.G. 169
Berkeley Leisure Group Ltd v Williamson [1996] E.G.C.S. 18;
[1996] E.G. 18 (C.S.) CA (Civ Div)
Berkeley Securities (Property) Ltd, Re [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1589;
[1980] 3 All E.R. 513 Ch D
Bernard Thorpe & Partners v Flannery (1977) 244 E.G. 129 CA
(Civ Div)
Bernard v Williams (1928) 44 T.L.R. 436
Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All
E.R. 220; [1987] R.T.R. 384 QBD
Bernuth Lines Ltd v High Seas Shipping Ltd (The Eastern
Navigator) [2005] EWHC 3020; [2006] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
359; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 QBD (Comm)
22–020, 22–021
7–101
11–032, 11–048, 11–159
16–088
2–089, 22–021
3–045
2–056, 16–091
15–028, 15–029
16–071, 16–077
18–043, 18–044, 18–080
2–104
11–044
20–095
11–027, 11–030
22–020
20–143
9–096, 16–060
18–055
11–069
6–042
8–077
15–060
16–089
18–103
18–090, 20–088
2–034, 2–060
Berry v Berry [1929] 2 K.B. 316 KBD
5–030, 5–035
Bespoke Couture Ltd v Artpower Ltd (No.4) [2006] EWCA Civ
18–063
1696; (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 1463
Besseler Waechter Glover & Co v South Derwent Coal Co Ltd
3–072
[1938] 1 K.B. 408; (1937) 59 Ll. L. Rep. 104 KBD
Best’s Case (1865) 2 D.J. & S. 650
2–024
Beswick v Beswick [1968] A.C. 58; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 932;
14–017, 14–019, 14–020, 14–021, 14–022,
[1967] 2 All E.R. 1197; (1967) 111 S.J. 540 HL
14–023, 14–026, 14–031, 14–032, 14–
034, 14–038, 14–040, 14–042, 14–056,
14–082, 14–084, 14–085, 14–086, 14–
094, 14–125, 14–131, 14–132, 14–133,
20–017, 21–020, 21–022, 21–028, 21–
042, 21–050
Beta Computers (Europe) Ltd v Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd,
2–018
1996 S.L.T. 604; [1996] C.L.C. 821, OH
Betterbee v Davis (1811) 3 Camp. 70
17–004
Bettini v Gye (1875–76) L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 183 QBD
17–059, 18–035, 18–063
Betts v Burch (1859) 4 H. & N. 506
20–131
Betts v Gibbins (1834) 2 A. & E. 57
11–026
Beursgracht, The. See Glencore International AG v Ryan (The
Beursgracht (No.1))
Beverley’s Case (1603) 4 Co.Rep. 123b
12–052
Bexhill UK Ltd v Razzaq [2012] EWCA Civ 1376
15–012, 15–025
BGC Capital Markets (Switzerland) LLC v Rees [2011] EWHC
20–016
2009 (QB); (2011) 108(33) L.S.G. 28
BHP Petroleum Ltd v British Steel Plc [2000] 2 All E.R.
7–017,7–018,7–037, 17–068
(Comm) 133; [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277 CA (Civ Div)
Bibby Financial Services Ltd v Magson [2011] EWHC 2495
3–172
(QB)
BICC Plc v Burndy Corp [1985] Ch. 232; [1985] 2 W.L.R. 132
3–091, 18–066
CA (Civ Div)
Bickerton v Burrell (1816) 5 M. & S. 383
16–072
Bidder v Bridges (No.3) (1888) L.R. 37 Ch. D. 406 CA
3–113
Biffin v Bignell (1862) 7 H. & N. 877
10–003
Bigg v Boyd Gibbins [1971] 1 W.L.R. 913; [1971] 2 All E.R.
2–006
183 CA (Civ Div)
Biggar v Rock Life Assurance Co [1902] 1 K.B. 516 KBD
16–011
Biggin v Minton [1977] 1 W.L.R. 701; [1977] 2 All E.R. 647 Ch
18–027
D
Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite Ltd [1951] 2 K.B. 314; [1951] 2
9–068, 20–118
All E.R. 191 CA
Biggs, Ex p. (1859) 28 L.J.Ch. 50
9–024
Bigos v Bousted [1951] 1 All E.R. 92 KBD
11–014, 11–020, 11–135, 11–140, 11–141
Bikam OOD v Adria Cable Sarl [2012] EWHC 621 (Comm)
9–009
Bilbie v Lumley (1802) 2 East 469
22–017
Bilke v Havelock (1813) 3 Camp. 374
3–044
Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir; sub nom Jetivia SA v
11–024, 11–025, 11–172
Bilta (UK) Ltd [2015] UKSC 23; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 1168;
[2015] 2 All E.R. 1083; [2015] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 281;
[2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 61; [2015] B.C.C. 343; [2015] 1
B.C.L.C. 443; [2015] B.V.C. 20
Binder v Alachouzos [1972] 2 Q.B. 151; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 947
11–112
CA (Civ Div)
Binions v Evans [1972] Ch. 359; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 729 CA (Civ
Div)
Binstead v Buck (1776) 2 Wm.Bl. 1117
Bircham & Co Nominees (No.2) Ltd v Worrell Holdings Ltd
[2001] EWCA Civ 775; (2001) 82 P. & C.R. 34 CA
Bird v Brown (1850) 4 Ex. 786
Bird v Hildage [1948] 1 K.B. 91; [1947] 2 All E.R. 7 CA
Birkett v Acorn Business Machines Ltd [1999] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 429; (1999) 96(31) L.S.G. 35 CA (Civ Div)
Birkin v Wing (1890) 63 L.T. 80
Birkmyr v Darnell (1704) 1 Salk. 27
Birmingham & District Land Co v London & North Western Ry
Co (No.2) (1889) L.R. 40 Ch. D. 268 CA
Birmingham City Council v Beech (aka Howell) [2014] EWCA
Civ 830; [2014] H.L.R. 38; [2015] 1 P. & C.R. 1; [2014] 2 P.
& C.R. DG20
Birmingham City Council v Forde [2009] EWHC 12 (QB);
[2009] 1 W.L.R. 2732
Birse Construction Ltd v Eastern Telegraph Co Ltd [2004]
EWHC 2512; [2004] 47 E.G. 164 (C.S.) QBD (TCC)
Bishop & Baxter v Anglo Eastern Trading & Industrial Co Ltd
[1944] K.B. 12; (1944) 77 Ll. L. Rep. 83 CA
Bissett v Wilkinson [1927] A.C. 177
BKK Mobil Oil Korperschaft des offentlichen Rechts v Zentrale
zur Bekampfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV (C-59/12)
[2014] 2 C.M.L.R. 1; [2014] C.E.C. 516 ECJ (1st Chamber)
Black v Smallwood [1966] A.L.R. 744
Black Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke WaldhofAschaffenburg AG [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 446; [1981] Com.
L.R. 61 QBD (Comm)
Black King Shipping Corp v Massie (The Litsion Pride) [1985]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 437; (1984) 134 N.L.J. 887 QBD (Comm)
Blackburn Bobbin Co Ltd v TW Allen & Sons Ltd [1918] 2
K.B. 467; 3 A.L.R. 11 CA
Blackburn v Liverpool Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation
Co [1902] 1 K.B. 290 KBD
Blackburn v Mackey (1823) 1 C. & P. 1
Blackburn v Smith (1848) 2 Ex. 783
Blackburn BS v Cunliffe, Brooks & Co. See Cunliffe Brooks &
Co v Blackburn and District Benefit Building Society
Blackburn Low & Co v Vigors (1887) L.R. 12 App. Cas. 531
HL
Blackett v Bates (1865–66) L.R. 1 Ch. App. 117, Lord
Chancellor
Blackgold Trading of Monrovia v Almare SpA Navigazione of
Genoa (The Almare Seconda and The Almare Quinta)
[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 433; [1981] Com. L.R. 187 QBD
(Comm)
Blacklocks v JB Developments (Godalming) Ltd; sub nom
Brickwall Farm, Re [1982] Ch. 183; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 554 Ch
D
14–134
16–038
2–019, 2–058, 2–094, 3–160
16–049, 16–052
3–073
11–021, 11–111
12–055
5–015
3–087
10–014
3–029, 3–052, 3–101
20–041
2–079
9–012
23–006
16–073
19–084, 19–090
9–096
19–026, 19–027, 19–042
7–020
12–003
9–110
9–139
21–039, 21–047
18–020, 18–073, 20–049, 20–106
8–060, 8–075
Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC [1990] 1
W.L.R. 1195; [1990] 3 All E.R. 25 CA (Civ Div)
Blades v Free (1829) 9 B. & C. 167
Blake v Blake (1967) 111 S.J. 715 CA (Civ Div)
Blake v Concannon (1870) I.R. 4 C.L. 323
Blake & Co v Sohn [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1412; [1969] 3 All E.R.
123 QBD
Blakeley v Muller & Co [1903] 2 K.B. 760; (1903) 19 T.L.R.
186
Blakely Ordnance Co, Re; sub nom Lumsden’s Case (1868–69)
L.R. 4 Ch. App. 31 CA in Chancery
Blane Steamships Ltd v Minister of Transport [1951] 2 K.B.
965; [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 155 CA
Blankenstein, The. See Damon Compania Naviera SA v HapagLloyd International SA
Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s
University Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 18;
[2015] 1 Costs L.R. 119
Blay v Pollard; sub nom Blay v Pollard and Morris [1930] 1
K.B. 628 CA
Bliss v South East Thames RHA [1987] I.C.R. 700; [1985]
I.R.L.R. 308 CA (Civ Div)
Bloomer v Bernstein (1873–74) L.R. 9 C.P. 588 CCP
Bloomer v Spittle (1871–72) L.R. 13 Eq. 427, Ct of Chancery
Bloxham’s Case (1864) 33 Beav 529; (1864) 4 D.J. & S. 447
Bloxsome v Williams (1824) 3 B. & C. 232
Blue Anchor Line Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH
(The Union Amsterdam) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 432 QBD
(Comm)
Blue Chip Trading v Helbawi [2009] I.R.L.R. 128
Blue Haven Enterprises Ltd v Tully [2006] UKPC 17
Blyth v Fladgate; Morgan v Blyth; Smith v Blyth [1891] 1 Ch.
337 Ch D
BMA Special Opportunity Hub Fund Ltd v African Minerals
Finance Ltd. SeeAston Hill Financial Inc v African Minerals
Finance Ltd
BMBF (No.12) Ltd v Harland & Wolff Shipbuilding & Heavy
Industries Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 862; [2001] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 385
BMTA v Salvadori. See British Motor Trade Association v
Salvadori
BNP Paribas v Wockhardt EU Operations (Swiss) AG [2009]
EWHC 3116 (Comm); 132 Con L.R. 177
BOC Group Plc v Centeon LLC [1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 970;
63 Con. L.R. 104 CA (Civ Div)
Boddington v Lawton [1994] I.C.R. 478 Ch D
Bodega Co Ltd, Re [1904] 1 Ch. 276 Ch D
Bodger v Nicholls (1873) 28 L.T. 441
Bogg v Raper, Times, 22 April 1998 CA (Civ Div)
Boissevain v Weil [1950] A.C. 327; [1950] 1 All E.R. 728 HL
Bold v Brough, Nicholson & Hall, Ltd [1964] 1 W.L.R. 201;
[1963] 3 All E.R. 849 QBD
2–013, 3–160, 4–003
16–018, 16–110
11–073
12–024
2–107, 16–088, 16–089
8–007, 19–093
12–019
19–005, 19–074
3–095, 12–055, 12–058, 16–106, 19–016
8–047, 8–069
18–085, 20–083
18–035
8–074
2–024
11–119, 11–121, 11–127
7–020
11–158
3–120, 22–021
13–008
18–024
18–071,20–135
6–022, 7–055
11–090, 11–111, 22–013
22–024
9–137
7–043
11–113
20–066
Bolkiah v KPMG; sub nom HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG
[1999] 2 A.C. 222; [1999] 2 W.L.R. 215 HL
Bols Distilleries BV v Superior Yacht Services Ltd [2006]
UKPC 45; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 12; [2007] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
461; [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 683; [2007] 1 C.L.C. 308; [2007]
I.L.Pr. 46
Bolton v Madden (1873–74) L.R. 9 Q.B. 55 QB
Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1009; [1972] 2 All E.R.
1322 CA (Civ Div)
Bolton MBC v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [2006] EWCA
Civ 50; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1492
Bolton MBC v Torkington [2003] EWCA Civ 1634; [2004] Ch.
66
6–015, 16–097
2–085
3–004, 3–006, 3–025
17–032, 17–041, 17–042
18–073, 18–085
4–009
Bolton Partners v Lambert (1889) L.R. 41 Ch. D. 295 CA
16–051, 16–053
Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft fur Mineraloele mbH & Co KG v
7–016
Petroplus Marketing AG (The Mercini Lady) [2010] EWCA
Civ 1145; [2011] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 522; [2011] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 442; [2010] 2 C.L.C. 637
Bond Worth Ltd, Re [1980] Ch. 228; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 629 Ch D
7–012
Bonde, The. See Richco International Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer
International GmbH (The Bonde)
Bone v Eckless (1860) 5 H. & N. 925
11–140, 11–151
Bonham-Carter v Situ Ventures Ltd [2012] EWHC 3589 (Ch)
9–021
Bonhote v Henderson [1895] 2 Ch. 202 CA
8–078
Bonnard v Dott [1906] 1 Ch. 740 CA
11–133
Bontex Knitting Works Ltd v St John’s Garage [1943] 2 All E.R.
7–029
690; (1943) 60 T.L.R. 44
Boomer v Muir, 24 P. 2d. 570 (1933)
22–022
Boone v Eyre (1777) 1 Hy.Bl. 273n; 2 W.Bl. 1312
18–030, 18–032, 18–089
Booth v Hodgson (1795) 6 T.R 405
11–151
Boots the Chemist Ltd v Street (1983) 268 E.G. 817 Ch D
8–077
Borag, The. See Compania Financiera Soleada SA v Hamoor
Tanker Corp Inc (The Borag)
Borders (UK) Ltd v Commr of Police of the Metropolis [2005]
20–019
EWCA Civ 197; (2005) 149 S.J.L.B. 301
Borealis AB v Geogas Trading SA [2010] EWHC 2789
20–096
(Comm); [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 482
Borealis AB (formerly Borealis Petrokemi AB and Statoil
15–085
Petrokemi AB) v Stargas Ltd (The Berge Sisar) [2001]
UKHL 17; [2002] 2 A.C. 205; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1118; [2001]
2 All E.R. 193; [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 673; [2001] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 663; [2001] C.L.C. 1084; (2001) 98(20) L.S.G.
43; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 93
Bornman v Tooke (1808) 1 Camp. 376
17–044
Borrelli v Ting [2010] UKPC 21; [2010] Bus. L.R. 1718
3–036, 10–002, 10–007, 10–012, 10–016
Borries v Hutchinson (1865) 18 C.B.(N.S.) 445
20–057, 20–108
Borrowman Phillips & Co v Free & Hollis (1878–79) L.R. 4
17–004
Q.B.D. 500 CA
Borvigilant, The. See Owners of the Borvigilant v Owners of the
Romina G
Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Co v Ansell (1888) L.R. 39 Ch. 16–098, 17–035, 17–047, 17–062, 18–005
D. 339 CA
Boston Fruit Co v British & Foreign Marine Insurance Co Ltd
14–124, 16–046
[1906] A.C. 336 HL
Botnica, The. See Oceanografia SA de CV v DSND Subsea AS
(The Botnica)
Bottiglieri di Navigazione SpA v Cosco Qingdao Ocean
3–074, 3–085, 3–087
Shipping Co (The Bunga Saga Lima) [2005] EWHC 244;
[2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 QBD (Comm)
Bouchard Servais v Princes Hall Restaurant (1904) 20 T.L.R.
11–092
574
Boucraa, The. See L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates Unitramp
SA v Yamashita Shinnihon Steamship Co Ltd (The Boucraa)
Boulting v Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied
16–097
Technicians [1963] 2 Q.B. 606; [1963] 2 W.L.R. 529 CA
Boulton v Jones (1857) 2 H. & N. 564; 27 L.J.Ex. 117; 6 W.R.
8–039, 8–045, 8–050, 22–024
107
Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club v
2–107, 2–110, 6–035
Manchester United Football Club, Times, 22 May 1980 CA
(Civ Div)
Bousfield v Wilson (1846) 16 L.J.Ex. 44
11–151
Boustany v Pigott (1995) 69 P. & C.R. 298; [1993] E.G. 85
10–045
(C.S.); [1993] N.P.C. 75 PC (Antigua and Barbuda)
Bouygues Offshore SA v Caspian Shipping Co (No.2) [1997] 2
14–066
Lloyd’s Rep. 485 QBD (Admlty)
Bouygues Offshore v Owner of the M/T Tigr Ultisol Transport
9–109, 9–113, 14–068
Contractors Ltd (The M/T Tigr) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 153
(Note), Provincial Div (SA)
Bow Cedar, The. See Bunge NV v Compagnie Noga
d’importation et d’Exportation SA (The Bow Cedar)
Bowdell v Parsons (1808) 10 East 359
17–057
Bower v Bantam Investments [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1120; [1972] 3
21–058
All E.R. 349 Ch D
Bowerman v Association of British Travel Agents Ltd [1996]
2–010, 2–052, 4–004, 14–009
C.L.C. 451; (1995) 145 N.L.J. 1815 CA (Civ Div)
Bowes v Shand; sub nom Shand v Bowes (1876–77) L.R. 2
18–048, 18–055, 18–057, 18–103
App. Cas. 455 HL
Bowmaker (Commercial) Ltd v Day [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1396;
20–118
[1965] 2 All E.R. 856 (Note) QBD
Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd [1945] K.B. 65;
11–142, 11–143, 11–144, 11–146, 11–150,
[1944] 2 All E.R. 579 CA
11–151, 11–152
Bowry v Bennett (1808) 1 Camp. 348
11–044
Bowskill v Dawson (No.2) [1955] 1 Q.B. 13; [1954] 3 W.L.R.
14–082
275 CA
Box v Midland Bank Ltd [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 434 CA (Civ
9–041
Div)
Boyd v Hind (1857) 1 H. & N.938
3–109
Boydell v Drummond (1809) 11 East 192
5–025
Boyo v Lambeth LBC [1994] I.C.R. 727; [1995] I.R.L.R. 50 CA
16–104, 18–006
(Civ Div)
Boyter v Thomson [1995] 2 A.C. 628; [1995] 3 W.L.R. 36 HL
16–063, 16–068, 16–071
Bozon v Farlow (1816) 1 Mer. 459
21–042
BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No.2) [1983] 2 A.C.
3–081, 17–063, 17–068, 19–017, 19–074,
352; [1982] 2 W.L.R. 253; [1982] 1 All E.R. 925 HL
19–090, 19–101, 19–102, 19–103, 19–
BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Shipping Co; sub
nom BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Transport
(Scotland); BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron
Tankers (Bermuda) Ltd; BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v
Chevron Transport Corp [2001] UKHL 50; [2003] 1 A.C.
197; [2001] 3 W.L.R. 949; [2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1;
[2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 77; 2002 S.C. (H.L.) 19; 2001 S.L.T.
1394; 2001 S.C.L.R. 1029; (2001) 98(45) L.S.G. 26; (2001)
145 S.J.L.B. 244
BP Plc v AON Ltd (No.2) [2006] EWHC 424; [2006] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 789QBD (Comm)
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings (1978) 52
A.L.J.R. 20 PC
Brace v Calder [1895] 2 Q.B. 253 CA
Bradburn v Great Western Ry Co (1874–75) L.R. 10 Ex. 1, Ex
Ct
Bradburne v Botfield (1854) 14 M. & W. 559
Bradbury v Morgan (1862) 1 H. & C. 249
Bradbury v Taylor [2012] EWCA Civ 1208; [2013] W.T.L.R. 29
Braddon Towers Ltd v International Stores Ltd [1987] 1
E.G.L.R. 209
Bradford v Williams (1872) L.R. 7 Ex. 259
Bradford & Bingley Plc v Rashid [2006] UKHL 37; [2006] 1
W.L.R. 2066; [2006] 4 All E.R. 705; [2006] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 951; [2006] 29 E.G. 132 (C.S.); (2006) 103(30)
L.S.G. 30; (2006) 156 N.L.J. 1172; (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 983
Brading v F McNeill & Co Ltd [1946] Ch. 145 Ch D
Bradley v Gregory (1810) 2 Camp. 383
Bradley v H Newsom Sons & Co; sub nom H Newsum & Co
Ltd v Bradley [1919] A.C. 16 HL
Bradshaw v University College of Wales (Aberystwyth) [1988]
1 W.L.R. 190; [1987] 3 All E.R. 200 Ch D
Bradstock Trustee Services Ltd v Nabarro Nathanson [1995] 1
W.L.R. 1405; [1995] 4 All E.R. 888 Ch D
Bradstreets British Ltd v Mitchell; Bradstreets British Ltd v
Carapanayoti & Co Ltd [1933] Ch. 190 Ch D
Brady v Brady [1989] A.C. 755; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 1308 HL
Brady v St Margaret’s Trust [1963] 2 Q.B. 494; [1963] 2 W.L.R.
1162 CA
Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17; [2015] 1 W.L.R.
1661; [2015] I.C.R. 449; [2015] I.R.L.R. 487; [2015] Pens.
L.R. 431
Bragg v Villanova (1923–24) 17 Ll. L. Rep. 181; (1923) 40
T.L.R. 154 KBD
Braithwaite v Foreign Hardwood Co [1905] 2 K.B. 543 CA
Braithwaite v Thomas Cook Travellers Cheques [1989] Q.B.
553; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 212 QBD
Branca v Cobarro [1947] K.B. 854; [1947] 2 All E.R. 101 CA
Branchett v Beaney [1992] 3 All E.R. 910; (1992) 24 H.L.R.
348 CA (Civ Div)
Brandeaux Advisers (UK) Ltd v Chadwick [2010] EWHC 2370
107
9–025, 14–141
8–022, 14–045, 14–047, 14–051
6–033, 6–035, 6–040
16–107, 20–117
20–121
13–021, 13–22
2–068
3–141, 3–143
21–039
18–035
3–022
20–048
3–109
17–032, 17–074, 18–037
11–055
14–086
11–026
3–013, 3–028, 12–066
18–070
2–096, 6–042
22–005
17–027, 17–029, 17–061
20–128
2–089
20–082
18–094
(QB)
Brandeaux Advisers (UK) Ltd v Chadwick [2010] EWHC 3241
(QB); [2011] I.R.L.R. 224
Brandeis Brokers Ltd v Black [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 980;
[2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 359 QBD (Comm)
Brandt v Lawrence (1875–76) L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 344 CA
Brandt v Liverpool Brazil & River Plate Steam Navigation Co
Ltd; sub nom Brandt & Co v River Plate Steam Navigation
Co Ltd [1924] 1 K.B. 575; [1923] All E.R. Rep. 656 CA
Branwhite v Worcester Works Finance Ltd [1969] 1 A.C. 552;
[1968] 3 W.L.R. 760; [1968] 3 All E.R. 104; (1968) 112 S.J.
758 HL
9–162, 16–097, 17–035
16–008
17–039
3–053, 7–029, 14–029, 14–072
6–016, 7–030, 14–006, 16–006, 16–018,
22–013
Brauer & Co (Great Britain) Ltd v James Clark (Brush
2–109, 19–033, 19–036
Materials) Ltd [1952] 2 All E.R. 497; [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
147 CA
Braymist Ltd v Wise Finance Co Ltd; sub nom Wise Finance
5–008, 16–073
Ltd v Braymist Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 127; [2002] Ch. 273;
[2002] 2 All E.R. 333
Brazier v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWHC 125 (Ch)
8–024
Brede, The. See Henriksens Rederi A/S v Centrala Handlu
Zagranicznego (CHZ) Rolimpex (The Brede)
Bremen Max, The. See Farenco Shipping Co Ltd v Daebo
Shipping Co Ltd (The Bremen Max)
Bremer Handels GmbH v C Mackprang Jr [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
3–081, 17–063, 18–087, 19–029
221 CA (Civ Div)
Bremer Handels GmbH v Continental Grain Corp [1983] 1
19–029, 19–088
Lloyd’s Rep. 269 CA (Civ Div)
Bremer Handels GmbH v Deutsche Conti-Handels GmbH (Non
18–085
Delivery) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 45 CA (Civ Div)
Bremer Handels GmbH v Deutsche Conti-Handels GmbH
3–085
(Shipment Period) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 689 QBD (Comm)
Bremer Handels GmbH v Finagrain Compagnie Commerciale
18–085, 18–088
Agricole et Financière SA [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 259 CA
(Civ Div)
Bremer Handels GmbH v JH Rayner & Co [1979] 2 Lloyd’s
17–004, 20–081
Rep. 216 CA (Civ Div)
Bremer Handels GmbH v Raiffeisen Hauptgenossenschaft eG
3–073
(No.1) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 599 CA (Civ Div)
Bremer Handels GmbH v VandenAvenne Izegem PVBA [1978] 3–081, 18–053, 18–054, 18–057, 19–029,
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 HL
19–036, 19–075, 19–088, 20–071
Bremer Handels mbH v Bunge Corp [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 476;
3–081,3–085,20–069
[1983] Com. L.R. 103 CA (Civ Div
Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v South India
18–095
Shipping Corp Ltd; sub nom Bremer Vulcan Schiffbau und
Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corp; Gregg v
Raytheon [1981] A.C. 909; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 141 HL
Brennan v Bolt Burdon; sub nom Brennan v Bolt Burden;
8–022, 8–023, 8–024, 8–025, 9–017, 16–
Brennan v Islington LBC [2004] EWCA Civ 1017; [2005]
023
Q.B. 303; [2004] 3 W.L.R. 1321; [2004] C.P. Rep. 43;
(2004) 101(34) L.S.G. 31; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 972; [2004]
N.P.C. 133
Brennan v Brighton BC (No.2) [1997] E.G. 76 (C.S.) CA (Civ
14–056
Div)
Brent LBC v Risk Management Partners Ltd [2011] UKSC 7;
[2011] 2 A.C. 34; [2011] 2 W.L.R. 166; [2011] 2 All E.R.
209; [2011] P.T.S.R. 481; [2011] 2 C.M.L.R. 26; [2011] Eu.
L.R. 615; [2011] B.L.G.R. 169; (2011) 155(6) S.J.L.B. 31
Bret v JS (1600) Cro.Eliz. 756
Breton’s Estate, Re; sub nom Breton v Woollven (1881) L.R. 17
Ch. D. 416 Ch D
Brewer v Westminster Bank Ltd, Times, 5 February 1953 CA
Brewster v Kitchell (1691) 1 Salk. 198
2–013
3–027
15–029
13–029
19–003, 19–050
Brian Cooper & Co v Fairview Estates (Investments) [1987] 1
16–086
E.G.L.R. 18; (1987) 282 E.G. 1131 CA (Civ Div)
Brice v Bannister (1877–78) L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 569 CA
15–015, 15–022
Bridge v Bridge (1852) 16 Beav 315
15–008, 15–028
Bridge v Campbell Discount Co Ltd; sub nom Campbell
17–072, 18–020, 20–144, 20–152
Discount Co Ltd v Bridge [1962] A.C. 600; [1962] 2 W.L.R.
439; [1962] 1 All E.R. 385; (1962) 106 S.J. 94 HL
Bridge v Deacons [1984] A.C. 705; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 837 PC
11–070, 11–073, 11–075, 11–076, 11–079,
(HK)
11–080
Bridge Oil Ltd v Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship
14–141
Guiseppe di Vittorio (No.1) (The Giuseppe di Vittorio)
[1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 136; [1998] C.L.C. 149 CA (Civ Div)
Bridges & Salmon Ltd v Owner of The Swan (The Swan);
16–069, 16–076
Marine Diesel Service (Grimsby) Ltd v Owner of The Swan
[1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 5; (1968) 118 N.L.J. 182 PDAD
Briess v Woolley; sub nom Briess v Rosher [1954] A.C. 333;
9–036, 16–011
[1954] 2 W.L.R. 832 HL
Brigden v American Express Bank [2000] I.R.L.R. 94
7–066
Briggs, Ex p. (1866) L.R. 1 Eq. 483
9–028, 9–116
Briggs v Oates [1991] 1 All E.R. 407; [1990] I.C.R. 473 Ch D
16–107, 18–015
Briggs v Rowan [1991] E.G. 6 (C.S.) Ch D
4–019
Bright v Ganas, 189 A. 427 (1936)
18–039
Bright Asset Ltd v Lewis [2011] EWCA Civ 122
6–010
Brightman & Co Ltd v Tate [1919] 1 K.B. 463 KBD
11–019
Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr; Brikom Investments Ltd v
3–029, 3–041, 3–065, 3–068, 3–083, 3–
Roddy; Brikom Investments Ltd v Hickey [1979] Q.B. 467;
088, 3–091, 3–107, 3–110, 3–115, 6–
[1979] 2 W.L.R. 737; [1979] 2 All E.R. 753; (1979) 38 P. &
030, 7–041, 9–029, 9–058, 14–007
C.R. 326; (1979) 251 E.G. 359 CA (Civ Div)
Brikom Investments Ltd v Seaford [1981] 1 W.L.R. 863; [1981]
3–088, 9–017
2 All E.R. 783 CA (Civ Div)
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels GmbH; sub
2–019, 2–024, 2–030, 2–034, 2–035, 2–
nom Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und
060
Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 A.C. 34;
[1982] 2 W.L.R. 264; [1982] 1 All E.R. 293; [1982] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 217; [1982] Com. L.R. 72; [1982] E.C.C. 322;
(1982) 126 S.J. 116 HL
Brinnand v Ewens (1987) 19 H.L.R. 415; (1987) 284 E.G. 1052
3–121, 3–127
CA (Civ Div)
Brisbane v Dacres (1813) 5 Taunt. 143
22–017
Bristol and West Building Society v Fancy & Jackson [1997] 4
20–022, 20–024, 20–116, 20–126
All E.R. 582; [1997] N.P.C. 109 Ch D
Bristol and West Building Society v May May & Merrimans
9–162
(No.1) [1996] 2 All E.R. 801; [1996] P.N.L.R. 138 Ch D
Bristol and West Building Society v May May & Merrimans
(No.2) [1998] 1 W.L.R. 336; [1997] 3 All E.R. 206 Ch D
Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew (t/a Stapley & Co);
sub nom Mothew v Bristol and West Building Society
[1998] Ch. 1; [1997] 2 W.L.R. 436; [1996] 4 All E.R. 698;
[1997] P.N.L.R. 11; (1998) 75 P. & C.R. 241; [1996] E.G.
136 (C.S.); (1996) 146 N.L.J. 1273; (1996) 140 S.J.L.B. 206;
[1996] N.P.C. 126 CA (Civ Div)
Bristol Groundschool Ltd v Intelligent Data Capture Ltd [2014]
EWHC 2145 (Ch)
Bristow et alt., Assignees of Clark and Gilson, Bankrupts v
Eastman (1794) 170 E.R. 317; (1794) 1 Esp. 172 Assizes
Britannia Distribution Co Ltd v Factor Pace Ltd [1998] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 420, DR (Manchester)
British Airways v Unite the Union [2009] EWHC 3541 (QB);
[2010] I.R.L.R. 423
British and American Telegraph Co v Colson (1871) L.R. 6 Ex.
108
British & Beningtons Ltd v North West Cachar Tea Co Ltd; sub
nom Baintgoorie (Dooars) Tea Co Ltd v British &
Beningtons Ltd; Mazdehee Tea Co Ltd v British &
Beningtons Ltd; North-Western Cachar Tea Co Ltd v British
& Beningtons Ltd; British & Beningtons Ltd v Baintgoorie
(Dooars) Tea Co Ltd; British & Beningtons Ltd v Mazdahee
Tea Co Ltd; North-Western Cachar Tea Co Ltd v Same
[1923] A.C. 48; (1922) 13 Ll. L. Rep. 67 HL
British & Commonwealth Holdings Plc v Quadrex Holdings Inc
(No.1) [1989] Q.B. 842; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 723 CA (Civ Div)
British and Beningtons Ltd v NW Cachar Tea Co Ltd. See
British & Beningtons Ltd v North West Cachar Tea Co Ltd
British Bank for Foreign Trade v Novinex [1949] 1 K.B. 623;
[1949] 1 All E.R. 155 CA
British Bank of the Middle East v Sun Life Assurance Co of
Canada (UK) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 9; [1983] Com. L.R.
187 HL
British Car Auctions v Wright [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1519; [1972] 3
All E.R. 462 QBD
British Cash and Parcel Conveyors Ltd v Lamson Store Service
Co Ltd [1908] 1 K.B. 1006
British Crane Hire Corp Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd [1975]
Q.B. 303; [1974] 2 W.L.R. 856 CA (Civ Div)
British Eagle International Airlines Ltd v Compagnie Nationale
Air France [1975] 1 W.L.R. 758; [1975] 2 All E.R. 390 HL
British Electrical and Associated Industries (Cardiff) Ltd v
Patley Pressings Ltd [1953] 1 W.L.R. 280; [1953] 1 All E.R.
94 QBD
British Energy Power & Trading Ltd v Credit Suisse, [2008]
EWCA Civ 53; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 413
British Fermentation Products Ltd v Compair Reavell Ltd [1999]
2 All E.R. (Comm) 389; [1999] B.L.R. 352 QBD (TCC)
British Glanzstoff Manufacturing Co Ltd v General Accident
20–121
9–022, 9–024, 9–090, 16–096, 20–022
1–004, 6–042
12–049
17–037
21–035, 21–054
2–035
3–070, 5–034, 17–027, 17–061, 21–013
18–055, 18–101, 18–104
2–093, 16–085
16–025
2–008
11–012, 15–058
6–050, 7–013
11–035
2–079
16–069
7–065
20–131
Fire & Life Assurance Corp Ltd [1913] A.C. 143; 1913 S.C.
(H.L.) 1 HL
British Guiana Credit Corp v Da Silva [1965] 1 W.L.R. 248;
(1965) 109 S.J. 30 PC (BG)
British Homophone Ltd v Kunz (1935) 152 L.T. 589
British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori [1949] Ch. 556;
[1949] 1 All E.R. 208
British Movietonews v London and District Cinemas [1952]
A.C. 166; [1951] 2 All E.R. 617 HL
2–017
2–092
14–140
19–005, 19–032, 19–037, 19–039
British Racing Drivers Club Ltd v Hextall Erskine & Co [1996]
20–097
3 All E.R. 667; [1996] B.C.C. 727 Ch D
British Reinforced Concrete Engineering Co Ltd v Schelff
11–068, 11–163
[1921] 2 Ch. 563 Ch D
British Road Services Ltd v Arthur V Crutchley & Co Ltd
2–020
(No.1) [1968] 1 All E.R. 811; [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 271 CA
(Civ Div)
British Russian Gazette & Trade Outlook Ltd v Associated
3–059
Newspapers Ltd; Talbot v Associated Newspapers Ltd
[1933] 2 K.B. 616 CA
British S Africa Co v De Beers Consolidated Mines. See De
Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v British South Africa Co
British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd
2–049, 2–051, 2–086, 2–089, 4–021, 22–
[1984] 1 All E.R. 504; [1982] Com. L.R. 54 QBD
021
British Steel Corp v Granada Television Ltd [1981] A.C. 1096;
11–069
[1980] 3 W.L.R. 774; [1981] 1 All E.R. 417; (1980) 124 S.J.
812 HL
British Sugar Plc v NEI Power Projects Ltd, 87 B.L.R. 42;
7–017
[1997–98] Info. T.L.R. 353 CA (Civ Div)
British Telecommunications Plc v James Thomson & Sons
14–049, 14–070, 17–012
(Engineers) Ltd [1999] 1 W.L.R. 9; [1999] 2 All E.R. 241
HL
British Telecommunications Plc v Sun Life Assurance Society
17–002
Plc [1996] Ch. 69; [1995] 3 W.L.R. 622 CA (Civ Div)
British Telecommunications Plc v Ticehurst; sub nom Ticehurst
17–045
v British Telecommunications Plc [1992] B.C.L.C. 383;
[1992] I.C.R. 383 CA (Civ Div)
British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] A.C. 185;
20–066, 20–067
[1956] 2 W.L.R. 41; [1955] 3 All E.R. 796; [1955] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 475; 49 R. & I.T. 11; (1955) 34 A.T.C. 305; [1955] T.R.
303; (1956) 100 S.J. 12 HL
British Waggon Co v Lea & Co; Parkgate Waggon Co v Lea &
17–009
Co (1879–80) L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 149 QBD
British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v
20–121
Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd (No.2)
[1912] A.C. 673 HL
Britoil Plc v Hunt Overseas Oil Inc [1994] C.L.C. 561
8–065, 8–066
Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd; sub nom Messer UK
7–079, 20–118
Ltd v Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 548; [2002]
2 All E.R. (Comm) 321
Broaders v Kalkare Property Maintenance [1990] I.R.L.R. 421
11–021
EAT
Broadwick Financial Services Ltd v Spencer [2002] EWCA Civ
4–007
35; [2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm)446
Brocklehurst (Deceased) (Estate of), Re; sub nom Hall v
Roberts; Estate of Sir Philip Lee Brocklehurst (Deceased),
Re [1978] Ch. 14; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 96 CA (Civ Div)
Brocklesby v Temperance Permanent Building Society [1895]
A.C. 173 HL
Brockwell v Bullock (1889) L.R. 22 Q.B.D. 567 CA
Broderick, Re (1986) 6 N.I.J.B. 36
Brogden v Metropolitan Ry Co (1876–77) L.R. 2 App. Cas. 666
HL
Bromley v Smith [1909] 2 K.B. 235 KBD
Bronester v Priddle [1961] 1 W.L.R. 1294; [1961] 3 All E.R.
471 CA
Brook Street Bureau Ltd v Dacas. See Dacas v Brook Street
Bureau (UK) Ltd
Brook v Hook (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 89
Brooks v Beirnstein [1909] 1 K.B. 98 KBD
Brooks v Olyslager Oms (UK) Ltd [1998] I.R.L.R. 590 CA (Civ
Div)
Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd (No.1); sub nom Cassell & Co Ltd v
Broome [1972] A.C. 1027; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 645; [1972] 1
All E.R. 801; (1972) 116 S.J. 199 HL
Broughton v Capital Quality Ltd [2008] EWHC 3457 (QB)
Brown v Brine (1875) L.R. 1 Ex.D. 5
Brown v Byrne (1854) 3 E. & B. 703
Brown v Drake International Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1629
Brown v Gould [1972] Ch. 53; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 334 Ch D
Brown v Harper (1893) 68 L.T. 488
Brown v KMR Services Ltd (formerly HG Poland (Agencies)
Ltd); Sword Daniels v Pitel [1995] 4 All E.R. 598; [1995] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 513 CA (Civ Div)
Brown v Knowsley BC [1986] I.R.L.R. 102 EAT
Brown v M’Kinally (1795) 1 Esp. 279
Brown v Raphael [1958] Ch. 636; [1958] 2 W.L.R. 647
Brown v Sheen and Richmond Car Sales Ltd [1950] 1 All E.R.
1102; [1950] W.N. 316 KBD
Brown & Davis Ltd v Galbraith [1972] 1 W.L.R. 997; [1972] 3
All E.R. 31 CA (Civ Div)
Brown Jenkinson & Co Ltd v Percy Dalton (London) Ltd [1957]
2 Q.B. 621; [1957] 3 W.L.R. 403 CA (Civ Div)
Browner International Ltd v Monarch Shipping Co Ltd (The
European Enterprise) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 185 QBD
(Comm)
Browning v Morris (1778) 2 Cowp. 790
Browning v Provincial Insurance Co of Canada (1873–74) L.R.
5 P.C. 263 PC (Can)
Brownlie v Campbell (1879–80) L.R. 5 App. Cas. 925 HL
Brownton Ltd v Edward Moore Inbucom Ltd [1985] 3 All E.R.
499; (1985) 82 L.S.G. 1165 CA (Civ Div)
Bruce v Warwick (1815) 6 Taunt. 118
Bruner v Moore [1904] 1 Ch. 305 Ch D
Brusse v Jahani BV. See Asbeek Brusse v Jahani BV
10–027
16–030
12–060
3–100
2–018, 2–024
12–012
16–086
16–046
18–020
11–071
20–019
14–095
3–044
6–027
7–033
2–079, 2–093, 2–094, 2–095
12–029
20–007, 20–103, 20–112, 20–121
2–103, 18–005
10–011
9–012
14–006
14–007
11–025
7–088
11–133
16–061
9–141
15–065
12–028
2–030
Bryant v Flight (1839) 5 M. & W. 114
16–085
Bryant v Richardson (1866) 14 L.T. 24
12–004
Bryen & Langley Ltd v Boston [2005] EWCA Civ 973; [2005]
2–089, 7–102, 7–103, 7–106, 7–112
B.L.R. 508 CA
BS&N Ltd (BVI) v Micado Shipping Ltd (Malta) (The
9–014, 18–034, 20–079
Seaflower (No.1)) [2000] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 169; [2000] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 37 QBD (Comm)
BS&N Ltd (BVI) v Micado Shipping Ltd (Malta) (The
9–014, 18–053, 18–054
Seaflower (No.2)) [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 240; [2001] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 341 CA (Civ Div)
BSC v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd. See British
Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd
BSkyB Ltd v HP Enterprise Services UK Ltd [2010] EWHC 86
7–017, 9–126, 18–072
(TCC); [2010] B.L.R. 267
BTC v Gourley. See British Transport Commission v Gourley
Buchanan v Alba Diagnostics Ltd [2004] UKHL 5; 2004 S.C.
11–103
(H.L.) 9; [2004 S.L.T. 255; 2004 S.C.L.R. 273; [2004]
R.P.C. 34; (2004) 27(4) I.P.D. 27034; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B.
183
Buckland v Farmar & Moody [1979] 1 W.L.R. 221; [1978] 3 All
9–086, 18–022
E.R. 929 CA (Civ Div)
Budgett & Co v Binnington & Co [1891] 1 Q.B. 35 CA
19–070
Building and Civil Engineering Holidays Scheme Management
20–104, 20–118
Ltd v Post Office [1966] 1 Q.B. 247; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 72 CA
Bulk Chile, The. See Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc v Fayette
International Holdings Ltd (The Bulk Chile)
Bulk Oil (Zug) AG v Sun International Ltd and Sun Oil Trading
11–052
Co Ltd [1984] 1 W.L.R. 147; [1984] 1 All E.R. 386 CA (Civ
Div)
Bulk Oil (Zug) v Sun International Ltd and Sun Oil Trading Co
17–026, 20–118
Ltd (No.2) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 531 QBD (Comm)
Bulk Trading Corp Ltd v Zenziper Grains and Feed Stuffs; sub
2–082
nom Zenziper Grains and Feed Stuffs v Bulk Trading Corp
Ltd [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 385; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
357 CA (Civ Div)
Bulkhaul Ltd v Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ
20–047, 20–055
1452; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 353
Bull v Pitney Bowes Ltd [1967] 1 W.L.R. 273; [1966] 3 All E.R.
11–080, 11–081, 11–082, 11–155
384; 1 K.I.R. 342; (1967) 111 S.J. 32 QBD
Bullock v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1955] Ch. 317; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 1
10–013, 10–023, 10–027
Ch D
Bunga Saga Lima, The. See Bottiglieri di Navigazione SpA v
Cosco Qingdao Ocean Shipping Co
Bunge Corp v Tradax Export SA [1981] 1 W.L.R. 711; [1981] 2 18–045, 18–046, 18–050, 18–051, 18–053,
All E.R. 540; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; (1981) 125 S.J. 373
18–054, 18–055, 18–057, 18–103, 18–
HL
104, 18–109
Bunge Corp v Vegetable Vitamin Foods (Pte) Ltd [1985] 1
17–029
Lloyd’s Rep. 613; (1984) 134 N.L.J. 125 QBD (Comm)
Bunge GmbH v CCV Landbouwberlang GA [1980] 1 Lloyd’s
18–038
Rep. 458 CA (Civ Div)
Bunge NV v Compagnie Noga d’importation et d’Exportation
18–016
SA (The Bow Cedar) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601; [1981]
Com. L.R. 92 QBD (Comm)
Bunge SA v Kyla Shipping Co Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 734;
[2013] 3 All E.R. 1006; [2013] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 577;
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 463
Bunge SA v Nidera BV (formerly Nidera Handelscompagnie
BV) [2015] UKSC 43
Bunny v Hopkinson (1859) 27 Beav 565
Burdett-Coutts v Hertfordshire CC [1984] I.R.L.R. 91; (1984)
134 N.L.J. 359
Burges v Wickham (1863) 3 B. & S. 669
Burgess v Cox [1951] Ch. 383; [1950] 2 All E.R. 1212 Ch D
Burgess v Merrill (1812) 4 Taunt. 468
Burgess’ Policy, Re (1915) 113 L.T. 443
Burn v Carvalho (1839) 4 My. & Cr. 690
Burnard v Haggis (1863) 14 C.B. (N.S.) 45
Burnett v Westminster Bank Ltd [1966] 1 Q.B. 742; [1965] 3
W.L.R. 863 QBD (Comm)
Burnside v Harrison Marks Productions [1968] 1 W.L.R. 782;
[1968] 2 All E.R. 286 CA (Civ Div)
Burrell v Jones (1819) 3 B. & Ald. 47
Burroughes v Abbott [1922] 1 Ch. 86 Ch D
Burrowes v Lock (1805) 10 Ves. 470
Burrows v Brent LBC [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1448; [1996] 4 All E.R.
577; [1997] 1 F.L.R. 178; [1997] 2 F.C.R. 43; (1997) 29
H.L.R. 167; [1997] 1 E.G.L.R. 32; [1997] 11 E.G. 150;
[1997] Fam. Law 246; (1996) 93(43) L.S.G. 26; (1996) 146
N.L.J. 1616; (1996) 140 S.J.L.B. 239; [1996] N.P.C. 149 HL
Burrows v Rhodes; sub nom Burroughs v Rhodes [1899] 1 Q.B.
816 QBD
Burrows and Burrows v Sharp (1991) 23 H.L.R. 82; [1991]
Fam. Law 67 CA (Civ Div)
Burton Marsden Douglas, Re. See Marsden v Guide Dogs for
the Blind Association
Bushwall Properties Ltd v Vortex Properties Ltd [1976] 1
W.L.R. 591; [1976] 2 All E.R. 283 CA (Civ Div)
Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates
[2007] EWCA Civ 622; [2007] 32 E.G. 90
Bute v Thompson (1844) 13 M. & W. 487
Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-cell-o Corp (England) [1979] 1
W.L.R. 401; [1979] 1 All E.R. 965 CA (Civ Div)
Butlin’s Settlement Trusts (Rectification), Re; sub nom Butlin v
Butlin (Rectification) [1976] Ch. 251; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 547
Ch D
Butters v BBC Worldwide Ltd [2009] EWHC 1954 (Comm)
Butterworth v Kingsway Motors Ltd [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1286;
[1954] 2 All E.R. 694 Assizes (Liverpool)
Button v Thompson (1868–69) L.R. 4 C.P. 330 CCP
Button’s Lease, Re; sub nom Inman v Button [1964] Ch. 263;
[1963] 3 W.L.R. 903 Ch D
Butwick v Grant [1924] 2 K.B. 483 KBD
Buxton v Lister (1746) 3 Atk. 383
Buxton v Rust (1871–72) L.R. 7 Ex. 279 Ex Chamber
19–008, 19–071, 19–118
20–080, 20–134
20–106
18–006
6–017
5–022, 5–025
13–011
14–082, 14–084, 14–088
15–019
12–034
7–007, 7–012
13–023
16–069
8–060
9–168
3–078, 3–117, 4–023
11–126
3–145,21–038
2–085, 20–061
5–009
8–004
2–019, 2–021, 2–075
8–059, 8–060, 8–078
2–101, 8–004
22–004, 22–008, 22–009
17–035, 17–038
3–160
16–018, 16–056
21–018, 21–026
5–024
BV Oliehandel Jongkind v Coastal International Ltd [1983] 2
2–108, 17–087
Lloyd’s Rep. 463 QBD (Comm)
Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v
20–079, 20–080
Pontypridd Waterworks Co [1903] A.C. 426
Byblos Bank SAL v Rushingdale Ltd SA; sub nom Rushingdale
3–171
SA v Byblos Bank SAL; Byblos Bank SAL v Khudhairy;
Byblos Bank SAL v Barrett (1986) 2 B.C.C. 99509; [1987]
B.C.L.C. 232; [1986] P.C.C. 249; 1985 P.C.C. 342 CA (Civ
Div)
Byrne v Schiller (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 319
19–109
Byrne & Co v Leon van Tienhoven (1880) 5 C.P.D. 344
2–035, 2–058, 2–059
C Czarnikow Ltd v Centrala Handlu Zagranicznego Rolimpex
2–109, 19–048, 19–073, 19–082
(CHZ) [1979] A.C. 351; [1978] 3 W.L.R. 274; [1978] 2 All
E.R. 1043; [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 305; (1978) 122 S.J. 506
HL
C Sharpe & Co Ltd v Nosawa & Co [1917] 2 K.B. 814 KBD
20–071, 20–077
C&P Haulage v Middleton [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1461; [1983] 3 All
20–028, 20–120
E.R. 94 CA (Civ Div)
Cabell v Vaughan (1669) 1 Wms.Saund. 291
13–005, 13–006, 13–009
Cable & Wireless Plc v Muscat; sub nom Muscat v Cable &
14–006
Wireless Plc [2006] EWCA Civ 220; [2006] I.C.R. 975
Cadbury Schweppes Plc v Somji; sub nom Somji v Cadbury
11–015
Schweppes Plc [2001] 1 W.L.R. 615; [2001] 1 B.C.L.C. 498
CA (Civ Div)
Cadogan Petroleum Holdings Ltd v Global Process Systems
20–143, 20–148, 20–152
LLC [2013] EWHC 214 (Comm); [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 26;
[2013] 1 C.L.C. 721
Caerns Motor Services Ltd v Texaco Ltd; Geddes v Texaco Ltd
15–054
[1994] 1 W.L.R. 1249; [1995] 1 All E.R. 247 Ch D
Caird v Moss (1886) L.R. 33 Ch. D. 22 CA
8–076
Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid v Asociacion de
23–065
Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc) (C–184/08)
[2010] 3 C.M.L.R. 43 ECJ
Calabar Properties Ltd v Stitcher [1984] 1 W.L.R. 287; [1983] 3 14–023, 17–002, 20–019, 20–041, 20–043,
All E.R. 759; (1984) 11 H.L.R. 20; (1984) 47 P. & C.R. 285;
21–043
(1983) 268 E.G. 697; (1983) 80 L.S.G. 3163; (1983) 127 S.J.
785 CA (Civ Div)
Calder v Dobell (1870–71) L.R. 6 C.P. 486 Ex Chamber
16–076
Calder v Rutherford (1822) 3 Brod. & B. 302
13–009
Caledonia North Sea Ltd v BT Plc. See Caledonia North Sea Ltd
v London Bridge Engineering Ltd
Caledonia North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd; sub
7–017
nom Caledonia North Sea Ltd v BT Plc; Caledonia North
Sea Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc; Caledonia North
Sea Ltd v Norton (No.2) Ltd (In Liquidation); EE Caledonia
Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd [2002] UKHL 4;
[2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 321; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 553;
2002 S.C. (H.L.) 117; 2002 S.L.T. 278; 2002 S.C.L.R. 346;
[2002] C.L.C. 741; [2002] B.L.R. 139; [2002] Lloyd’s Rep.
I.R. 261
Calico Printers Association v Barclays Bank (1931) 145 L.T. 51
16–099
Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1869–70) L.R. 5 Q.B. 449 QB
3–038
Camarata Property Inc v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd
[2011] EWHC 479 (Comm)
Cambridge Nutrition Ltd v BBC [1990] 3 All E.R. 523 CA (Civ
Div)
Camden Exhibition and Display v Lynott [1966] 1 Q.B. 555;
[1965] 3 W.L.R. 763 CA (Civ Div)
Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia (No.1) [1998] Q.B.
22; [1996] 3 W.L.R. 759 CA (Civ Div)
Camerata Property Inc v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd
[2011] EWHC 479 (Comm); [2011] 2 B.C.L.C. 54; [2011] 1
C.L.C. 627
Campanari v Woodburn (1854) 15 C.B. 400
Campbell v Griffin [2001] EWCA Civ 990; [2001] W.T.L.R. 981
Campbell Discount Co Ltd v Bridge. See Bridge v Campbell
Discount Co Ltd
Campbell Discount Co Ltd v Gall [1961] 1 Q.B. 431; [1961] 2
W.L.R. 514 CA
Campbell Mostyn (Provisions) Ltd v Barnett Trading Co [1954]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 CA
Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v King, The [1952] A.C. 192;
[1952] 1 All E.R. 305 PC (Can)
Canadian Pacific Ry Co v King, The [1931] A.C. 414 PC (Can)
Candler v Crane Christmas & Co [1951] 2 K.B. 164; [1951] 1
All E.R. 426 CA
Candlewood Navigation Corp v Mitsui Osk Lines (The Mineral
Transporter and The Ibaraki Maru) [1986] A.C. 1; [1985] 3
W.L.R. 381 PC (Aus)
Cann v Willson (1888) L.R. 39 Ch. D. 39 Ch D
Cannan v Bryce (1819) 3 B. & Ald. 179
Canning v Farquhar (1885–86) L.R. 16 Q.B.D. 727 CA
Cannon v Hartley [1949] Ch. 213; [1949] 1 All E.R. 50 Ch D
Cantor Fitzgerald International v Callaghan [1999] 2 All E.R.
411; [1999] I.C.R. 639 CA (Civ Div)
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605; [1990] 2
W.L.R. 358 HL
Cape Asbestos Co Ltd v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1921] W.N. 274
Capita (Banstead 2011) Ltd v RFIB Group Ltd [2014] EWHC
2197 (Comm)
Capital & Suburban Properties Ltd v Swycher [1976] Ch. 319;
[1976] 2 W.L.R. 822 CA (Civ Div)
Capital Finance Co Ltd v Bray [1964] 1 W.L.R. 323; [1964] 1
All E.R. 603 CA
Caplen’s Estate, Re (1876) 45 L.J.Ch. 280
Capper’s Case. See China Steamship and Labuan Coal Co, Re
Captain George K, The. See Palmco Shipping Inc v Continental
Ore Corp (The Captain George K)
Captain Gregos, The. See Cia Portorafti Commerciale SA v
Ultramar Panama Inc (The Captain Gregos (No.2))
Car & Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 Q.B. 525;
[1964] 2 W.L.R. 600 CA
Carapanayoti & Co v ET Green Ltd [1959] 1 Q.B. 131; [1958] 3
W.L.R. 390 QBD
7–038, 9–126
3–030, 20–092, 21–054
6–049
15–058, 15–061
7–038, 9–126
16–107
3–145
6–016, 14–006
20–054
7–033, 7–034, 7–035
3–122, 3–123, 3–139
9–038
14–050, 14–140
9–038
11–167
2–066
15–024, 21–046
18–037, 18–085
9–038, 9–039, 9–040, 9–041, 14–047
3–073
7–033
18–027
2–018
15–029
9–095
19–006
Carbopego-Abastecimento de Combustiveis SA v AMCI Export
Corp [2006] EWHC 72; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 736 QBD
(Comm)
Care Shipping Corp v Latin American Shipping Corp (The
Cebu) [1983] Q.B. 1005; [1983] 2 W.L.R. 829; [1983] 1 All
E.R. 1121; [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 302 QBD (Comm)
Caresse Navigation Ltd v Office National de L’Electricité (The
Channel Ranger) [2013] EWHC 3081 (Comm); [2014] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 337; [2013] 2 C.L.C. 480
Cargill International SA v Bangladesh Sugar & Food Industries
Corp [1998] 1 W.L.R. 461; [1998] 2 All E.R. 406 CA (Civ
Div)
Caribonum Co Ltd v Le Couch (1913) 109 L.T. 587
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 Q.B. 256 CA
Carlisle & Cumberland Banking Co v Bragg [1911] 1 K.B. 489
CA
Carlyle Finance Ltd v Pallas Industrial Finance Ltd [1999] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 659; [1999] R.T.R. 281 CA (Civ Div)
Carmichael v National Power Plc [1999] 1 W.L.R. 2042; [1999]
4 All E.R. 897 HL
Carmichael’s Case. See Hannan’s Empress Gold Mining &
Development Co, Re
Carne v De Bono [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1107
Carney v Herbert [1985] A.C. 301; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 1303 PC
(Aus)
Carpenters Estates Ltd v Davies [1940] Ch. 160 Ch D
Carr v Lynch [1900] 1 Ch. 613 Ch D
Carr-Glynn v Frearsons [1999] Ch. 326; [1999] 2 W.L.R. 1046;
[1998] 4 All E.R. 225 CA (Civ Div)
Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr. 1905
Carter v Lifeplan Products Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 453
Cartwright v Cooke (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 701
Cartwright v Hoogstoel (1911) 105 L.T. 628
Casey’s Patents, Re; sub nom Stewart v Casey [1892] 1 Ch. 104
CA
Caspian Sea, The. See Montedison SpA v Icroma SpA (The
Caspian Sea)
Cassa di Risparmio della Repubblica di San Marino SpA v
Barclays Bank Ltd [2011] EWHC 484 (Comm); [2011] 1
C.L.C. 701
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome. See Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd
(No.1)
Castle v Wilkinson (1869–70) L.R. 5 Ch. App. 534 CA in
Chancery
Castle Alpha, The. See Mitsubishi Corp v Castletown
Navigation (The Castle Alpha)
Caterpillar (NI) Ltd v John Holt & Co (Liverpool) Ltd. See FG
Wilson (Engineering) Ltd v John Holt & Co (Liverpool) Ltd
Catlin v Cyprus Finance Corp (London) Ltd [1983] Q.B. 759;
[1983] 2 W.L.R. 566 QBD
20–074
15–012, 19–080
6–013
20–143
11–071
2–010, 2–028, 2–050, 2–052, 3–011, 4–
004, 9–011
8–086
2–042
3–096, 4–020, 6–016, 6–026
17–002, 20–150
11–155, 11–165, 11–167
21–043
5–020
14–052
9–146, 9–147
18–012
3–060
2–059
3–019
9–126
21–034
13–029
Catlin Estates Ltd v Carter Jonas (A Firm) [2005] EWHC 2315;
[2006] P.N.L.R. 15 QBD (TCC)
Cato v Thomson (1882) 9 Q.B.D. 616
Cator v Croydon Canal Co (1841) 4 Y. & C. Ex. 405
Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co (1874–75) L.R. 10 Q.B. 453;
[1874–80] All E.R. Rep. 492 QBD
Cavalier Insurance Co Ltd, Re [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43 Ch D
Cavell USA Inc v Seaton Insurance Co [2009] EWCA Civ 1363;
[2009] 2 C.L.C. 991
Cavenagh v William Evans Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 697; [2013] 1
W.L.R. 238; [2012] 5 Costs L.R. 835; [2012] I.C.R. 1231;
[2012] I.R.L.R. 679; (2012) 156(23) S.J.L.B. 35
14–029
18–033
15–008
14–050
11–122, 11–133
16–097
18–073
CCC Films (London) v Impact Quadrant Films [1985] Q.B. 16; 3–167, 20–027, 20–028, 22–010, 22–012
[1984] 3 W.L.R. 245 QBD
Cebu, The. See Care Shipping Corp v Latin American Shipping
Corp (The Cebu)
Cebu, The (No.2). See Itex Itagrani Export SA v Care Shipping
Corp (The Cebu (No.2))
Cedar Trading Co Ltd v Transworld Oil Ltd (The Gudermes)
2–092
[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 623 QBD (Comm)
Cehave NV v Bremer Handels GmbH (The Hansa Nord); sub 17–037, 18–036, 18–048, 18–050, 18–051,
nom Cehave NV v Bremer Handelgesellschaft mbH (The
18–053, 18–061, 18–108, 20–072
Hansa Nord) [1976] Q.B. 44; [1975] 3 W.L.R. 447; [1975] 3
All E.R. 739; [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445; (1975) 119 S.J. 678
CA (Civ Div)
CEL Group Ltd v Nedlloyd Lines UK Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ
2–107, 6–046
1716; [2004] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 689; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
381
Celestial Aviation Trading 71 Ltd v Paramount Airways Private
18–066
Ltd [2010] EWHC 185 (Comm); [2011] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
259; [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 9; [2010] 1 C.L.C. 165
Cellulose Acetate Silk Co Ltd v Widnes Foundry (1925) Ltd;
20–140, 20–141
sub nom Widnes Foundry (1925) Ltd v Cellulose Acetate
Silk Co Ltd [1933] A.C. 20 HL
Celsteel Ltd v Alton House Holdings Ltd (No.2) [1987] 1
9–138
W.L.R. 291; [1987] 2 All E.R. 240 CA (Civ Div)
Cemp Properties (UK) v Dentsply Research & Development
9–143
Corp (No.2) [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 197; [1991] 34 E.G. 62 CA
(Civ Div)
Central Insurance Co Ltd v Seacalf Shipping Corp (The Aiolos)
15–007, 15–014, 15–065
[1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 25 CA (Civ Div)
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd [1947]
3–081, 3–086, 3–088, 3–090, 3–091, 3–
K.B. 130; [1956] 1 All E.R. 256 (Note); 62 T.L.R. 557;
101, 3–112, 3–113, 3–114, 3–115, 3–
[1947] L.J.R. 77; 175 L.T. 333 KBD
116, 3–117, 3–129
Central Ry of Venezuela v Kisch (1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 99 HL
9–116, 9–143
Centrica Plc v Premier Power Ltd [2006] EWHC 3068 QBD
3–097
(Comm)
Centrovincial Estates v Merchant Investors Assurance Co [1983]
2–002, 8–047, 8–050
Com. L.R. 158 CA (Civ Div)
CEP Holdings Ltd v Steni AS [2009] EWHC 2447 (QB)
15–050
Cerberus Software Ltd v Rowley; sub nom Rowley v Cerberus
18–006, 20–120
Software Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 78; [2001] I.C.R. 376;
[2001] I.R.L.R. 160; [2001] Emp. L.R. 173
Cerealmangimi SpA v Alfred C Toepfer (The Eurometal) [1981]
3 All E.R. 533; [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 QBD (Comm)
CF Asset Finance Ltd v Okonji [2014] EWCA Civ 870; [2014]
E.C.C. 23; [2014] C.T.L.C. 218
CFW Architects (A Firm) v Cowlin Construction Ltd [2006]
EWCA Crim 6; 105 Con. L.R. 116
CH Giles & Co Ltd v Morris [1972] 1 W.L.R. 307; [1972] 1 All
E.R. 960 Ch D
Chadwick v Manning [1896] A.C. 231 PC (Aus)
Chakki v United Yeast Co Ltd [1981] 2 All E.R. 446; [1982]
I.C.R. 140 EAT
Chalmers, Ex p. See Edwards Ex p. Chalmers, Re
Chamberlain v Boodle & King [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1443; [1982] 3
All E.R. 188 CA (Civ Div)
Chamberlain v Stoneham (1890) L.R. 24 Q.B.D. 113 QBD
Champanhac & Co Ltd v Waller & Co Ltd [1948] 2 All E.R. 724
KBD
Chancery Lane Developments Ltd v Wade’s Departmental
Stores Ltd (1987) 53 P. & C.R. 306 CA (Civ Div)
Chanda, The. See Wibau Maschinefabrik Hartman SA v
Mackinnon Mackenzie (The Chanda)
Chandle v East African Airways Corp [1964] E.A. 78
Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 K.B. 493 CA
Chandris v Argo Insurance Co Ltd [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65;
(1963) 107 S.J. 575 QBD (Comm)
Chandris v Isbrandtsen Moller Co Inc [1951] 1 K.B. 240; [1950]
2 All E.R. 618 CA
Channel Island Ferries Ltd v Cenargo Navigation Ltd (The
Rozel) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 161; [1994] C.L.C. 168 QBD
(Comm)
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd;
France Manche SA v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd
[1993] A.C. 334; [1993] 2 W.L.R. 262 HL
Chanter v Hopkins (1834) 4 M. & W. 399
Chantry Estates (South East) Ltd v Anderson [2010] EWCA Civ
316; 130 Con L.R. 11
Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940] 1 K.B. 532 CA
Chapleo v Brunswick Permanent Building Society (No.2)
(1880–81) L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 696 CA
Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 K.B. 786 CA
Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd [1966] Ch. 71; [1966]
2 W.L.R. 40; [1965] 3 All E.R. 764; (1965) 109 S.J. 871 CA
Chappell v Somers & Blake [2003] EWHC 1644; [2004] Ch. 19
Ch D
Chappell v Times Newspapers Ltd [1975] 1 W.L.R. 482; [1975]
2 All E.R. 233 CA (Civ Div)
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd [1960] A.C. 87; [1959] 3
W.L.R. 168 HL
Chapple v Cooper (1844) 13 M. & W. 252
Charania v Harbour Estates [2009] EWCA Civ 1123; [2009]
N.P.C. 119
17–062, 18–088
2–058, 8–082, 8–086
17–069
21–038
3–090
19–052, 19–084
2–086
3–045
20–050
18–100
20–087
19–093, 19–096
21–003
7–031
20–041, 20–044
11–050, 21–043, 21–054
7–027, 17–056
6–033
2–011, 7–006
16–023
20–003, 20–059
12–013, 12–030, 12–032, 13–011
14–022, 14–052
17–073, 21–036, 21–056
3–032
12–005, 12–007
16–086
Charge Card Services Ltd (No.2), Re [1989] Ch. 497; [1988] 3
2–009, 2–018, 3–024, 3–031, 6–045, 14–
W.L.R. 764; [1988] 3 All E.R. 702; (1988) 4 B.C.C. 524;
006, 15–078, 17–005
[1988] B.C.L.C. 711; [1988] P.C.C. 390; [1988] Fin. L.R.
308; (1989) 8 Tr. L.R. 86; (1988) 85(42) L.S.G. 46; (1988)
138 N.L.J. Rep. 201; (1988) 132 S.J. 1458; CA (Civ Div)
Charles H Windschuegl Ltd v Alexander Pickering & Co Ltd
2–109
(1950) 84 Ll.L. Rep 89 KBD
Charles Rickards Ltd v Oppenheim; sub nom Rickards (Charles)
3–073, 3–077
v Oppenhaim [1950] 1 K.B. 616; [1950] 1 All E.R. 420 CA
Charles Stanley & Co Ltd v Adams [2013] EWHC 2137 (QB)
11–047
Charlotte Thirty Ltd and Bison Ltd v Croker Ltd (1990) Con LR
15–053
46 (QBD)
Charlton v Fisher; sub nom Churchill Insurance v Charlton
11–025, 11–027, 14–130
[2001] EWCA Civ 112; [2002] Q.B. 578
Charnock v Liverpool Corp [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1498; [1968] 3 All
3–167, 14–007
E.R. 473 CA (Civ Div)
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38;
3–095, 6–013, 6–023, 6–025, 8–061, 8–
[2009] A.C. 1101; [2009] 3 W.L.R. 267; [2009] 4 All E.R.
063, 8–065, 8–075
677; [2010] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 365; [2009] Bus. L.R. 1200;
[2009] B.L.R. 551; 125 Con. L.R. 1; [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 9;
[2009] 3 E.G.L.R. 119; [2009] C.I.L.L. 2729; [2009] 27 E.G.
91 (C.S.); (2009) 153(26) S.J.L.B. 27; [2009] N.P.C. 87;
[2009] N.P.C. 86
Charter v Sullivan [1957] 2 Q.B. 117; [1957] 2 W.L.R. 528 CA
20–047, 20–058
Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd (In Liquidation) v Fagan [1997]
6–011
A.C. 313; [1996] 2 W.L.R. 726 HL
Charterhouse Credit Co v Tolly [1963] 2 Q.B. 683; [1963] 2
7–023, 7–026, 7–031, 18–070, 20–040,
W.L.R. 1168 CA
20–043, 22–012
Chase Manhattan Equities Ltd v Goodman [1991] B.C.C. 308;
6–016, 11–122
[1991] B.C.L.C. 897 Ch D
Chasen Ryder & Co v Hedges [1993] 08 E.G. 119; [1993] N.P.C.
16–087
6 CA (Civ Div)
Chater v Mortgage Agency Services Number Two Ltd; sub nom
10–020, 10–039, 10–040
Charter v Mortgage Agency Services; Mortgage Agency
Services Number Two Ltd v Chater [2003] EWCA Civ 490;
[2003] H.L.R. 61; [2004] 1 P. & C.R. 4
Chatterton v Maclean [1951] 1 All E.R. 761 KBD
18–020
Chattey v Farndale Holdings Inc (1998) 75 P. & C.R. 298;
21–045
[1997] 1 E.G.L.R. 153 CA (Civ Div)
Chaucer Estates v Fairclough Homes [1991] E.G. 65 (C.S.) CA
19–033
(Civ Div)
Chaudhary v Yavuz [2011] EWCA Civ 1314; [2013] Ch. 249;
14–134
[2012] 3 W.L.R. 987; [2012] 2 All E.R. 418; [2012] H.L.R.
17; [2012] 1 P. & C.R. 9; [2011] N.P.C. 120
Chaudhry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 W.L.R. 29; [1988] 3 All E.R.
3–169, 9–038, 9–132
718 CA (Civ Div)
Cheale v Kenward (1858) 3 D. & J. 27
3–016, 3–033
Cheall v Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and
4–022, 6–047, 11–034, 11–090, 18–005
Computer Staff (APEX) [1983] 2 A.C. 180; [1983] 2 W.L.R.
679 HL
Cheese v Thomas [1994] 1 W.L.R. 129; [1994] 1 All E.R. 35 CA
3–145, 9–110, 9–114, 10–014, 10–024,
(Civ Div)
10–031
Cheikh Boutros Selim El-Khoury v Ceylon Shipping Lines (The
Madeleine) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224 QBD (Comm)
Chelini v Nieri, 196 P.2d 915 (1948)
Chelmsford Auctions Ltd v Poole [1973] Q.B. 542; [1973] 2
W.L.R. 219 CA (Civ Div)
Chelsea v Muscut [1990] 2 E.G.L.R. 48
Chelsea & Waltham Green Building Society v Armstrong [1951]
Ch. 853; [1951] 2 All E.R. 250 Ch D
Chemco Leasing SpA v Rediffusion [1987] 1 F.T.L.R. 201 CA
(Civ Div)
18–064
20–019
16–077
21–053
14–131
4–021
Chemical Venture, The. See Pearl Carriers Inc v Japan Line Ltd
(The Chemical Venture)
Chemidus Wavin Ltd v Société pour la Transformation et
11–165
l’Exploitation des Resines Industrielles SA [1978] 3
C.M.L.R. 514; [1977] F.S.R. 181 CA (Civ Div)
Cherry v Colonial Bank of Australasia (1869) L.R. 3 P.C. 24
12–080, 16–081
Cherry Tree Investments Ltd v Landmain Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ
6–013, 6–022, 8–060, 8–061
736; [2013] Ch. 305; [2013] 2 W.L.R. 481; [2013] 1
B.C.L.C. 484; [2012] 2 P. & C.R. 10; [2012] 2 E.G.L.R. 141;
[2012] 23 E.G. 97 (C.S.)
Chesterfield v Janssen (1750) 2 Ves.Sen. 125
10–044
Chestertons (A Firm) v Barone [1987] 1 E.G.L.R. 15; (1987)
16–076
282 E.G. 87 CA (Civ Div)
Chettiar (ARPL Palaniappa) v Chettiar (PLAR Arunasalam); sub 11–056, 11–140, 11–147, 11–148, 11–149
nom Chettiar v Chettiar [1962] A.C. 294; [1962] 2 W.L.R.
548 PC (FMS)
Chevalier Roze, The. See Neptune Orient Lines Ltd v JVC (UK)
Ltd (The Chevalier Roze)
Cheverny Consulting Ltd v Whitehead Mann Ltd [2007] EWHC
3–098, 4–006, 6–015, 9–057
3130 (Comm); [2007] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 124 CA (Civ Div)
Chevron International Oil Co Ltd v A/S Sea Team (The TS
7–011, 16–057
Havprins) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 356; [1983] Com. L.R. 172
QBD (Comm)
Chichester v Cobb (1866) 14 L.T. 433
3–054, 5–023
Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v Wigan Athletic
3–046
Football Club [2008] EWCA 1449; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1580
Chikuma, The. See Awilco of Oslo A/S v Fulvia SpA di
Navigazione of Cagliari (The Chikuma)
Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp v Marine Transportation Co Ltd (The
17–075, 17–086, 17–088, 18–035
Hermosa); Marine Transportation Co Ltd v Pansuiza
Compania de Navegacion SA; Nitrate Corp of Chile Ltd v
Pansuiza Compania de Navegacion SA [1982] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 570 CA (Civ Div)
Chillingworth v Esche; sub nom Challingworth v Esche [1924] 1
2–099, 4–009, 20–147
Ch. 97; [1923] All E.R. Rep. 97 CA
China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corp v Evlogia
3–081, 18–080, 18–085
Shipping Co SA of Panama (The Mihalios Xilas) [1979] 1
W.L.R. 1018; [1979] 2 All E.R. 1044 HL
China Shipbuilding Corp v Nippon Yusen Kabukishi Kaisha
7–024
(The Seta Maru, The Saikyo and The Suma) [2000] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 367; [2000] C.L.C. 566 QBD (Comm)
China Steamship and Labuan Coal Co, Re; sub nom Capper’s
12–019
Case (1867–68) L.R. 3 Ch. App. 458 CA in Chancery
China-Pacific SA v Food Corp of India (The Winson) [1982]
A.C. 939; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 860; [1981] 3 All E.R. 688;
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 117; (1981) 125 S.J. 808 HL
Chinn v Collins. See Chinn v Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes)
Chinn v Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes); sub nom Chinn v
Collins (Inspector of Taxes) [1981] A.C. 533; [1981] 2
W.L.R. 14 HL
Chinnock v Sainsbury (1861) 30 L.J.Ch. 409
Chippenham Golf Club v North Wiltshire DC. See Farrage v
North Wiltshire DC
Chipsaway International Ltd v Kerr [2009] EWCA Civ 320
Chiswell Shipping and Liberian Jaguar Transports Inc v
National Iranian Tankers Co (The World Symphony and The
World Renown) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 115 CA (Civ Div)
Choko Star, The. See Industrie Chimiche Italia Centrale and
Cerealfin SA v Alexander G Tsavliris & Sons Maritime Co
(The Choko Star)
Christie Owen & Davies v Rapacioli [1974] Q.B. 781; [1974] 2
W.L.R. 723 CA (Civ Div)
Christopher & Co v Essig [1948] W.N. 461; (1948) 92 S.J. 675
Christos v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and
the Regions; sub nom Secretary of State for Transport v
Christos [2003] EWCA Civ 1073; [2004] 1 P. & C.R. 17
Christy v Row (1808) 1 Taunt. 300
Chrysalis, The. See Finelvet AG v Vinava Shipping Co Ltd (The
Chrysalis)
Churchward v Churchward (Collusion) [1895] P. 7 PDAD
Churchward v Queen, The (1865–66) L.R. 1 Q.B. 173 QB
Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] S.G.C.A.
2; [2005] 1 S.L.R. 502 CA (Sing Ct)
CIA Barca de Panama SA v George Wimpey & Co Ltd (No.1)
[1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 598 CA (Civ Div)
Cia Portorafti Commerciale SA v Ultramar Panama Inc (The
Captain Gregos (No.2)) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 CA (Civ
Div)
CIBC Mortgages Plc v Pitt [1994] 1 A.C. 200; [1993] 3 W.L.R.
802 HL
Cie Commerciale Sucres et Denrees v C Czarnikow Ltd (The
Naxos) [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1337; [1990] 3 All E.R. 641 HL
Cie Française d’Importation etc. v Deutsche Continental
Handelsgesellschaft. See Compagnie Française
d’Importation et de Distribution SA v Deutsche ContiHandels GmbH
Cil v Owners of the Turiddu (The Turiddu); sub nom Cil v First
National Bank of Maryland (The Turiddu) [1999] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 161; [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 401 CA (Civ Div)
Cine Bes Filmcilik v United International Pictures [2003]
EWCA Civ 1669; [2004] 1 C.L.C. 401
Cipriani v Burnett [1933] A.C. 83; [1933] 1 W.W.R. 1 PC (Trin)
Circle Freight International Ltd v Medeast Gulf Exports Ltd
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 427 CA (Civ Div)
3–081, 16–034, 16–036, 16–038, 16–038,
16–040, 16–042
15–030, 21–018
21–038
11–073
20–064
16–088
2–056
3–127
17–041
11–039
17–053
8–050
2–107
3–095, 14–072, 14–073
10–016, 10–017, 10–020, 10–039
18–054, 18–055
14–021
20–138
11–054
7–011
Ciro Citterio Menswear Plc v Thakrar; sub nom Ciro Citterio
Menswear Plc (In Administration), Re [2002] EWHC 662;
[2002] 1 W.L.R. 2217; [2002] 2 All E.R. 717 Ch D
(Companies Ct)
Citadel Insurance Co v Atlantic Union Insurance Co SA [1982]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 543; [1982] Com. L.R. 213 CA (Civ Div)
Citibank NA v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd; Midland Bank Plc v
Brown Shipley & Co Ltd [1991] 2 All E.R. 690; [1991] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 576 QBD (Comm)
City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd [1959] Ch.
129; [1958] 3 W.L.R. 312 Ch D
City Equitable Fire Insurance Company Ltd, Re [1925] 1 Ch 407
City Index Ltd v Stevenson, November 6, 2001 Ch D
City of New Orleans v Firemen’s Charitable Association (1891)
9 So. 486
Ciudad de Pasto, The. See Mitsui & Co Ltd v Flota Mercante
Grancolombiana SA (The Ciudad de Pasto and The Ciudad
de Neiva)
Civic Structures v Clark Quinney & Co [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 165;
[1991] 47 E.G. 97
Clare v Lamb (1874–75) L.R. 10 C.P. 334; (1875) 23 W.R. 389
CCP
Clarion Ltd v National Provident Institution [2000] 1 W.L.R.
1888; [2000] 2 All E.R. 265 Ch D
Clark v Clark [2006] EWHC 275; [2006] 1 F.C.R. 421 Ch D
Clark v Kirby Smith [1964] Ch. 506; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 239 Ch D
Clark v Lindsay (1903) 19 T.L.R. 202
Clark v Lucas Solicitors LLP [2009] EWHC 1952 (Ch); [2009]
46 E.G. 144
Clark v Malpas (1862) 4 D.F. & J. 401
Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside [2000] 1
W.L.R. 1988; [2000] 3 All E.R. 752 CA (Civ Div)
Clark Boyce v Mouat [1994] 1 A.C. 428; [1993] 3 W.L.R. 1021
PC (NZ)
Clarke v Bruce Lance & Co [1988] 1 W.L.R. 881; [1988] 1 All
E.R. 364 CA (Civ Div)
Clarke v Chadburn [1985] 1 W.L.R. 78; [1985] 1 All E.R. 211
Ch D
Clarke v Cobley (1789) 2 Cox 173
Clarke v Dickson (1858) E.B. & E. 148
Clarke v Earl of Dunraven (The Satanita) [1897] A.C. 59 HL
Clarke v Mackintosh (1862) 4 Giff. 134
Clarke v West Ham Corp [1909] 2 K.B. 858 CA
Clarke Investments Ltd v Pacific Technologies Ltd [2013]
EWCA Civ 750; [2013] 2 P. & C.R. 20; [2013] 27 E.G. 90
(C.S.); [2013] 2 P. & C.R. DG18
Clarkson Booker v Andjel [1964] 2 Q.B. 775; [1964] 3 W.L.R.
466 CA
Classic Maritime Inc v Lion Diversified Holdings Berhad [2009]
EWHC 1142 (Comm); [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 59
Claughton v Price; sub nom Tr in Bankruptcy of Arthur Knapton
v Price (1998) 30 H.L.R. 396; [1997] E.G. 51 (C.S.) CA (Civ
11–006
3–030, 3–161
8–038
6–030
7–028
7–066
20–046
9–041
8–013
6–037, 6–043, 8–032, 11–017
3–140, 3–143
17–069, 20–059, 20–097
19–007
21–034
10–045
11–054
16–097
14–052
11–011, 11–111
12–045
9–106
2–076, 14–011, 14–064
9–027
7–044
18–107, 21–045
16–076
3–018, 20–111
10–023, 10–027
Div)
Clay v Yates (1856) 1 H. & N. 73
Clay’s Policy of Assurance, Re [1937] 2 All E.R. 548
Claygate v Batchelor (1602) Owen 143
Clayton v Ashdown (1714) 2 Eq.Ca.Abr. 516
Clayton v Ashdown (1714) 9 Vin.Abr. 393 (G.4) 1
Clayton v Jennings (1760) 2 W.Bl. 706
Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International (The Alaskan
Trader) (No.1) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 315; [1983] Com. L.R.
222; (1983) 133 N.L.J. 869 QBD (Comm)
Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International (The Alaskan
Trader) (No.2) [1984] 1 All E.R. 129; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
645 QBD (Comm)
Cleadon Trust Ltd v Davis [1940] Ch. 940 CA
Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association [1892] 1 Q.B.
147 CA
Cleaver v Schyde Investments Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 929;
[2011] 2 P. & C.R. 21
Cleeves Western Valleys Anthracite Collieries Ltd v Owners of
The Penelope [1928] P. 180; (1928) 31 Ll. L. Rep. 96 PDAD
Clef Aquitaine Sarl v Laporte Materials (Barrow) Ltd; sub nom
ClefAquitaine Sarl v Sovereign Chemical Industries Ltd
[2001] Q.B. 488; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1760 CA (Civ Div)
Clegg v Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320;
[2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 721; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 32
Clegg v Hands (1890) L.R. 44 Ch. D. 503 CA
Clements v London & North Western Ry Co [1894] 2 Q.B. 482
CA
Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd
[2010] EWCA Civ 449; [2010] C.I.L.L. 2863
Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd
[2010] EWCA Civ 139
Cleveland Manufacturing Co Ltd v Muslim Commercial Bank
Ltd [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 646; [1981] Com. L.R. 247 QBD
(Comm)
Cleveland Petroleum Co Ltd v Dartstone Ltd (No.1) [1969] 1
W.L.R. 116; [1969] 1 All E.R. 201 CA (Civ Div)
Clever v Kirkman (1876) 33 L.T. 672
Clifford v Watts (1869–70) L.R. 5 C.P. 577 CCP
Clifford Davis Management Ltd v WEA Records Ltd [1975] 1
W.L.R. 61; [1975] 1 All E.R. 237 CA (Civ Div)
Clifton v Palumbo [1944] 2 All E.R. 497 CA
Clipper Maritime Ltd v Shirlstar Container Transport Ltd (The
Anemone) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 546 QBD (Comm)
Clipsham v Vertue (1843) 5 Q.B. 265
Close v Wilson [2011] EWCA Civ 5; [2011] L.L.R. 453
Close Bros Ltd v Pearce [2011] EWHC 298 (QB)
Clough v Kelly (1996) 72 P. & C.R. D22
Clough v London & North Western Ry Co (1871–72) L.R. 7 Ex.
26 Ex Chamber
Clough Mill Ltd v Martin [1985] 1 W.L.R. 111; [1984] 3 All
E.R. 982 CA (Civ Div)
11–016, 11–119
14–085, 14–125
11–062
12–017
21–048
3–156
11–052
18–006, 21–011, 21–012, 21–013
21–048
14–021, 14–085, 14–086
7–082, 9–134
19–073
9–029, 9–035, 9–068
18–090
15–054
12–011
17–041
17–041, 17–048
16–022
11–100
6–016
8–004
10–050, 11–079, 11–084, 21–054
2–006
5–017,5–027,9–167
18–050
11–145, 11–151
5–030
3–145
9–089, 9–096, 9–121
22–004
Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd v Mulchinock [1998] 1 W.L.R.
42; [1997] N.P.C. 47 Ch D
Clubb v Huston (1865) 18 C.B.(N.S.) 414
Clugas v Penaluna (1791) 4 T.R. 466
Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority [1998] Q.B.
978
Clyde & Co LLP v van Winkelhof [2011] EWHC 668 (QB);
[2011] I.C.R. 467
17–015
Clyde Cycle Co v Hargreaves (1898) 78 L.T. 296
Clydebank Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Don Jose
Ramos Yzquierdo y Castaneda; sub nom Castaneda v
Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co Ltd [1905]
A.C. 6; (1904) 7 F. (H.L.) 77; (1904) 12 S.L.T. 498 HL
CMA CGM SA v Beteiligungs KG MS Northern Pioneer
Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co [2002] EWCA Civ 1878;
[2003] 1 W.L.R. 1015
CMG, Re [1970] Ch. 574; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 80, CP
CN Marine Inc v Stena Line A/B (The Stena Nautica (No.2))
[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336; [1982] Com. L.R. 203 CA (Civ
Div)
Coastal (Bermuda) Petroleum Ltd v VTT Vulcan Petroleum SA
(No.1) (The Marine Star) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 329 CA
(Civ Div)
Coastal (Bermuda) Petroleum Ltd v VTT Vulcan Petroleum SA
(No.2) (The Marine Star) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383; [1996]
C.L.C. 1510 CA (Civ Div)
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55;
[2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752; [2008] 4 All E.R. 713; [2009] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 205; [2008] 3 E.G.L.R. 31; [2008] 35 E.G.
142; [2008] 36 E.G. 142; [2008] W.T.L.R. 1461; (2008–09)
11 I.T.E.L.R. 530; [2008] 31 E.G. 88 (C.S.); (2008) 152(31)
S.J.L.B. 31; [2008] N.P.C. 95
Cobec Brazilian Trading & Warehousing Corp v Toepfer [1983]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 386 CA (Civ Div)
Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v Swissmarine Services SA (The
Lowlands Orchid) [2009] EWHC 2883 (Comm); [2010] 2
All E.R. (Comm) 128; [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 317
Cochrane v Moore (1890) L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 57 CA
Cockerton v Naviera Aznar, SA [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 QBD
Cocking v Pratt (1749) 1 Ves.Sen. 400
Codelfa Construction Property Ltd v State Rail Authority of
New South Wales (1982) 149 C.L.R. 337 HC (Aus)
Codemasters Software Co Ltd v Automobile Club de L’Ouest
[2009] EWHC 2361 (Ch); [2010] F.S.R. 12
Coggs v Bernard (1703) 2 Ld.Raym. 909
Cohen v Nessdale Ltd [1982] 2 All E.R. 97 CA (Civ Div) QBD
Cohen v Roche [1927] 1 K.B. 169 KBD
Cointat v Myham & Son [1913] 2 K.B. 220 KBD
Colburn v Patmore (1834) 1 C.M. & R. 73
Colchester BC v Smith; Colchester BC v Tillson [1992] Ch. 421;
[1992] 2 W.L.R. 728 CA (Civ Div)
Cole v Gibson (1750) 1 Ves.Sen. 503
12–005
20–131
11–046
11–167
11–023
11–053
11–052
10–023
14–141, 21–017, 21–024
19–029, 19–054
4–003, 19–075, 20–116
2–085, 2–099, 3–093, 3–122, 3–126, 3–
127, 3–129, 3–147, 3–151, 4–012, 5–
011, 22–021
17–033, 17–037, 18–085, 18–087
6–004
15–029
2–012
8–028, 8–031, 10–023
19–031, 19–042
21–004
3–167
4–010, 4–011
21–024
11–022, 11–025, 20–092, 20–106
11–022
3–029, 3–037, 9–156
11–042
Cole v Rose [1978] 3 All E.R. 1121; (1978) 122 S.J. 193 DC
Cole (A Bankrupt), Re; sub nom Ex p. Trustee v Cole [1964] Ch.
175; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 621 CA
Colebrook’s Conveyances, Re; sub nom Taylor v Taylor [1972]
1 W.L.R. 1397; [1973] 1 All E.R. 132 Ch D
Cole-McIntyre-Norfleet Co v Holloway, 141 Tenn. 679; 214
S.W. 87 (1919)
18–100
15–029
8–060, 8–072
2–044
Coles v NW Bank (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 354
16–030
Coles v Samuel Smith Old Brewery Tadcaster [2007] EWCA
21–034
Civ 1461
Coles v Trecothick (1804) 9 Ves. 234
21–032
Colesworthy v Collmain Services [1993] C.C.L.R. 4
22–013
Collen v Wright, 120 E.R. 241; (1857) 8 El. & Bl. 647 Ex
16–078
Chamber
Collidge v Freeport Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 485; [2008] I.R.L.R.
2–103
69
Collier v Brown (1788) 1 Cox C.C. 428
10–045, 21–032
Collier v Hollinshead (1984) 272 E.G. 941 Ch D
4–018
Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings ) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ
3–081, 3–101, 3–106, 3–115, 3–117
1329; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 643
Collin v Duke of Westminster [1985] Q.B. 581; [1985] 2 W.L.R.
2–005, 2–047, 3–057, 3–081, 3–082
553 CA (Civ Div)
Collings v Lee [2001] 2 All E.R. 332; (2001) 82 P. & C.R. 3 CA
9–090
(Civ Div)
Collins v Associated Greyhound Racecourses Ltd [1930] 1 Ch. 1
16–059
CA
Collins v Blantern (1767) 2 Wils.K.B. 341
11–046
Collins v Brook (1860) 5 H. & N. 700
14–009
Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B. & Ad. 950
3–045
Collins v Locke (1878–79) L.R. 4 App. Cas. 674 PC (Aus)
11–088
Collins v Prosser (1823) 1 B. & C. 682
13–002
Colombiana, The. See Compania Colombiana de Seguros v
Pacific Steam Navigation Co (The Colombiana)
Colonia Versicherung AG v Amoco Oil Co (The Wind Star)
3–007, 3–037, 14–128
[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 261; [1997] C.L.C. 454; [1997] 6 Re.
L.R. 86 CA (Civ Div)
Colonial Mutual General Insurance Co Ltd v ANZ Banking
15–012, 15–017
Group (New Zealand) Ltd [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1140
Coloniale Import-Export v Loumidis & Sons [1978] 2 Lloyd’s
2–109
Rep. 560
Colt v Nettervill (1725) 2 P.Wms. 301
21–018
Colyear v Mulgrave (1836) 2 Keen 81
14–088
Combe v Combe; sub nom Coombe v Coombe [1951] 2 K.B.
3–042, 3–088, 3–089, 3–098, 3–112, 3–
215; [1951] 1 All E.R. 767 CA
116
Comdel Commodities Ltd v Siporex Trade SA [1997] 1 Lloyd’s
20–143
Rep. 424 CA (Civ Div)
Comemsco Ltd v Contrapol Unreported
7–082
Comfort v Betts [1891] 1 Q.B. 737 CA
15–012
Commercial Fibres (Ireland) Ltd v Zabaida (t/a Lenmore
20–050
Trading) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 27 QBD (Comm)
Commercial Plastics Ltd v Vincent [1965] 1 Q.B. 623; [1964] 3 11–064, 11–071, 11–078, 11–162, 11–163,
W.L.R. 820; [1964] 3 All E.R. 546; (1964) 108 S.J. 599 CA
11–165
Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc v Sun Alliance Insurance
Group Plc; Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc v Guardian
Royal Exchange Plc [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 475 QBD
(Comm)
Commission for the New Towns v Cooper (Great Britain) Ltd
(formerly Coopind UK); sub nom Milton Keynes
Development Corp v Cooper (Great Britain) [1995] Ch. 259;
[1995] 2 W.L.R. 677 CA (Civ Div)
Commission for the New Towns v Terrace Hill (Stockton)
[2007] EWHC 3094 (Ch)
Commr of Public Works v Hills; sub nom Public Works
Commissioners v Hills [1906] A.C. 368; (1906) 22 T.L.R.
589 PC (Cape)
Commr of Stamp Duties v Bone [1977] A.C. 511; [1976] 2
W.L.R. 968 PC (Aus)
Commr of Taxation v Reliance Carpet Co Pty Ltd (2008) 236
C.L.R. 342
Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991)
66 A.L.J.R. 123
Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 C.L.R. 394;
(1990) 95 A.L.R. 321
Compagnie Française d’Importation et de Distribution SA v
Deutsche Conti-Handels GmbH [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 592
QBD (Comm)
Compagnie Générale Maritime v Diakan Spirit SA (The Ymnos
(No.2)) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 574; [1982] Com. L.R. 228
QBD (Comm)
Compagnie Noga d’Importation et d’Exportation SA v Abacha
(No.4) [2003] EWCA Civ 1100; [2003] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
915
Compania Colombiana de Seguros v Pacific Steam Navigation
Co (The Colombiana); Empressa de Telefona de Bogota v
Pacific Steam Navigation Co (The Colombiana) [1965] 1
Q.B. 101; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 484 QBD (Comm)
Compania Financiera Soleada SA v Hamoor Tanker Corp Inc
(The Borag) [1981] 1 W.L.R. 274; [1981] 1 All E.R. 856 CA
(Civ Div)
Compania Naviera General SA v Kerametal (The Lorna I)
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373; [1982] Com. L.R. 257 CA (Civ
Div)
Company (No.001946 of 1991) Ex p. Fin Soft Holdings SA, Re
[1991] B.C.L.C. 737
Company (NO.0032314 of 1992), Re. See Duckwari Plc (No.1),
Re
Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd (t/a Medirest) v Mid Essex
Hospital Services NHS Trust; sub nom Mid Essex Hospital
Services NHS Trust v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd
[2013] EWCA Civ 200; [2013] B.L.R. 265; [2013] C.I.L.L.
3342
Compere Associates Ltd v Halsey [2004] EWHC 1317 Ch D
Comptoir Commercial Anversois v Power, Son & Co. See
Arbitration between Comptoir Commercial Anversois and
3–094
4–010, 5–008, 5–009, 8–069, 9–028
3–095
20–147, 20–148
3–058, 13–015
18–001
20–028, 20–033, 20–059
3–089, 3–093
2–003, 2–005, 2–043
18–050, 18–051, 18–054, 18–055
6–028
15–059
20–118
17–032, 19–109
9–023
1–004, 6–042, 18–078
2–099
Power Son & Co, Re
Concord Trust v Law Debenture Trust Corp Plc [2005] UKHL
27; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1591; [2005] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 699;
[2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 221; [2006] 1 B.C.L.C. 616; [2005] 1
C.L.C. 631; (2005) 155 N.L.J. 692
Concordia C, The. See Rheinoel GmbH v Huron Liberian Co
(The Concordia C)
Concordia Trading BV v Richco International Ltd [1991] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 475 QBD (Comm)
Condor v The Barron Knights Ltd [1966] 1 W.L.R. 87; (1966)
110 S.J. 71 Assizes (Bedford)
Conductive Interjet Technology Ltd v Uni-Pixel Displays Inc
[2013] EWHC 2968 (Ch); [2014] F.S.R. 22
Congimex Companhia Geral, etc. v Tradax Export SA [1981] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 687
Congimex Sarl (Lisbon) v Continental Grain Export Corp (New
York) [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 346 CA (Civ Div)
Conlon v Simms; sub nom Simms v Conlon [2006] EWCA Civ
1749
Connaught Restaurants Ltd v Indoor Leisure Ltd [1994] 1
W.L.R. 501; [1994] 4 All E.R. 834; [1993] 46 E.G. 184;
[1993] E.G. 143 (C.S.); (1993) 143 N.L.J. 1188; [1993]
N.P.C. 118 CA (Civ Div)
Connex South Eastern Ltd v MJ Building Services Group Plc
[2005] EWCA Civ 193; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3323
Connors Bros v Connors Ltd [1940] 4 All E.R. 179
Consolidated Finance Ltd v McCluskey [2012] EWCA Civ
1325; [2012] C.T.L.C. 133
Consort Deep Level Gold Mines Ltd Ex p. Stark, Re [1897] 1
Ch. 575 CA
Constantinidi v Ralli [1935] Ch. 427 Ch D
Constantinople and Alexandria Hotel Co, Re; sub nom Ebbetts’
Case (1869–70) L.R. 5 Ch. App. 302 CA in Chancery
Consten & Grundig v Commission. See Etablissements Consten
Sarl v Commission of the European Economic Community
(56/64)
Construction Industry Training Board v Labour Force Ltd
[1970] 3 All E.R. 220; 9 K.I.R. 269 DC
Constructora Principado SA v Menéndez Állvarez (C–226/12)
[2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 385; EU:C:2014:10 ECJ (1st
Chamber)
Container Transport International Inc v Oceanus Mutual, etc.
Association [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 476
Contex Drouzhba Ltd v Wiseman [2007] EWCA Civ 1201;
[2008] 1 B.C.L.C. 631
Continental Grain Export Corp v STM Grain Ltd (Charles E
Ford Ltd) [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 460 QBD (Comm)
Convenience Co Ltd v Roberts [2001] F.S.R. 35
Cooden Engineering Co v Stanford [1953] 1 Q.B. 86; [1952] 2
All E.R. 915 CA
Cook v Fearn (1878) 48 L.J.Ch. 63
Cook v Lister (1863) 13 C.B. (N.S.) 543
6–036, 18–038
18–054
19–016
2–029
19–031, 19–043, 19–048
17–065, 19–026, 19–043, 19–048
9–158, 9–164
7–087
18–019
11–068
6–040
2–024
8–060
12–019
14–008
7–105
2–017, 9–140, 9–147, 9–152
9–048
3–063, 17–092, 19–029
11–073, 11–075
20–144
8–062, 8–073
3–108, 3–109, 17–008
Cook v Spanish Holiday Tours (London) (No.2), Times, 6
20–087
February 1960 CA
Cook v Swinfen; sub nom Cook v S [1967] 1 W.L.R. 457;
20–085
[1967] 1 All E.R. 299 CA
Cook v Taylor [1942] Ch. 349 Ch D
19–065
Cook v Wright (1861) 1 B. & S. 559
3–038
Cook’s Settlement Trusts, Re; sub nom Royal Exchange
14–085, 14–089
Assurance v Cook [1965] Ch. 902; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 179 Ch
D
Cook Industries Inc v Meunerie Liégeois SA [1981] 1 Lloyd’s
3–081
Rep. 359 QBD (Comm)
Cook Industries Inc v Tradax Export SA [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
3–082, 19–036
454 CA (Civ Div)
Cooke v Eshelby. See Isaac Cooke & Sons v Eshelby
Cooke v Hopper [2012] EWCA Civ 175
22–020
Cooke v Oxley (1790) 3 T.R. 653
3–004
Cooker v Child (1673) 2 Lev 74
14–131
Coomber, Re; sub nom Coomber v Coomber [1911] 1 Ch. 723
10–023, 10–027
CA
Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 W.L.R. 808; [1987] 1 F.L.R. 352 Ch
3–024, 3–121, 3–133, 4–019
D
Coope v Ridout [1921] 1 Ch. 291 CA
4–009
Cooper v Micklefield Coal & Lime Co Ltd (1912) 107 L.T. 457
15–054
Cooper v National Provincial Bank Ltd [1946] K.B. 1 KBD
9–154
Cooper v National Westminster Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3035
2–047
(QB); [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 490
Cooper v Parker (1885) 15 C.B. 822
3–102
Cooper v Phibbs (1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 149 HL (UK-Irl)
8–013, 8–028, 9–113
Cooper v Pure Fishing (UK) Ltd (formerly Outdoor Technology
16–109
Group (UK) Ltd) [2004] EWCA Civ 375; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 518
Cooper v Tamms [1988] 1 E.G.L.R. 257 DC
9–024, 9–046
Cooperatieve Vereniging Suiker Unie UA v Commission of the
11–107
European Communities (40/73); sub nom European Sugar
Cartel, Re (40/73); Suiker Unie v Commission of the
European Communities (40/73) [1975] E.C.R. 1663; [1976]
1 C.M.L.R. 295 ECJ
Cooperative Bank Plc v Tipper [1996] 4 All E.R. 366 Ch D
8–060
Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings)
21–016, 21–017, 21–029, 21–039, 21–041
Ltd [1998] A.C. 1; [1997] 2 W.L.R. 898 HL
Cooperative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership Ltd;
7–037
Cooperative Retail Services Ltd v Hoare Lea & Partners;
Cooperative Retail Services Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd
(formerly Tarmac Construction (Contracts) Ltd);
Cooperative Retail Services Ltd v East Midlands Electricity
Electrical Installations Services Ltd (t/a Hall Electrical) (In
Liquidation) [2002] UKHL 17; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 1419;
[2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 918; [2003] 1 C.L.C. 75; [2002]
B.L.R. 272; [2002] T.C.L.R. 9; 82 Con. L.R. 1; [2002]
Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 555
Cooperative Wholesale Society Ltd (t/a CWS Engineering
14–044
Group) v Birse Construction Ltd (formerly Peter Birse Ltd);
sub nom Birse Construction Ltd (formerly Peter Birse Ltd) v
Cooperative Wholesale Society Ltd (t/a CWS Engineering
Group) [1997] C.L.C. 1290; 84 B.L.R. 58 CA (Civ Div)
Cope v Rowlands (1836) 2 M. & W. 149
Coppin v Walker (1816) 7 Taunt. 237
Coral Leisure Group v Barnett [1981] I.C.R. 503; [1981]
I.R.L.R. 204 EAT
Coral Rose, The. See Atlas Maritime Co SA v Avalon Maritime
Ltd (No.1) (The Coral Rose)
Coral (UK) Ltd v Rechtman and Altro Mozart Food Handels
GmbH [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 235 QBD (Comm)
Corbett v Bond Pearce (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 531; [2001]
3 All E.R. 769
Corby v Morrison (t/a the Card Shop) [1980] I.C.R. 564; [1980]
I.R.L.R. 218 EAT
Corfield v DS Bosher & Co [1992] 1 E.G.L.R. 163; [1992] 04
E.G. 127
Cork v Rawlins; sub nom Rawlins, Re [2001] EWCA Civ 202;
[2001] Ch. 792
Cork & Bandon Ry v Cazenove (1847) 10 Q.B. 935
Cornfoot v Fowke (1840) 6 M. & W. 358
Cornish v Abington (1859) 4 H. & N. 549
Cornish v Midland Bank Plc; sub nom Midland Bank Plc v
Cornish [1985] 3 All E.R. 513; [1985] F.L.R. 298 CA (Civ
Div)
Cornwall v Henson (1750) 1 Ves.Sen. 509
Cornwall v Henson [1900] 2 Ch. 298 CA
Cornwall CC v Prater; sub nom Prater v Cornwall CC [2006]
EWCA Civ 102; [2006] 2 All E.R. 1013; [2006] I.C.R. 731
Coroin Ltd, Re; sub nom McKillen v Misland (Cyprus)
Investments Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 179; [2012] B.C.C. 575;
[2012] 2 B.C.L.C. 611
Corpe v Overton (1833) 10 Bing. 252
Cort v Ambergate etc Ry Co (1851) 17 Q.B. 127
Cory v Gertcken (1816) 2 Madd. 40
Cory v Patton (Demurrer and Joinder) (1871–72) L.R. 7 Q.B.
304 QB
Cory v Thames Ironworks & Shipbuilding Co Ltd (1867–68)
L.R. 3 Q.B. 181 QB
Cory Bros Shipping Ltd v Baldan Ltd [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 58
CC (Central London)
Cosgrove v Horsfall (1946) 62 T.L.R. 140
Coslake v Till (1826) 1 Russ. 376
Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2001] EWCA Civ
381; [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1437
Costello v MacDonald. See MacDonald Dickens & Macklin v
Costello
Cotman v Brougham; sub nom Anglo Cuban Oil Bitumen and
Asphalt Co Ltd, Re [1918] A.C. 514 HL
Cotnam v Wisdom, 83 Ark. 601, 104 S.W. 164 (1907)
Cotronic (UK) Ltd v Dezonie (t/a Wendaland Builders Ltd)
[1991] B.C.C. 200; [1991] B.C.L.C. 721 CA (Civ Div)
11–019
16–077
11–003, 11–044, 11–115
16–073
14–052
11–056, 11–117, 11–162
20–059
15–074
12–019
9–036
8–047
9–162, 10–024
16–043
18–035
4–020
6–013
12–024, 20–148
17–027
12–047
9–140
20–104
16–070
14–059, 14–062
18–103
11–150
12–066
16–041
11–152, 16–073, 22–024
Cott UK Ltd v FE Barber Ltd [1997] 3 All E.R. 540 QBD
11–050
Cottage Club Estates Ltd v Woodside Estates Co (Amersham)
15–022
Ltd [1928] 2 K.B. 463 KBD
Cotterell v Leeds Day. See Cotterrell v Leeds Day
Cotterrell v Leeds Day; sub nom Cotterell v Leeds Day [2001]
9–168
W.T.L.R. 435 CA (Civ Div)
Cotton v Heyl [1930] 1 Ch. 510 Ch D
15–025
Cottrill v Steyning and Littlehampton Building Society [1966] 1
20–108
W.L.R. 753; [1966] 2 All E.R. 295 QBD
Couchman v Hill [1947] K.B. 554; [1947] 1 All E.R. 103 CA
6–030, 7–041, 9–053, 18–044
Coulls v Bagot’s Executor & Trustee Co Ltd [1967] A.L.R. 385 13–034, 13–036, 14–021, 14–041, 14–043,
14–086, 21–028, 21–050
Coulson v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ
11–025
1547; [2013] 1 Costs L.O. 117; [2013] I.R.L.R. 116
Coulter v Chief Constable of Dorset [2004] EWCA Civ 1259;
15–017
[2005] 1 W.L.R. 130
Coulthard v Disco Mix Club Ltd [2000] 1 W.L.R. 707; [1999] 2
16–096
All E.R. 457 Ch D
Coulthart v Clementson (1879–80) L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 42 QBD
2–068
Countess of Warwick Steamship Co v Le Nickel SA [1918] 1
19–021
K.B. 372 CA
Country & Metropolitan Homes Surrey Ltd v Topclaim Ltd
18–102, 20–147
[1996] Ch. 307; [1996] 3 W.L.R. 525; [1997] 1 All E.R. 254
Ch D
Countrywide Assured Financial Services Ltd v Smart [2004]
11–072
EWHC 1214 Ch D
Countrywide Communications Ltd v ICL Pathway Ltd [2000]
3–093, 22–021
C.L.C. 324 QBD
County Homesearch Co (Thames and Chilterns) Ltd v Cowham
16–086
[2008] EWCA Civ 26; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 909
County Hotel & Wine Co Ltd v London & North Western Ry Co
15–061, 15–063
[1921] 1 A.C. 85 HL
County Leasing Ltd v East [2007] EWHC 2907 (QB)
20–132
County Ltd v Girozentrale Securities [1996] 3 All E.R. 834;
3–161,4–008,4–023, 16–094, 20–096, 20–
[1996] 1 B.C.L.C. 653 CA (Civ Div)
126
County Natwest v Pinsent & Co [1994] 3 Bank. L.R. 4 QBD
20–094
County Personnel (Employment Agency) Ltd v Alan R Pulver &
9–075, 20–042, 20–071
Co [1987] 1 W.L.R. 916; [1987] 1 All E.R. 289 CA (Civ
Div)
Courage Ltd v Crehan; sub nom Crehan v Courage Ltd (C–
11–106, 11–128
453/99) [2002] Q.B. 507; [2001] 3 W.L.R. 1646 ECJ
Court Line v Gotaverken AB (The Halcyon the Great) [1984] 1
15–012, 15–014, 15–022
Lloyd’s Rep. 283; (1984) 134 N.L.J. 203 QBD (Comm)
Courtney v Corp Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 518
5–008
Courtney & Fairbairn Ltd v Tolaini Brothers (Hotels) Ltd; sub
2–086, 2–099
nom Courtney & Fairburn v Tolaini Bros (Hotels) [1975] 1
W.L.R. 297; [1975] 1 All E.R. 716 CA (Civ Div)
Coutts & Co v Browne Lecky [1947] K.B. 104; [1946] 2 All
13–012
E.R. 207 KBD
Couturier v Hastie (1852) 8 Ex. 40
5–016, 8–009, 8–010
Coventry (t/a RDC Promotions) v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13;
21–035, 21–055
[2014] A.C. 822; [2014] 2 W.L.R. 433; [2014] 2 All E.R.
622; [2014] P.T.S.R. 384; [2014] B.L.R. 271; 152 Con. L.R.
1; [2014] Env. L.R. 25; [2014] H.L.R. 21; [2014] 2 P. & C.R.
2; [2014] 1 E.G.L.R. 147; [2014] L.L.R. 423; (2014) 158(9)
S.J.L.B. 37
Coventry Shepherd & Co v GE Ry (1883) L.R. 11 Q.B.D. 76
9–168
Cowan v Milbourn (1867) L.R. 2 Ex. 230
11–112
Cowan v O’Connor (1888) L.R. 20 Q.B.D. 640 QBD
2–030
Coward v Motor Insurers Bureau [1963] 1 Q.B. 259; [1962] 2
4–016
W.L.R. 663 CA
Cowen v Truefitt Ltd [1899] 2 Ch. 309 CA
8–071
Cowern v Nield [1912] 2 K.B. 419 KBD
12–041, 12–051
Cox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
6–036, 19–029
437; [1995] C.L.C. 671 CA (Civ Div)
Cox v Bishop (1857) 8 D.M. & G. 815
15–081
Cox v Prentice (1815) 105 E.R. 641; (1815) 3 M. & S. 344 KB
8–021
Cox’s Case (Lady) (1734) 3 P.Wms. 339
11–044
CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Co Ltd
6–042
[2010] EWHC 1535; [2010] N.P.C. 74
Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch. 179; [1975] 3 W.L.R. 847; [1975]
3–123, 3–131, 3–133, 3–136, 3–138, 3–
3 All E.R. 865; (1976) 32 P. & C.R. 70; (1975) 119 S.J. 711
142, 3–144, 3–150, 3–151
CA (Civ Div)
Craddock Bros Ltd v Hunt [1923] 2 Ch. 136 CA
8–059, 8–075
Craig (Deceased), Re; sub nom Meneces v Middleton; Craig, Re
10–024
[1971] Ch. 95; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1219 Ch D
Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant. See Cramaso LLP v Viscount
Reidhaven’s Trs
Cramaso LLP v Viscount Reidhaven’s Trs; sub nom Cramaso
9–029
LLP v Ogilvie-Grant [2014] UKSC 9; [2014] A.C. 1093;
[2014] 2 W.L.R. 317; [2014] 2 All E.R. 270; [2014] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 830; 2014 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 121; 2014 S.L.T.
521; 2014 S.C.L.R. 484; (2014) 158(7) S.J.L.B. 37
Crampton v Varna Ry Co (1871–72) L.R. 7 Ch. App. 562, Lord
21–020, 21–028
Chancellor
Crane v Hegeman Harris Co Inc [1939] 4 All E.R. 68 CA
8–064, 8–076
Crane v Sky In-Home Service Ltd [2007] EWHC 66 (Ch);
16–109
[2007] 1 C.L.C. 389
Cranleigh Precision Engineering Ltd v Bryant [1965] 1 W.L.R.
2–017, 17–079
1293; [1964] 3 All E.R. 289 QBD
Crantrave Ltd (In Liquidation) v Lloyds Bank Plc [2000] Q.B.
16–036, 17–008
917; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 877 CA (Civ Div)
Craven Ellis v Canons Ltd [1936] 2 K.B. 403 CA
8–037, 12–082, 22–024, 22–025
Cream Holdings Ltd v Davenport [2011] EWCA Civ 1287;
2–096, 2–107
[2012] 1 B.C.L.C. 365
Crears v Hunter (1887) L.R. 19 Q.B.D. 341 CA
3–042
Creasey v Sole [2013] EWHC 1410 (Ch); [2013] W.T.L.R. 931
3–135
Credit Agricole Indosuez v Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd
16–017
[2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 172; [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 275
CA (Civ Div)
Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997] 1 All E.R. 10–024, 10–027, 10–041, 10–045, 10–051
144; [1996] 5 Bank. L.R. 233 CA (Civ Div)
Credit Lyonnais v PT Barnard & Associates Ltd [1976] 1
11–019
Lloyd’s Rep. 557 QBD (Comm)
Crédit Suisse v Allerdale BC [1997] Q.B. 306; [1996] 3 W.L.R.
3–094, 3–095, 12–064, 12–072, 12–074
894 CA (Civ Div)
Crédit Suisse v Waltham Forest LBC [1997] Q.B. 362; [1996] 3
12–074
W.L.R. 943 CA (Civ Div)
Crédit Suisse Asset Management Ltd v Armstrong [1996] I.C.R.
11–084
882; [1996] I.R.L.R. 450 CA (Civ Div)
Crédit Suisse International v Stichting Vestia Groep [2014]
12–073, 12–074, 12–081, 12–082
EWHC 3103 (Comm); [2015] Bus. L.R. D5
Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Co (CPC); sub nom Inntrepreneur
11–128
Pub Co (CPC) v Crehan [2006] UKHL 38; [2007] 1 A.C.
333; [2006] 3 W.L.R. 148; [2006] 4 All E.R. 465; [2006]
U.K.C.L.R. 1232; [2007] E.C.C. 2; [2006] Eu. L.R. 1189;
[2006] I.C.R. 1344; [2006] 30 E.G. 103 (C.S.); (2006) 150
S.J.L.B. 983; [2006] N.P.C. 85
Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1444; [2011]
6–008, 6–027
1 W.L.R. 2066; [2011] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 676; [2011] Bus.
L.R. 943; [2010] 2 C.L.C. 963; [2011] C.I.L.L. 2980
Cremdean Properties v Nash (1977) 244 E.G. 547 CA (Civ Div)
9–126, 9–128
Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp
10–002
(1989–1990) 19 N.S.W.L.R. 40
Cresswell v IRC [1984] 2 All E.R. 713; [1984] I.C.R. 508 Ch D
17–015
Cresswell v Potter [1978] 1 W.L.R. 255 Ch D
10–045
Crest Nicholson (Londinium) Ltd v Akaria Investments Ltd
2–002
[2010] EWCA Civ 1331
Crestsign Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc [2014] EWHC
9–126
3043 (Ch)
Cricklewood Property & Investment Trust Ltd v Leighton’s
19–006, 19–049, 19–050, 19–058, 19–059,
Investment Trust Ltd; sub nom Leighton’s Investment Trust
19–061, 19–076
Ltd v Cricklewood Property & Investment Trust Ltd [1945]
A.C. 221; [1945] 1 All E.R. 252 HL
Crisan’s Estate, Re, 102 N.W. 2d 907 (1961)
16–041
Criterion Properties Plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004]
16–027
UKHL 28; [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1846; [2004] B.C.C. 570; [2006]
1 B.C.L.C. 729; (2004) 101(26) L.S.G. 27; (2004) 148
S.J.L.B. 760; [2004] N.P.C. 96
Crocker Horlock Ltd v B Lang & Co Ltd; sub nom Sellers v
16–086
London Counties Newspapers [1949] 1 All E.R. 526; [1949]
W.N. 97 KBD
Crooks v Allen (1870) 5 Q.B.D. 38
7–009
Crooks v Newdigate Properties Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 283
13–014, 15–045
Cross v David Martin & Mortimer (A Firm) [1989] 10 E.G. 110;
20–042
[1988] E.G. 164 (C.S.) QBD
Crossco No.4 Unlimited v Jolan Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1619;
3–127, 5–011, 8–065
[2012] 2 All E.R. 754; [2012] 1 P. & C.R. 16; [2012] 1
E.G.L.R. 137; 14 I.T.E.L.R. 615
Crosse & Crosse v Lloyds Bank Plc. See Lloyds Bank Plc v
Burd Pearse
Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ
6–045, 6–046
293; [2004] 4 All E.R. 447; [2004] I.R.L.R. 377
Crouch v Crédit Foncier of England Ltd (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 374
15–046
QBD
Crouch v Martin (1707) 2 Vern. 595
15–006
Croudace Construction Ltd v Cawood’s Concrete Products Ltd
[1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 55
Crow v Rogers (1724) 1 Str. 592
Crowden v Aldridge [1993] 1 W.L.R. 433; [1993] 3 All E.R. 603
Ch D
Crown Prosecution Service v Eastenders Group; sub nom
Barnes v Eastenders Group [2014] UKSC 26; [2015] A.C. 1;
[2014] 2 W.L.R. 1269; [2014] 3 All E.R. 1; [2014] 2 Cr.
App. R. 19; [2014] H.R.L.R. 15; [2014] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C.
461; [2014] B.P.I.R. 867
Crowson v HSBC Insurance Brokers Ltd [2010] Lloyd’s Rep.
I.R. 441
Crowther v Farrer (1850) 15 Q.B. 677
Crystal Palace FC Ltd v Dowie [2007] EWHC 1392 (QB);
[2007] I.R.L.R. 682
CT Bowring Reinsurance Ltd v Baxter (The M Vatan and M
Ceyhan) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 416; [1987] 1 F.T.L.R. 7
QBD (Comm)
CTI Group Inc v Transclear SA (The Mary Nour) [2008] EWCA
Civ 856; [2008] Bus. L.R. 1729; [2009] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
25
CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All E.R. 714
CA (Civ Div)
CTrade of Geneva SA v UniOcean Lines Pte of Singapore (The
Lucille) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 244
Cud v Rutter (1719) 1 P.Wms. 570
Cukurova Finance International Ltd v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd
[2013] UKPC 20; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 875; [2013] 4 All E.R.
936
Cullen v Knowles [1898] 2 Q.B. 380 QBD
Cullinane v British Rema Manufacturing Co Ltd [1954] 1 Q.B.
292; [1953] 3 W.L.R. 923 CA
Culworth Estates v Society of Licensed Victuallers (1991) 62 P.
& C.R. 211; [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 54 CA (Civ Div)
Cumber v Wane (1721) 1 Stra. 426
Cumbrian Newspapers Group Ltd v Cumberland &
Westmorland Herald Newspaper & Printing Co Ltd [1987]
Ch. 1; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 26; [1986] 2 All E.R. 816; (1986) 2
B.C.C. 99227; [1987] P.C.C. 12; (1986) 83 L.S.G. 1719;
(1986) 130 S.J. 446 Ch D
Cumming v Ince (1847) 11 Q.B. 112
Cundy v Lindsay; sub nom Lindsay v Cundy (1877–78) L.R. 3
App. Cas. 459; [1874–80] All E.R. Rep. 1149 HL
Cunliffe v Harrison (1851) 6 Ex. 901
Cunliffe Brooks & Co v Blackburn and District Benefit Building
Society; sub nom Blackburn and District Benefit Building
Society v Cunliffe Brooks & Co (1883–84)L.R. 9 App. Cas.
857 HL
Curragh Investment v Cook; sub nom Curragh Investments, Ltd
v Cook [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1559; [1974] 3 All E.R. 658 Ch D
Currencies Direct Ltd v Ellis [2002] EWCA Civ 779; [2002]
7–017
14–016
9–153, 14–081
22–001, 22–003, 22–004, 22–019
14–095
3–034, 3–060
9–115
19–099, 19–110
19–008, 19–026, 19–068
10–007, 10–009, 10–051
19–083
21–018
18–065, 18–066
13–023
20–028, 20–035
20–039
3–100
14–012
10–003
8–035, 8–038, 8–039, 8–040, 8–050, 8–
053, 8–055, 8–083
17–033, 17–039, 18–036, 18–109
12–078
11–019
11–019
B.C.C. 821
Currie v Misa (1875) L.R. 10 Ex. 153
Curtice v London City & Midland Bank Ltd [1908] 1 K.B. 293
CA
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951] 1 K.B. 805;
[1951] 1 All E.R. 631 CA
Curtis v Perry (1802) 2 Ves. 73
Curtis v Williamson (1874) L.R. 10 Q.B. 57 QBD
Cusack-Smith v London Corp [1956] 1 W.L.R. 1368 QBD
Customer Systems Plc v Ranson [2012] EWCA Civ 841; [2012]
I.R.L.R. 769; (2012) 156(26) S.J.L.B. 31
3–004, 3–022
2–060
7–040, 9–137
11–147
16–076
19–058
9–162
Customs and Excise Commrs v Barclays Bank Plc [2006]
9–040, 14–047
UKHL 28; [2007] 1 A.C. 181; [2006] 3 W.L.R. 1; [2006] 4
All E.R. 256; [2006] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 831; [2006] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 327; [2006] 1 C.L.C. 1096; (2006) 103(27)
L.S.G. 33; (2006) 156 N.L.J. 1060; (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 859
Customs and Excise Commrs v Diners Club Ltd; Customs and
3–024, 14–006, 14–007, 15–078, 17–005
Excise Commrs v Cardholder Services [1989] 1 W.L.R.
1196; [1989] 2 All E.R. 385 CA (Civ Div) QBD
Customs and Excise Commrs v National Westminster Bank Plc
17–008
(Authorisation: Mistake) [2002] EWHC 2204; [2003] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 327
Customs and Excise Commrs v Oliver [1980] 1 All E.R. 353;
11–015
[1980] S.T.C. 73 QBD
Cutler v McPhail [1962] 2 Q.B. 292; [1962] 2 W.L.R. 1135
13–014
QBD
Cutter v Powell (1795) 6 T.R. 320
17–032, 17–035, 17–047, 19–016, 19–099,
19–102
Cuxon v Chadley (1824) 3 B. & C. 591
15–003
Cynat Products Ltd v Landbuild (Investment & Property) Ltd;
17–069
Cynat Products Ltd v West Lindsey DC [1984] 3 All E.R.
513; (1984) 1 Const. L.J. 42 QBD
Cyril Leonard & Co v Simo Securities Trust Ltd [1972] 1
17–062
W.L.R. 80; [1971] 3 All E.R. 1318 CA (Civ Div)
Czarnikow Ltd v Roth Schmidt & Co [1922] 2 K.B. 478; (1922)
7–042, 11–051
12 Ll. L. Rep. 195 CA
D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
11–035
(NSPCC) [1978] A.C. 171; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 201 HL
D v NSPCC. See D v National Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)
D&C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 Q.B. 617; [1966] 2 W.L.R.
3–085, 3–101, 3–103, 3–105, 3–113, 3–
288; [1965] 3 All E.R. 837; (1965) 109 S.J. 971 CA
115, 3–117, 3–165, 10–009, 10–051
D&D Wines International Ltd (In Liquidation), Re; sub nom
16–108
Bailey v Angove’s Pty Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 215; [2015] 1
All E.R. (Comm) 36; [2014] 2 B.C.L.C. 129; [2014] B.P.I.R.
902
D&F Estates Ltd v Church Commrs for England [1989] A.C.
14–049
177; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 368 HL
D&G Cars Ltd v Essex Police Authority [2015] EWHC 226
6–042
(QB)
D&M Trailers (Halifax) Ltd v Stirling [1978] R.T.R. 468; (1978)
2–018
248 E.G. 597 CA (Civ Div)
D’Angibau, Re; sub nom Andrews v Andrews (1880) L.R. 15
Ch. D. 228 CA
D McMaster & Co v Cox McEwen & Co, 1921 S.C. (HL) 1
D’Silva v Lister House Developments Ltd [1971] Ch. 17; [1970]
2 W.L.R. 563 Ch D
Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd; sub nom Brook Street
Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas [2004] EWCA Civ 217; [2004]
I.C.R. 1437
Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2009] EWCA Civ
169; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 601
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd v Klipriver Shipping Ltd (The
Kapitan Petko Voivoda) [2003] EWCA Civ 451; [2003] 1
All E.R. (Comm) 801; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 CA
14–089
19–043
4–010
14–006
9–021, 9–024, 9–031, 9–034
7–030, 7–032
Dagenham (Thames) Dock Co Ex p. Hulse, Re (1872–73) L.R. 8
18–067, 20–151
Ch. App. 1022 CA in Chancery
Daily Mirror Newspapers v Gardner [1968] 2 Q.B. 762; [1968]
17–073
2 W.L.R. 1239 CA (Civ Div)
Dairy Containers Ltd v Tasman Orient Line CV (The Tasman
7–016
Discoverer) [2004] UKPC 22; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 215; [2004]
2 All E.R. (Comm) 667; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 647; [2004] 2
C.L.C. 794
Dairy Crest v Pigott [1989] I.C.R. 92 CA (Civ Div)
11–075
Dakin & Co Ltd v Lee. See H Dakin & Co v Lee
Dakin v Oxley (1864) 15 C.B.(N.S.) 646
17–037, 18–036
Dalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Ltd [2006] 18–028, 18–038, 18–064, 18–072, 18–073,
EWHC 63; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 599 QBD (Comm)
18–107
Dalmare SpA v Union Maritime Ltd [2012] EWHC 3537
7–016
(Comm)
Dalrymple v Dalrymple (1811) 2 Hag.Con. 54
4–004
Dalton (Smith’s Administratrix) v IRC (1958) 37 A.T.C. 49;
15–018
[1958] T.R. 45
Dalwood Marine Co v Nordana Line AS [2009] EWHC 3394
20–120
(Comm); [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 315
Daly v General Steam Navigation Co (The Dragon) [1981] 1
14–009
W.L.R. 120; [1980] 3 All E.R. 696; [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
415 CA (Civ Div)
Damon Compania Naviera SA v Hapag-Lloyd International SA
2–089, 2–110, 17–017, 18–021, 18–035,
(The Blankenstein) [1985] 1 W.L.R. 435; [1985] 1 All E.R.
20–154, 21–001
475 CA (Civ Div)
Dandara Holdings Ltd v Co-operative Retail Services Ltd [2004]
2–098
EWHC 1476 (Ch)
Daniel v Drew. See Drew v Daniel
Daniels v Thompson [2004] EWCA Civ 307; [2004] P.N.L.R. 33
14–052
Daniels v White & Sons Ltd [1938] 4 All E.R. 258 KBD
17–066
Danish Bacon Co Ltd Staff Pension Fund Trusts, Re; sub nom
5–025
Christensen v Arnett [1971] 1 W.L.R. 248; [1971] 1 All E.R.
486 Ch D
Danish Mercantile Co v Beaumont [1951] Ch. 680; [1951] 1 All
16–050
E.R. 925 CA
Danka Rentals Ltd v Xi Software Ltd (1998) 17 Tr. L.R. 74
7–081
QBD
Danowski v Henry Moore Foundation [1996] E.M.L.R. 364
6–048
Danube, etc., Ry v Xenos (1863) 13 C.B.(N.S.) 825
Dany Lions Ltd v Bristol Cars Ltd [2013] EWHC 2997 (QB);
[2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 281
Dany Lions Ltd v Bristol Cars Ltd [2014] EWHC 817 (QB);
[2014] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 403; [2014] Bus. L.R. D11
Danziger v Thompson [1944] K.B. 654 KBD
Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd [2004]
EWHC 622; [2005] Ch. 119 Ch D
Darbey v Whitaker (1857) 4 Drew. 134
Darbishire v Warran [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1067; [1963] 3 All E.R.
310 CA
Darlington BC v Wiltshier Northern Ltd [1995] 1 W.L.R. 68;
[1995] 3 All E.R. 895; [1994] C.L.C. 691; 69 B.L.R. 1;
(1995) 11 Const. L.J. 36; (1994) 91(37) L.S.G. 49; (1994)
138 S.J.L.B. 161 CA (Civ Div)
Datec Electronic Holdings Ltd v United Parcels Service Ltd
[2005] EWCA Civ 1418; [2006] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 350;
[2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 16
Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] Ch. 231;
[1978] 2 W.L.R. 621 CA (Civ Div)
Daun v Simmins (1879) 41 L.T. 783
Daval Aciers D’Usinor et de Sacilor v Armare Srl (The Nerarno)
[1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 CA (Civ Div)
Davenport v Queen, The (1877–78) L.R. 3 App. Cas. 115 PC
(Aus)
Daventry DC v Daventry and District Housing Ltd [2011]
EWCA Civ 1153; [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1333; [2012] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 142; [2012] Bus. L.R. 485; [2012] Pens. L.R. 57;
[2012] 1 P. & C.R. 5; [2011] 42 E.G. 120 (C.S.)
David Blackstone Ltd v Burnetts (West End) Ltd [1973] 1
W.L.R. 1487; [1973] 3 All E.R. 782 QBD
David Payne & Co Ltd, Re; sub nom Young v David Payne &
Co [1904] 2 Ch. 608 CA
David T Boyd & Co v Louis Louca [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 209
QBD (Comm)
David Taylor & Son v Barnett Trading Co [1953] 1 W.L.R. 562;
[1953] 1 All E.R. 843 CA
Davidson v Jones-Fenleigh (1980) 124 S.J. 204
Davies, Re; sub nom Davies v Davies [1892] 3 Ch. 63 Ch D
Davies v AIB Group UK Plc [2012] EWHC 2178 (Ch); [2012] 2
P. & C.R. 19
Davies v Benyon-Harris (1931) 47 T.L.R. 424
Davies v Collins [1945] 1 All E.R. 247 CA
Davies v Davies (1887) L.R. 36 Ch. D. 359 CA
Davies v Davies [2014] EWCA Civ 568; [2014] Fam. Law
1252; [2014] 2 P. & C.R. DG12
Davies v Jones [2009] EWCA Civ 1164; [2010] 5 E.G. 114
Davies v Leighton (1979) 68 Cr. App. R. 4; [1978] Crim. L.R.
575 DC
Davies v London and Provincial Marine Insurance Co (1878)
L.R. 8 Ch. D. 469; (1878) 26 W.R. 794 Ch D
Davies v Parry (1988) 20 H.L.R. 452; [1988] 21 E.G. 74 QBD
17–089
2–100, 8–004
2–100
16–058
16–098
21–042
20–041, 20–118
14–015, 14–017, 14–023, 14–026, 14–028,
14–029, 14–032, 14–035, 14–036, 15–
045
2–006, 2–018
2–052, 4–011
16–031
3–083, 3–091
18–005
8–065, 8–067, 8–069
18–080
12–076
2–082, 19–053
11–112
17–038
14–040
10–029
12–018, 12–025
7–032, 17–011
11–078
3–134
15–081
2–009
9–154, 11–134
7–056
Davies v Sweet [1962] 2 Q.B. 300; [1962] 2 W.L.R. 525 CA
Davis & Co (Wines) Ltd v Afa-Minerva (EMI) Ltd [1974] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 27; 9 B.L.R. 99 QBD
Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC [1956] A.C. 696; [1956] 3
W.L.R. 37; [1956] 2 All E.R. 145; 54 L.G.R. 289; (1956)
100 S.J. 378 HL
Davitt v Titcumb [1990] Ch. 110; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 168; [1989] 3
All E.R. 417 Ch D
Davstone Estates Ltd’s Leases, Re; sub nom Manprop Ltd v
O’Dell [1969] 2 Ch. 378; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1287 Ch D
Davy Offshore Ltd v Emerald Field Contracting Ltd [1992] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 142 CA (Civ Div)
Davys v Buswell [1913] 2 K.B. 47 CA
2–017, 16–069
9–066, 9–078
19–033, 19–076, 19–114, 19–120
11–027, 13–017
11–054, 11–161
3–173
5–017
Dawnay Day & Co Ltd v de Braconier d’Alphen [1998] I.C.R. 11–073, 11–075, 11–089, 11–103, 11–163
1068; [1997] I.R.L.R. 442; (1997) 94(26) L.S.G. 30; (1997)
141 S.J.L.B. 129 CA (Civ Div)
Dawson v Great Northern & City Ry [1905] 1 K.B. 260
15–015, 15–045, 15–060, 15–061
Dawsons Ltd v Bonnin [1922] 2 A.C. 413; (1922) 12 Ll. L. Rep.
9–148, 18–046
237; 1922 S.C. (H.L.) 156; 1922 S.L.T. 444 HL
Day v Day [2013] EWCA Civ 280; [2014] Ch. 114; [2013] 3
8–066
W.L.R. 556; [2013] 3 All E.R. 661; [2013] W.T.L.R. 817;
[2013] 2 P. & C.R. DG1
Day v McLea (1889) L.R. 22 Q.B.D. 610 CA
3–059
Day v Wells (1861) 30 Beav 220
8–056
Days Medical Aids Ltd v Pihsiang Machinery Manufacturing Co
11–078, 11–094, 11–107
Ltd [2004] EWHC 44; [2004] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 991
De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v British South Africa Co;
12–064
sub nom British South Africa Co v De Beers Consolidated
Mines Ltd [1912] A.C. 52 HL
De Beers UK Ltd (formerly Diamond Trading Co Ltd) v Atos
7–028
Origin IT Services UK Ltd [2010] EWHC 3276 (TCC);
[2011] B.L.R. 274; 134 Con. L.R. 151; [2010] Info. T.L.R.
448
De Begnis v Armistead (1833) 10 Bing. 107
11–167
De Bernardy v Harding (1853) 8 Exch. 822
17–046
De Francesco v Barnum (1890) L.R. 43 Ch. D. 165 Ch D
12–011
De la Bere v Pearson Ltd [1908] 1 K.B. 280 CA
3–168, 20–097
De Lassalle v Guildford [1901] 2 K.B. 215 CA
9–056
De Mattos v Gibson (1858) 4 De G. & J. 276
14–138, 14–139, 14–140
De Molestina v Ponton (Application to Strike Out); sub nom
9–118
Molestina v Ponton [2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 587; [2002] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 271 QBD (Comm)
Dean v Ainley [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1729; [1987] 3 All E.R. 748 CA
20–044
(Civ Div)
Dean v Allin & Watts [2001] EWCA Civ 758; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s
14–053, 14–053, 14–054
Rep. 249
Deanplan Ltd v Mahmoud [1993] Ch. 151; [1992] 3 W.L.R. 467
13–014
Ch D
Dearle v Hall (1828) 3 Russ. 1
15–023
Debenham v Mellon (1880–81) L.R. 6 App. Cas. 24 HL
16–018
Debenham v Perkins (1925) 113 L.T. 252
16–076
Debenham Tewson & Chinnock Plc v Rimington [1989] 2
16–086, 16–089
E.G.L.R. 26; [1990] 34 E.G. 55 CA (Civ Div)
Debtor (No.13A-IO–1995), Re; sub nom Debtor (No.13A10 of
18–080
1994), Re; Debtor (No.14A10 of 1994), Re; Debtor
(No.14A-IO–1995), Re; Debtors v Joyner [1995] 1 W.L.R.
1127; [1996] 1 All E.R. 691 Ch D
Debtor (No.564 of 1949), Re; sub nom Customs and Excise
12–014
Commrs, Ex p. v Debtor [1950] Ch. 282; [1950] 1 All E.R.
308 CA
Debtor (No.517 of 1991), Re, Times, 25 November 1991
5–032
Debtors (Nos.4449 and 4450 of 1998), Re; sub nom McAllister
2–099
v Society of Lloyd’s [1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 149; [1999]
B.P.I.R. 548 Ch D
Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing [1971] 16–104, 17–089, 18–005, 18–006, 18–031,
1 W.L.R. 361; [1971] 2 All E.R. 216; (1970) 115 S.J. 171
18–033, 18–035, 18–037, 18–073, 18–
CA (Civ Div)
103, 21–020, 21–058
Deepak v ICI. See Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals Corp
Ltd v Davy McKee (London) Ltd
Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals Corp Ltd v Davy McKee
7–017, 9–126, 14–038, 14–069
(London) Ltd; sub nom Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals
Corp Ltd v ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd; Deepak
Fertilisers & Petrochemical Corp Ltd v Davy McKee (UK)
London Ltd [1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 69; [1999] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 387 CA (Civ Div)
Defries v Milne [1913] 1 Ch. 98 CA
15–059, 15–064
Deglman v Guaranty Trust Co of Canada and Constantineau
22–026
[1954] 3 D.L.R. 785
Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) [1992] 1 A.C.
16–104, 17–054, 18–006, 21–057
687; [1992] 2 W.L.R. 451 HL
Delaurier v Wyllie (1889) 17 R. (Ct. of Sess.) 167
14–071
Delian Spirit, The. See Shipping Developments Corp v V/O
Sojuzneftexport (The Delian Spirit)
Dellafiora v Lester; Lester v Adrian Barr & Co [1962] 1 W.L.R.
16–088
1208; [1962] 3 All E.R. 393 CA (Civ Div)
Demarco v Bulley Davey (A Firm); sub nom DeMarco v Perkins
20–006, 20–059
[2006] EWCA Civ 188; [2006] B.P.I.R. 645; [2006] P.N.L.R.
27
Demco Investment and Commercial SA v Interamerican Life
16–043, 16–046
Assurance (International) Ltd [2012] EWHC 2053 (Comm)
Den Norske Creditbank v Sarawak Economic Development
12–074
Corp [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 35 CA (Civ Div)
Denham v Midland Employers Mutual Assurance [1955] 2 Q.B.
15–052
437; [1955] 3 W.L.R. 84 CA
Denman v Brise [1949] 1 K.B. 22; [1948] 2 All E.R. 141 CA
19–058
Denman v Winstanley (1887) 4 T.L.R. 127
21–005
Denmark Productions v Boscobel Productions [1969] 1 Q.B.
12–013, 16–104, 18–006, 18–039, 19–076,
699; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 841; [1968] 3 All E.R. 513; (1968) 112
19–084, 21–010
S.J. 761 CA (Civ Div)
Dennant v Skinner and Collom [1948] 2 K.B. 164; [1948] 2 All
8–038
E.R. 29 KBD
Denne v Light (1857) 8 De G.M. & G. 774
21–030
Dennis & Co v Munn; sub nom J Dennis & Co Ltd v Munn
11–020, 11–121, 11–158
[1949] 2 K.B. 327; [1949] 1 All E.R. 616 CA
Dennis Reed Ltd v Goody; sub nom Reed (Dennis) v Goody
16–088, 16–089
[1950] 2 K.B. 277; [1950] 1 All E.R. 919 CA
Denny Mott & Dickson Ltd v James B Fraser & Co Ltd; sub
19–006, 19–043, 19–046, 19–049, 19–060,
nom James B Fraser & Co Ltd v Denny Mott & Dickson Ltd
19–116, 19–118
[1944] A.C. 265; 1944 S.C. (H.L.) 35 HL
Denny’s Tr v Denny; Denny v Warr [1919] 1 K.B. 583 KBD
11–041, 11–061
Dent v Bennett (1839) 4 My. & Cr. 269
3–017, 10–023
Dent v Davis Blank Furniss [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 534 Ch D
20–024
Denton v GN Ry (1856) 5 E. & B. 860
2–012, 3–031
Denton’s Estate, Re; sub nom Licenses Insurance Corp and
9–149
Guarantee Fund Ltd v Denton [1904] 2 Ch.178 CA
Department of the Environment v Thomas Bates & Sons Ltd
14–049
[1991] 1 A.C. 499; [1990] 3 W.L.R. 457 HL
Deposit Protection Board v Dalia [1994] 2 A.C. 367
15–007, 15–013, 15–018, 15–022, 15–061
Derby Resources AG v Blue Corinth Marine Co Ltd (The
20–040, 20–055
Athenian Harmony (No.1)) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 410;
[1998] C.L.C. 1159 QBD (Comm)
Derry v Peek; sub nom Peek v Derry (1889) L.R. 14 App. Cas.
9–034, 9–065, 9–073
337; (1889) 5 T.L.R. 625 HL CA
Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA v Khan [2013] EWHC 482 (Comm)
7–074, 7–081, 7–092, 7–106, 8–052
Deutsche Bank AG v Unitech Global Ltd; sub nom Graiseley
9–137, 9–126, 9–137
Properties Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1372
Deutsche Genossenschaftsbank v Burnhope [1995] 1 W.L.R.
6–009, 6–011
1580; [1995] 4 All E.R. 717 HL
Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v IRC; sub nom Deutsche
8–023, 8–025, 10–011, 22–017
Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Revenue and Customs
Commrs; IRC v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc
[2006] UKHL 49; [2007] 1 A.C. 558; [2006] 3 W.L.R. 781;
[2007] 1 All E.R. 449; [2007] S.T.C. 1; [2007] 1 C.M.L.R.
14; [2007] Eu. L.R. 226; 78 T.C. 120; [2006] B.T.C. 781; 9
I.T.L. Rep. 201; [2006] S.T.I. 2386; (2006) 103(43) L.S.G.
29; (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 1430
Deutsche Schachtbau- und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH v Ras Al2–079, 11–033, 11–051
Khaimah National Oil Co; sub nom DST v Rakoil; Deutsche
Schachtbau- und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH v Ras AlKhaimah National Oil Co (Garnishee Proceedings);
Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH v Shell
International Petroleum Co Ltd (Nos.1 and 2) [1990] 1 A.C.
295; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 230 HL
Devaux v Connolly (1849) 8 C.B. 640
8–021
Deverill v Burnell (1872–73) L.R. 8 C.P. 475 CCP
19–055, 20–069
Dewar v Mintoft [1912] 2 K.B. 373 KBD
5–020, 20–154
DGM Commodities Corp v Sea Metropolitan SA (The Andra)
19–082
[2012] EWHC 1984 (Comm); [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 587
Dhanani v Crasnianski [2011] EWHC 926 (Comm)
2–084, 2–098, 20–069
DI Henry Ltd v Wilhelm G Clasen [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 159
19–007
CA (Civ Div)
Diamond v British Columbia Thoroughbred Breeders’ Society
8–011
(1966) 52 D.L.R. (2d) 146
Diamond v Campbell Jones [1961] Ch. 22; [1960] 2 W.L.R. 568
20–066, 20–071, 20–108
Ch D
Diamond Build Ltd v Clapham Park Homes Ltd [2008] EWHC
2–089, 4–011
1439 (TCC); 119 Con L.R. 32
Dibbins v Dibbins [1896] 2 Ch. 348 Ch D
Dick v United States, 82 F.Supp. 326 (1949)
Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd
[1965] 1 W.L.R. 623; [1965] 2 All E.R. 65 CA
Dicker v Scammell; sub nom Scammell v Dicker [2005] EWCA
Civ 405; [2005] 3 All E.R. 838
Dickinson v Abel [1969] 1 W.L.R. 295; [1969] 1 All E.R. 484
Ch D
Dickinson v Burrell; Stourton v Burrell; Dickinson (Ann) v
Burrell (1865–66) L.R. 1 Eq. 337, Ct of Chancery
Dickinson v Dodds (1875–76) L.R. 2 Ch. D. 463 CA
Dickinson v Jones Alexander & Co [1993] 2 F.L.R. 521; [1990]
Fam. Law 137 QBD
Dickinson v Valpy (1829) 10 B. & C. 128
Didymi, The and The Leon, See Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co
Inc v Didymi Corp; (The Didymi); Atlantic Lines &
Navigation Co Inc v Leon Corp (The Leon) ; Didymi Corp v
Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co Inc (The Didymi) Didymi
Corp v Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co Inc (The Didymi)
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108 CA (Civ Div)
Dies v British & International Mining and Finance Corp Ltd
[1939] 1 K.B. 724 KBD
Diesen v Samson, 1971 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 49 Sh Ct (Glasgow)
Dillon v Baltic Shipping Co (The Mikhail Lermontov) [1991] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 155 CA (NSW)
Dillon v Coppin (1839) 4 My. & Cr. 647
Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 4 De G.F. & J. 517
16–049
2–038
9–054
2–058, 2–081, 2–083
3–011,3–023
15–064
2–058, 2–059, 2–067, 3–160, 3–161
20–059, 20–087
16–026
2–095, 2–096
20–147
20–046, 20–087
2–012, 7–008
15–024
3–093, 3–123, 3–130, 3–136, 3–139, 3–
150, 3–152
9–011
Dimmock v Hallett (1866–67) L.R. 2 Ch. App. 21; (1866) 12
Jur. N.S. 953 CA
Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 A.C. 384; [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1121;
5–007, 20–120, 20–121, 22–026
[2000] 2 All E.R. 897; [2000] R.T.R. 243; [2000] C.C.L.R.
57; 2000 Rep. L.R. 62; (2000) 97(22) L.S.G. 47; (2000) 150
N.L.J. 740 HL
Dimskal Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers
10–002, 10–005, 10–006, 10–007, 10–012
Federation (The Evia Luck (No.2)) [1992] 2 A.C. 152;
[1991] 3 W.L.R. 875; [1991] 4 All E.R. 871; [1992] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 115; [1992] I.C.R. 37; [1992] I.R.L.R. 78 HL
Dingwall v Burnett, 1912 S.C. 1097; 1912 2 S.L.T. 90 IH (2
20–141
Div)
Dione, The. See Alma Shipping Corp of Monrovia v Mantovani
(The Dione)
Dip Kaur v Chief Constable of Hampshire [1981] 1 W.L.R. 578;
8–043
[1981] 2 All E.R. 430 DC
Dir Gen of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc [2001] UKHL 7–103, 7–105, 7–106, 7–108, 7–109, 7–
52; [2002] 1 A.C. 481; [2001] 3 W.L.R. 1297; [2002] 1 All
125
E.R. 97; [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 1000; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 489; [2002] E.C.C. 22; (2001) 151 N.L.J. 1610
Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Times Newspapers Ltd;
11–026
Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltdv Phillips [1975] Q.B. 613;
[1974] 3 W.L.R. 728 QBD
Dixon v Clark (1847) 5 C.B. 365
Dixon v London Small Arms Co Ltd (1875–76) L.R. 1 App.
Cas. 632 HL
Dobell v Hutchison (1835) 3 A. & E. 355
Dobell v Stevens (1825) 3 B. & C. 623
Do-Buy 95 Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc [2010] EWHC
2862 (Q.B.)
Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd v Canterbury City Council [1980] 1
W.L.R. 433; [1980] 1 All E.R. 928 CA (Civ Div)
Dodsworth v Dodsworth [1973] E.G. Digest of Cases 233
Doe v Knight (1826) 5 B. & C. 671
Doherty v Allman (1877–78) L.R. 3 App. Cas. 709 HL
Doleman & Sons v Ossett Corp [1912] 3 K.B. 257 CA
17–004
16–005
5–024
9–028
7–004, 15–050
20–072
3–145
3–172
21–052
11–050
Dolphin Hellas Shipping SA v Itemslot (The Aegean Dolphin)
18–044, 18–059
[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 178 QBD (Comm)
Domb v Isoz [1980] Ch. 548; [1980] 2 W.L.R. 565 CA (Civ Div)
2–019, 4–010, 20–074
Dominion Coal Co Ltd v Dominion Iron & Steel Co Ltd [1909]
3–030, 21–026, 21–039
A.C. 293 PC (Can)
Dominion Corporate Trustees Ltd v Debenhams Properties Ltd
18–064
[2010] EWHC 1193 (Ch); [2010] 23 E.G. 106
Dominique, The. See Bank of Boston Connecticut (formerly
Colonial Bank) v European Grain & Shipping Ltd (The
Dominique)
Domsalla v Dyason [2007] EWHC 1174 (TCC)
7–104, 7–106
Don King Productions Inc v Warren (No.1) [2000] Ch. 291;
15–050, 15–052, 15–057, 15–077, 17–012
[1999] 3 W.L.R. 276 CA (Civ Div)
Donaldson v Donaldson (1854) Kay 711
15–008, 15–028
Donegal International Ltd v Zambia [2007] EWHC 197; [2007]
3–090, 9–116, 9–126, 9–137, 18–087
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 397
Donnell v Bennett (1883) L.R. 22 Ch. D. 835 Ch D
3–030, 21–026
Donoghue v Stevenson; sub nom McAlister v Stevenson [1932]
14–046
A.C. 562; 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 31; 1932 S.L.T. 317; [1932]
W.N. 139 HL
Donwin Productions Ltd v EMI Films Ltd, Times, 9 March 1984
2–101
QBD
Doobay (RP) v Mohabeer [1967] 2 A.C. 278; [1967] 2 W.L.R.
22–012
1395 PC (Guy)
Dott’s Lease, Re; sub nom Miller v Dott [1920] 1 Ch. 281 Ch D
11–102
Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No.3). See Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No.6)
Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No.6); sub nom Douglas v Hello! Ltd
20–015
(Trial Action: Breach of Confidence) (No.3) [2005] EWCA
Civ 595; [2006] Q.B. 125
Dove v Banhams Patent Locks Ltd [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1436;
14–045
[1983] 2 All E.R. 833
Dowden & Pook Ltd v Pook [1904] 1 K.B. 45 CA
11–085
Downing v Al Tameer Establishment [2002] EWCA Civ 721;
18–012
[2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 545; [2002] C.L.C. 1291
Downs v Chappell; Downs v Stephenson Smart [1997] 1 W.L.R.
9–021, 9–065, 9–071, 9–074, 9–075
426; [1996] 3 All E.R. 344 CA (Civ Div)
Dowty Boulton Paul Ltd v Wolverhampton Corp (No.1) [1971]
21–039
1 W.L.R. 204; [1971] 2 All E.R. 277 Ch D
Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 Q.B. 158; [1969] 2
9–071, 11–068
W.L.R. 673 CA (Civ Div)
Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd [1935] 1 K.B. 110 CA
DPP v Turner; sub nom R. v Turner (John Eric) [1974] A.C.
357; [1973] 3 W.L.R. 352 HL
DR Insurance Co v Central National Insurance Co of Omaha (In
Rehabilitation) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 74; [1996] C.L.C. 64
QBD (Comm)
Dr Jaeger’s Sanitary Woollen System Co Ltd v Walker & Sons
(1897) 77 L.T. 180
Dragon, The. See Daly v General Steam Navigation Co (The
Dragon)
Drake & Scull Engineering Ltd v Higgs & Hill Northern Ltd
(1995) 11 Const. L.J. 214 QBD (OR)
Drake Insurance Plc (In Provisional Liquidation) v Provident
Insurance Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1834; [2004] Q.B. 601
Drakeford v Piercey (1866) 14 L.T. 403
Drane v Evangelou [1978] 1 W.L.R. 455; [1978] 2 All E.R. 437
CA (Civ Div)
Dranez Anstalt v Hayek [2002] EWCA Civ 1729; [2003] 1
B.C.L.C. 278; [2003] F.S.R. 32
DRC Distribution Ltd v Ulva [2007] EWHC 1716 (QB)
Drennan v Star Paving Co, 51 Cal. 2d. 409; 333 P.2d. 757 (1958)
Drew v Daniel; sub nom Daniel v Drew [2005] EWCA Civ 507;
[2005] 2 F.C.R. 365
Drewery & Drewery v Ware-Lane; sub nom Drewery v Ware
Lane [1960] 1 W.L.R. 1204; [1960] 3 All E.R. 529 CA
Drexel Burnham Lambert International BV v Nasr [1986] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 356 QBD (Comm)
Drimmie v Davies [1899] 1 I.R. 176
Drive Yourself Hire Co (London) Ltd v Strutt [1954] 1 Q.B.
250; [1953] 3 W.L.R. 1111 CA
Driver v William Willett (Contractors), Ltd [1969] 1 All E.R.
665 Assizes (Sussex)
Druiff v Lord Parker (1867–68) L.R. 5 Eq. 131 Ct of Chancery
Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc v Fayette International Holdings
Ltd (The Bulk Chile) [2013] EWCA Civ 184; [2013] 1
W.L.R. 3440; [2013] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 295; [2013] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 38; [2013] 1 C.L.C. 535
DSND Subsea Ltd (formerly DSND Oceantech Ltd) v Petroleum
Geo Services ASA [2000] B.L.R. 530 QBD (TCC)
DS-Rendite-Fonds Nr.106 VLCC Titan Glory GmbH & Co
Tankschiff KG v Titan Maritime SA [2013] EWHC 3492
(Comm)
DSV Silo und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Owners of the
Sennar (The Sennar (No.2)) [1985] 1 W.L.R. 490; [1985] 2
All E.R. 104 HL
du Plessis v Fontgary Leisure Parks Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 409
Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC v PSI Energy Holding Co BSC [2011]
EWHC 2718 (Comm)
Dublin & Wicklow Ry v Black (1852) 8 Ex. 181
Duck v Mayeu [1892] 2 Q.B. 511 CA
Duckwari Plc (No.1), Re; sub nom Duckwari Plc v Offerventure
12–013
17–005
11–122
17–010
2–088
2–017
16–061
20–019
11–080
14–027, 18–094
3–161
10–016
16–088
3–081
14–082, 14–088
14–132
14–045
8–060
3–054, 14–040
10–006, 10–012
8–062, 8–065
9–029
7–105, 7–111
3–095, 4–006, 8–062
12–019
13–014
15–078
Ltd (No.1); Company (No.0032314 of 1992), Re [1995]
B.C.C. 89; [1997] 2 B.C.L.C. 713 CA (Civ Div)
Duffen v FRA BO SpA (No.2); sub nom Duffen v Frabo SpA
(No.2) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 180; [2000] E.C.C. 61 CC
(Central London)
Dumford Trading AG v OAO Atlantrybflot [2005] EWCA Civ
24; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 289
Dunbar v A&B Painters Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 38
Dunbar Bank Plc v Nadeem [1998] 3 All E.R. 876; [1998] 2
F.L.R. 457 CA (Civ Div)
Duncan v Dixon (1890) L.R. 44 Ch. D. 211 Ch D
Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 933; [2014]
2 All E.R. 364; [2014] R.T.R. 16; [2014] C.O.P.L.R. 199;
(2014) 17 C.C.L. Rep. 203; [2014] P.I.Q.R. P13; (2014) 137
B.M.L.R. 1; (2014) 164(7599) N.L.J. 20; (2014) 158(12)
S.J.L.B. 41
Dunk v George Waller & Son [1970] 2 Q.B. 163; [1970] 2
W.L.R. 1241 CA (Civ Div)
Dunkirk Colliery Co v Lever (1878) L.R. 9 Ch. D. 20 CA
Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 H.L. Cas. 381
Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 2 Cl. & F. 626
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd
[1915] A.C. 79 HL
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915]
A.C. 847 HL
Dunmore v Alexander (1830) 9 Shaw 190
Dunn v Macdonald [1897] 1 Q.B. 555 CA
Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council; sub nom
Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Dunnachie (No.1);
Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham
Housing Association [2004] UKHL 36; [2005] 1 A.C. 226;
[2004] 3 W.L.R. 310; [2004] 3 All E.R. 1011; [2004] I.C.R.
1052; [2004] I.R.L.R. 727; (2004) 101(33) L.S.G. 34; (2004)
154 N.L.J. 1156; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 909
Durabella Ltd v J Jarvis & Sons Ltd, 83 Con. L.R. 145 QBD
(TCC)
Durant v Heritage [1994] E.G. 134 (C.S.); [1994] N.P.C. 117
Durham v Legard (1835) 34 Beav 611
Durham Bros v Robertson [1898] 1 Q.B. 765 CA
Durham CC v Beazer Homes Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1175
Durham Fancy Goods Ltd v Michael Jackson (Fancy Goods) Ltd
[1968] 2 Q.B. 839; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 225, BD (Comm)
Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v bmibaby Ltd [2010] EWCA
Civ 485; [2011] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 731; [2011] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 68; (2010) 154(18) S.J.L.B. 28
Durrell v Evans (1862) 1 H. & C. 174
Duthie v Hilton (1868–69) L.R. 4 C.P. 138 CCP
Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC [1972] 1 Q.B. 373; [1972] 2
W.L.R. 299 CA (Civ Div)
Dutton v Manchester Airport Plc. See Manchester Airport Plc v
Dutton
Dutton v Poole (1678) 2 Lev 210
20–131
3–098, 8–039, 8–061
16–094
10–014, 10–031
12–021
12–055, 16–106
20–091
20–047
2–035
14–024
20–130, 20–131, 20–143
3–007, 14–016, 14–088
2–038
16–083
20–083
7–066
3–139
8–018, 18–033
15–012, 15–014, 15–022, 15–035
6–033
3–078, 3–087
2–079, 20–069
5–023
17–037
14–049
14–016
DVB Bank SE v Shere Shipping Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 2321
19–098
(Comm)
Dyer’s Case (1414) Y.B. 2 Hen. V, Pasch. pl. 26
11–062
Dymond Plc v Reeve [1999] F.S.R. 148
11–073
Dyson v Forster; sub nom Forster v Elvet Colliery Co; Quin v
14–132
Elvet Colliery Co; Seed v Elvet Colliery Co; Morgan v Elvet
Colliery Co; Dyson v Seed [1909] A.C. 98 HL
Dyster v Randall & Sons [1926] Ch. 932 Ch D
16–060
E Hulton & Co v Chadwick Taylor Ltd (1918) 34 T.L.R. 230
3–052
E Johnson & Co (Barbados) Ltd v NSR Ltd [1997] A.C. 400;
19–062, 19–065, 20–074, 21–019, 21–048
[1996] 3 W.L.R. 583 PC (Bar)
E Pfeiffer Weinkellerei-Weineinkauf GmbH & Co v Arbuthnot
15–023
Factors Ltd [1988] 1 W.L.R. 150; (1987) 3 B.C.C. 608 QBD
E&L Berg Homes v Grey (1979) 253 E.G. 473 CA (Civ Div)
Eagle Star & British Dominions Insurance Co Ltd v Reiner
(1927) 43 T.L.R. 259; (1927) 27 Ll. L. Rep. 173 KBD
Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Provincial Insurance [1994] 1
A.C. 130; [1993] 3 W.L.R. 257 PC (Bah)
Eagle, The. See Hollingworth v Southern Ferries (The Eagle)
Eaglehill Ltd v J Needham Builders Ltd [1973] A.C. 992; [1972]
3 W.L.R. 789 HL
Eaglesfield v Marquis of Londonderry (1876–77) L.R. 4 Ch. D.
693 CA
Ease Faith Ltd v Leonis Marine Management Ltd [2006] EWHC
232; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 673
East v Maurer [1991] 1 W.L.R. 461; [1991] 2 All E.R. 733 CA
(Civ Div)
East v Pantiles (Plant Hire) [1982] 2 E.G.L.R. 111; (1982) 263
E.G. 61 CA (Civ Div)
East Ham Corp v Bernard Sunley & Sons [1966] A.C. 406;
[1965] 3 W.L.R. 1096 HL
East West Corp v DKBS 1912; sub nom East West Corp v
Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S; P&O Nedlloyd BV v
Utaniko Ltd; Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S v East West
Corp; Utaniko Ltd v P&O Nedlloyd BV [2003] EWCA Civ
83; [2003] Q.B. 1509
Eastbourne BC v Foster (No.1) [2001] EWCA Civ 1091; [2002]
I.C.R. 234
Eastern Counties Ry v Hawkes (1855) 5 H.L.C. 331
Eastern Navigator, The. See Bernuth Lines Ltd v High Seas
Shipping Ltd (The Eastern Navigator)
Eastes v Russ [1914] 1 Ch. 468 CA
Eastgate Ex p. Ward, Re [1905] 1 K.B. 465 KBD
Eastham (Inspector of Taxes) v Leigh London and Provincial
Properties Ltd [1971] Ch. 871; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1149 CA
(Civ Div)
Eastham v Newcastle United Football Club [1964] Ch. 413;
[1963] 3 W.L.R. 574 Ch D
Eastleigh BC v Town Quay Developments Ltd [2009] EWCA
Civ 1391
Easton v Brown [1981] 3 All E.R. 278 Ch D
Easton v Pratchett (1835) 1 Cr.M. & R. 798
3–135
8–064
9–087
2–060
9–017
7–017
9–014, 9–065, 9–068, 14–046
8–061
20–072
14–073
18–006, 18–009
12–072
11–071, 11–076
9–094
17–017
11–072, 11–090, 21–059
6–041
21–030
15–028, 15–049
Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) 11 A. & E. 438
3–002, 3–017, 3–021, 3–174, 5–014
Eastwood v Magnox Electric Plc; McCabe v Cornwall CC
20–083, 20–091
[2004] UKHL 35; [2005] 1 A.C. 503; [2004] 3 W.L.R. 322;
[2004] 3 All E.R. 991; [2004] I.C.R. 1064; [2004] I.R.L.R.
733; (2004) 101(32) L.S.G. 36; (2004) 154 N.L.J. 1155;
(2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 909
Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd v Stinger Compania de
20–015
Inversion SA [2013] EWCA Civ 1308; [2014] C.P. Rep. 12;
[2014] H.L.R. 4; [2014] 1 P. & C.R. 5; [2014] 1 E.G.L.R. 89;
[2013] 45 E.G. 74 (C.S.)
Ebbetts’ Case. See Constantinople and Alexandria Hotel Co, Re
Ebrahim Dawood Ltd v Heath (Est 1927) Ltd; Oosman v Heath
22–004
(Est 1927) Ltd [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 512 QBD (Comm)
Ecay v Godfrey (1947) 80 Ll. L. Rep. 286 KBD
9–052
Eccles v Bryant [1948] Ch. 93; [1947] 2 All E.R. 865 CA
4–009
Ecclesiastical Commrs for England’s Conveyance, Re; sub nom
14–133
Law of Property Act 1925, Re [1936] Ch. 430; (1957) 7 P. &
C.R. 298 Ch D
Ecclesiastical Commrs v Merral (1868–69) L.R. 4 Ex. 162, Ex
12–082
Ct
Economides v Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc [1998]
9–015, 9–139
Q.B. 587; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 1066 CA (Civ Div)
ED & FMan Commodity Advisers Ltd v Fluxo-Cane Overseas
6–026
Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 406
ED&F Man Ltd v Nigerian Sweets & Confectionery Co [1977]
17–005
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 50 QBD (Comm)
Edgar v Edgar [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1410; [1980] 3 All E.R. 887 CA
11–048
(Civ Div)
Edgeworth Capital (Luxembourg) Sarl [2015] EWHC 150
20–132, 20–138, 20–143
(Comm)
Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) L.R. 29 Ch. D. 459 CA
9–014, 9–025, 9–035
Edler v Auerbach [1950] 1 K.B. 359; [1949] 2 All E.R. 692
11–112, 11–114, 11–131, 11–136, 11–137,
KBD
11–138
Edm JM Mertens & Co PVBA v Veevoeder Import Export
3–081
Vimex BV [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 372 QBD (Comm)
Edmonds v Lawson; sub nom Edmunds v Lawson [2000] Q.B.
3–025
501; [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1091 CA (Civ Div)
Edmund Murray v BSP International Foundations, 33 Con. L.R.
2–041
1 CA (Civ Div)
Edward Owen Engineering Ltd v Barclays Bank International
20–143
Ltd [1978] Q.B. 159; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 764 CA (Civ Div)
Edwards Ex p. Chalmers, Re (1872–73) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 289 CA
17–058
in Chancery
Edwards v Aberayron Mutual Ship Insurance Society Ltd
6–005, 11–054
(1875–76) L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 563 Ex Chamber
Edwards v Ashik [2014] EWHC 2454 (Ch)
9–116
Edwards v Baugh (1843) 11 M. & W. 641
3–038
Edwards v British Athletic Federation; Edwards v International
11–109
Amateur Athletic Federation [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 363; (1997)
94(30) L.S.G. 29 Ch D
Edwards v Carter; sub nom Carter v Silber; Carter v Hasluck;
12–021, 12–023
Edwards v Earl of Lisburne [1893] A.C. 360 HL
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
20–083
[2011] UKSC 58; [2012] 2 A.C. 22; [2012] 2 W.L.R. 55;
[2012] 2 All E.R. 278; [2012] I.C.R. 201; [2012] I.R.L.R.
129; [2012] Med. L.R. 93; (2012) 124 B.M.L.R. 51; (2012)
162 N.L.J. 30; (2011) 155(48) S.J.L.B. 31
Edwards v Jones (1836) 1 My. & Cr. 226
15–030
Edwards v Newland & Co (E Burchett, Third Party) [1950] 2
17–010
K.B. 534; [1950] 1 All E.R. 1072 CA
Edwards v Skyways [1964] 1 W.L.R. 349; [1964] 1 All E.R. 494
4–003, 4–015
QBD
Edwards v Society of Graphical and Allied Trades; sub nom
11–054, 20–092, 20–117, 20–120
Edwards v SOGAT [1971] Ch. 354; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 713 CA
(Civ Div)
Edwards v SOGAT. See Edwards v Society of Graphical and
Allied Trades
Edwards v Worboys [1984] A.C. 724; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 850 CA
11–078, 11–080
(Civ Div)
Edwin Hill & Partners v First National Finance Corp [1989] 1
14–140
W.L.R. 225; [1988] 3 All E.R. 801 CA (Civ Div)
Edwinton Commercial Corp v Tsavliris Russ (Worldwide
19–005, 19–008, 19–017, 19–078, 19–079,
Salvage & Towage) Ltd (The Sea Angel) [2006] EWHC
19–116
1713; [2006] 2 C.L.C. 600 QBD (Comm)
Ee v Kakar (1980) 40 P. & C.R. 223; (1979) 255 E.G. 879;
2–108
(1980) 124 S.J. 327 Ch D
EE Caledonia Ltd (formerly Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia)
7–034
Ltd) v Orbit Valve Co Europe Plc; sub nom Elf Enterprise
Caledonia Ltd (formerly Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia))
v Orbit Valve Co Europe Plc [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1515; [1995] 1
All E.R. 174 CA (Civ Div);
Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management SA (The Giannis
17–065
NK) [1998] A.C. 605; [1998] 2 W.L.R. 206 HL
Egan v Static Control Components (Europe) Ltd. See Static
Control Components (Europe) Ltd v Egan
Egham & Staines Electricity Co Ltd v Egham UDC [1944] 1 All
19–043
E.R. 107
Egyptian International Foreign Trade Co v Soplex Wholesale
16–025, 16–030
Supplies Ltd (The Raffaella); sub nom Soplex Wholesale
Supplies Ltd v Egyptian International Foreign Trade Co
[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 36; [1985] Fin. L.R. 123 CA (Civ
Div)
Ehrman v Bartholomew [1898] 1 Ch. 671 Ch D
21–057
EIC Services Ltd v Phipps [2004] EWCA Civ 1069; [2005] 1
12–069
W.L.R. 1377
Eiles v Southwark LBC [2006] EWHC 1411 (TCC)
20–087
Eisen und Metall AG v Ceres Stevedoring Co and Canadian
14–066
Overseas Shipping [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 665 CA (Quebec)
Ekha, The. See Seadrill Management Services Ltd v OAO
Gazprom (The Ekha)
El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Plc (No.1) [1994] 2 All E.R.
9–026
685; [1994] B.C.C. 143 CA (Civ Div)
El Awadi v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA Ltd;
2–108, 4–030, 20–128
sub nom Elawadi v Bank of Credit and Commerce
International SA [1990] 1 Q.B. 606; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 220
QBD
EL Oldendorff & Co GmbH v Tradax Export SA (The Johanna
Oldendorff) [1974] A.C. 479; [1973] 3 W.L.R. 382; [1973] 3
All E.R. 148; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285; (1973) 117 S.J. 760
HL
Elbe Maru, The. See Nippon Yusen Kaisha v International
Import and Export Co (The Elbe Maru)
Elder v Kelly [1919] 2 K.B. 179 KBD
Elder, Dempster & Co v Paterson Zochonis & Co. See Paterson
Zochonis & Co Ltd v Elder Dempster & Co Ltd
Elder Dempster Lines v Zaki Ishag (The Lycaon) [1983] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 548 QBD (Comm)
Eldridge v Taylor; sub nom Eldridge and Morris v Taylor [1931]
2 K.B. 416 CA
Electricity Supply Nominees Ltd v IAF Group Ltd [1993] 1
W.L.R. 1059; [1993] 3 All E.R. 372 QBD
Elek v Bar-Tur [2013] EWHC 207 (Ch); [2013] 2 E.G.L.R 159
Elektronska Industrija Oour TVA v Transped Oour Kintinentalna
Spedicna [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 49 QBD (Comm)
Elena D’Amico, The. See Koch Marine Inc v d’Amica Societa di
Navigazione arl (The Elena D’Amico)
Eley v Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co Ltd
(1875–76) L.R. 1 Ex. D. 88 CA
Elias v George Sahely & Co (Barbados) [1983] 1 A.C. 646;
[1982] 3 W.L.R. 956; [1982] 3 All E.R. 801 PC (Bar)
Elias v Pasmore [1934] 2 K.B. 164 KBD
Eliason v Henshaw (1819) 4 Wheat 225, US Ct
Elkington v Cooke-Hill (1914) 30 T.L.R. 670
Ellen v Topp (1851) 6 Ex. 424
Ellerman Lines Ltd v Lancaster Maritime Co Ltd (The
Lancaster) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497 QBD (Comm)
Ellesmere (Earl of) v Wallace [1929] 2 Ch. 1 CA
Elliott v Crutchley [1906] A.C. 7 HL
Elliott v Richardson (1869–70) L.R. 5 C.P. 744 CCP
Elliott v Turquand (1881–82) L.R. 7 App. Cas. 79 PC (Jam)
Ellis v Barker (1871–72) L.R. 7 Ch. App. 104 CA in Chancery
Ellis v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998] 1 F.L.R. 184; [1998] 2
F.C.R. 51 CA (Civ Div)
Ellis v Ellis (1689) Comb. 482
Ellis v Hodder & Tolley Ltd (1914) 33 N.Z.L.R. 362
Ellis v Torrington [1920] 1 K.B. 399 CA
Ellis Tylin Ltd v Cooperative Retail Services Ltd [1999] B.L.R.
205; 68 Con. L.R. 137 QBD
Ellison v Ellison (1802) 6 Ves. 656
Elliston v Reacher [1908] 2 Ch. 665 CA
Elopak Italia Srl v Tetra Pak (No.2) (IV/31.043) [1992] 4
C.M.L.R. 551; [1992] F.S.R. 542 CEC
Elphinstone (Lord) v Monkland Iron & Coal Co Ltd; sub nom
Lord Elphinstone v Markland Iron & Coal Co Ltd (1886)
L.R. 11 App. Cas. 332 HL
Elpis Maritime Co v Marti Chartering Co; sub nom The Maria D
17–065
11–143
14–040
13–012
7–087
22–022
14–009, 16–008
14–012
2–086, 5–025, 5–026
11–150
2–040
3–040
18–030
14–141
14–011
19–007
14–046
16–108
10–013, 10–023
3–011,4–018
12–010
18–033
15–060, 15–064
18–064
15–029
15–081
11–108
20–130, 20–131
5–023
[1992] 1 A.C. 21
Else (1982) v Parkland Holdings [1994] 1 B.C.L.C. 130 CA (Civ
20–152
Div)
Elsley v JG Collins Insurance Agencies (1978) 3 D.L.R. (3d) 1
20–138, 20–141
Elton Cop Dyeing Co v Broadbent & Son (1920) 89 L.J. K.B.
3–060
186
Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v Amec Earth & Environmental (UK)
7–016, 7–017
Ltd [2013] EWHC 1191 (TCC); 148 Con L.R. 127
Elwood v Goodman [2013] EWCA Civ 1103; [2014] Ch. 442;
15–081
[2014] 2 W.L.R. 967; [2013] 4 All E.R. 1077; [2014] 1 P. &
C.R. 8; (2013) 157(35) S.J.L.B. 41; [2014] 1 P. & C.R. DG1
Embiricos v Sydney Reid & Co [1914] 3 K.B. 45 KBD
17–087, 19–051
Emerald Construction Co v Lowthian [1966] 1 W.L.R. 691;
14–135
[1966] 1 All E.R. 1013 CA
Emeraldian Partnership Ltd v Wellmix Shipping Ltd [2010]
11–060
EWHC 1411 (Comm); [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301
Eminence Property Developments v Heaney Ltd [2010] EWCA
17–075, 17–086, 18–028, 18–038
Civ 1168; (2010) 43 E.G. 99
Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime Mineral Exports Private
2–101
Ltd [2014] EWHC 2104 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457
Empire Meat Co Ltd v Patrick [1939] 2 All E.R. 85 CA
11–075
Empresa Cubana de Fletes v Lagonisi Shipping Co Ltd (The
9–095,21–058
Georgios C) [1971] 1 Q.B. 488; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 221; [1971]
1 All E.R. 193; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 7; (1970) 114 S.J. 862
CA (Civ Div)
Empresa Cubana Importadora de Alimentos Alimport v Iasmos
20–071
Shipping Co SA (The Good Friend) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
586 QBD (Comm)
Empresa Exportadora De Azucar (CUBAZUCAR) v Industria 17–004, 17–092, 19–038, 19–048, 19–073,
Azucarera Nacional SA (IANSA) (The Playa Larga and
19–082, 20–071
Marble Islands) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171; [1983] Com.
L.R. 58 CA (Civ Div)
Empress Engineering Co, Re (1880–81) L.R. 16 Ch. D. 125 CA
16–048
Enderby Town Football Club v Football Association [1971] Ch.
11–033
591; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 1021 CA (Civ Div)
ENE 1 Kos Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras (The Kos)
16–038, 21–004
[2012] UKSC 17; [2012] 2 A.C. 164; [2012] 2 W.L.R. 976;
[2012] 4 All E.R. 1; [2013] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 32; [2012] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 292; [2013] 1 C.L.C. 1; 149 Con. L.R. 76;
(2012) 162 N.L.J. 680
Energy Progress, The. See Orient Overseas Management and
Finance Ltd v File Shipping Co Ltd (The Energy Progress)
Energy Venture Partners Ltd v Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd [2013]
5–036, 22–020
EWHC 2118 (Comm)
Enfield LBC v Arajah [1995] E.G. 164 (C.S.) CA (Civ Div)
5–008
Enfield LBC v Mahoney [1983] 1 W.L.R. 749; [1983] 2 All E.R.
21–016
901 CA (Civ Div)
EnfieldTechnical Services v Payne [2008] EWCA Civ 393;
11–115
[2008] I.R.L.R. 500
Engelbach’s Estate, Re; sub nom Tibbetts v Englebach [1924] 2
14–040, 14–082, 14–085, 14–125
Ch. 348 Ch D
England v Curling (1844) 8 Beav 129
21–038
England v Davidson (1840) 11 A. & E. 856
English v Dedham Vale Properties; sub nom English v Denham
Vale Properties [1978] 1 W.L.R. 93; [1978] 1 All E.R. 382
Ch D
English Churches Housing Group v Shine; sub nom English
Churches Housing Group v Shrine; Shine v English
Churches Housing Group [2004] EWCA Civ 434; [2004]
H.L.R. 42
English Hop Growers v Dering; sub nom English Hop Growers
Ltd v Dering [1928] 2 K.B. 174 CA
E-Nik Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government [2012] EWHC 3027 (Comm); [2013] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 868
Enimont Overseas AG v RO Jugotanker Zadar (The Olib)
[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108 QBD (Comm)
Enron (Thrace) Exploration & Production BV v Clapp (No.2);
sub nom Clapp v Enron (Thrace) Exploration & Production
BV (No.2) [2005] EWCA Civ 1511; [2006] 1 C.L.C. 94
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp; sub nom Newcomb v De
Roos [1955] 2 Q.B. 327; [1955] 3 W.L.R. 48; [1955] 2 All
E.R. 493; [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511; (1955) 99 S.J. 384 CA
Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates [2007] EWCA
Civ 622; [2007] 32 E.G. 90
EP Nelson & Co v Rolfe [1950] 1 K.B. 139; [1949] 2 All E.R.
584 CA
Epaphus, The. See Eurico SpA v Philipp Bros (The Epaphus)
Epps v Rothnie [1945] K.B. 562 CA
Equitable Life Assurance Society v Ernst & Young [2003]
EWCA Civ 1114; [2003] 2 B.C.L.C. 603
Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2002] 1 A.C. 408;
[2000] 3 W.L.R. 529 HL
ER Ives Investment Ltd v High [1967] 2 Q.B. 379; [1967] 2
W.L.R. 789 CA
Ericsson AB v EADS Defence and Security Systems Ltd [2009]
EWHC 2598 (TCC); [2010] B.L.R. 131
Eridania SpA (formerly Cereol Italia Srl) v Oetker (The Fjord
Wind) [2000] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 108; [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
191; [2000] C.L.C. 1376 CA (Civ Div)
Erie County Natural Gas & Fuel Co Ltd v Carroll [1911] A.C.
105 PC (Can)
Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co; sub nom New
Sombrero Phosphate Co v Erlanger (1877–78) L.R. 3 App.
Cas. 1218 HL
Erlson Precision Holdings Ltd (formerly GG132 Ltd) v
Hampson Industries Plc; sub nom GG 132 Ltd v Hampson
Industries Plc[2011] EWHC 1137 (Comm)
Ermoupolis, The. See Ulysses Compania Naviera SA v
Huntingdon Petroleum Services (The Ermoupolis)
Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 K.B. 290; [1952] 1
All E.R. 149 CA
Erskine Macdonald Ltd v Eyles [1921] 1 Ch. 631 Ch D
Ertel Bieber & Co v Rio Tinto Co Ltd; Dynamit AG (Vormals
3–045
9–141, 16–101
20–086
11–079, 11–088
20–143
10–002, 10–004, 16–037, 16–040
9–036
2–024, 2–026, 2–034
3–065, 3–110, 4–006, 5–009
16–105
16–058
20–094
6–033, 6–035, 6–036, 6–044
2–089, 3–123, 3–131, 3–142, 15–081
21–058
19–054
20–121
9–110, 9–121, 9–158, 10–031
9–036
2–053, 3–011, 3–123, 14–134
14–137
19–045, 19–072
Alfred Nobel Co) v Rio Tinto Co Ltd; Vereingte Koenigs v
Rio Tinto Co Ltd [1918] A.C. 260 HL
Eshelby v Federated European Bank Ltd [1932] 1 K.B. 423 CA
Eshun v Moorgate Mercantile Co [1971] 1 W.L.R. 722; [1971] 2
All E.R. 402 CA (Civ Div)
Espley v Williams [1997] 1 E.G.L.R. 9; [1997] 08 E.G. 137 CA
(Civ Div)
Essex CC v Ellam (Inspector of Taxes) [1989] 2 All E.R. 494;
[1989] S.T.C. 317 CA (Civ Div)
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Addison [2003] EWHC 1730 (Comm)
17–037, 20–145
18–107
11–073
6–028
2–096
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Alstonbridge Properties Ltd [1975] 1
17–002
W.L.R. 1474; [1975] 3 All E.R. 358 Ch D
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Customs and Excise Commrs [1976] 1
2–009, 4–029
W.L.R. 1; [1976] 1 All E.R. 117; (1975) 120 S.J. 49 HL
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Hall Russell & Co Ltd (The Esso
14–022
Bernicia) [1989] A.C. 643; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 730; [1989] 1
All E.R. 37; [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8; 1988 S.L.T. 874;
(1988) 85(42) L.S.G. 48; (1988) 132 S.J. 1459 HL
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd
11–063, 11–076, 11–089, 11–092, 11–093,
[1968] A.C. 269; [1967] 2 W.L.R. 871; [1967] 1 All E.R.
11–094, 11–096, 11–097, 11–099, 11–
699; (1967) 111 S.J. 174 HL
100, 11–101, 11–102, 11–111, 21–059
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Kingswood Motors (Addlestone) Ltd
14–140
[1974] Q.B. 142; [1973] 3 W.L.R. 780 QBD
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] Q.B. 801; [1976] 2
4–029, 9–012, 9–041, 9–042, 9–054, 9–
W.L.R. 583 CA (Civ Div)
056, 9–067, 9–072, 20–085, 20–123
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Milton [1997] 1 W.L.R. 938; [1997] 1
7–055, 7–074, 15–046, 17–005
W.L.R. 1060 CA (Civ Div)
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Niad [2001] All E.R. (D) 324 Ch D
20–013
Estafnous v London & Leeds Business Centres Ltd [2011]
6–034
EWCA Civ 1157; [2011] 42 E.G. 121 (C.S.); [2012] 1 P. &
C.R. DG4
Estate of Imorette Palmer v Cornerstone Investments and
9–143
Finance Co [2007] UKPC 49
Estates Investment Co, Re; sub nom Pawle’s Case (1868–69)
9–117
L.R. 4 Ch. App. 497 CA in Chancery
Esterhuizen v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc [1998] 2 F.L.R. 668;
14–052
[1998] Fam. Law 527 QBD
Etablissement Biret et Cie SA v Yukeiteru Kaiun KK & Nissui
16–069
Shipping Corp (The Sun Happiness) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
381 QBD (Comm)
Etablissements Consten Sarl v Commission of the European
11–106
Economic Community (56/64); Grundig-Verkaufs GmbH v
Commission of the European Economic Community; sub
nom Consten & Grundig v Commission (58/64) [1966]
E.C.R. 299; [1966] C.M.L.R. 418 ECJ
Etablissements Levy (Georges et Paul) v Adderley Navigation
8–059, 8–062, 8–064
Co Panama SA (The Olympic Pride) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
67 QBD (Comm)
Etablissements Soules et Cie v International Trade Development
3–083, 18–082
Co [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 129 CA (Civ Div)
Eternity, The. See Petroleum Oil & Gas Corp of South Africa
(Pty) Ltd v FR8 Singapore PTE Ltd (The Eternity)
Ethiopian Oilseeds and Pulses Export Corp v Rio del Mar Foods
[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 86 QBD (Comm)
Eugenia, The. See Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V/O Sovfracht
(The Eugenia)
Eurico SpA v Philipp Bros (The Epaphus) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
215; [1987] 2 F.T.L.R. 213 CA (Civ Div)
Euro London Appointments Ltd v Claessens International Ltd
[2006] EWCA Civ 385; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436
Eurocopy v Teesdale [1992] B.C.L.C. 1067 CA (Civ Div)
8–064
19–122
20–143
9–024
Euro-Diam Ltd v Bathurst [1990] 1 Q.B. 1; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 517
11–027, 11–113, 11–115, 11–167
CA (Civ Div)
Eurometal, The. See Cerealmangimi SpA v Alfred C Toepfer
(The Eurometal)
Europa, The [1908] P. 84 PDAD
7–032
European Asian Bank AG v Punjab & Sind Bank [1982] 2
14–038
Lloyd’s Rep. 356; [1982] Com. L.R. 76 CA (Civ Div)
European Asian Bank AG v Punjab & Sind Bank (No.2) [1983]
9–168, 16–017
1 W.L.R. 642; [1983] 2 All E.R. 508,CA (Civ Div)
European Assurance Society, Re; sub nom Miller’s Case (1876)
15–078
L.R. 3 Ch. D. 391 CA
European Enterprise, The. See Browner International Ltd v
Monarch Shipping Co Ltd (The European Enterprise)
European Gas Turbines Ltd (formerly Ruston Gas Turbines Ltd)
14–046
v MSAS Cargo International Inc [2001] C.L.C. 880 QBD
Eurovideo Bildprogramm GmbH v Pulse Entertainment Ltd
9–009
[2002] EWCA Civ 1235
Eurus, The. See Total Transport Corp v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd
(The Eurus)
Eurymedon, The. See New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM
Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (The Eurymedon)
Eustace v Kempe-Roberts [1964] C.L.Y. 3280
9–052
Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd; Hadley v Midland Fertility
3–078
Services Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 727; [2005] Fam. 1
Evans v Cherry Tree Financial Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 331;
7–101
[2008] C.T.L.C. 117
Evans v Hoare [1892] 1 Q.B. 593 QBD
5–023
Evans v HSBC Trust Co (UK) Ltd [2005] W.T.L.R. 1289 Ch D
3–143, 3–145, 3–146
Evans v Llewellin (1787) 1 Cox C.C. 333
10–045
Evans v Powis (1847) 1 Ex. 601
3–109
Evans Marshall & Co v Bertola SA (No.1) [1973] 1 W.L.R. 349; 21–020, 21–028, 21–054, 21–057, 21–058
[1973] 1 All E.R. 992 CA (Civ Div)
Evans Marshall & Co v Bertola SA (No.2) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s
20–120
Rep. 17 HL
Evenden v Guildford City Association Football Club [1975]
3–079, 3–088
Q.B. 917; [1975] 3 W.L.R. 251 CA (Civ Div)
Evening Standard Co Ltd v Henderson [1987] I.C.R. 588;
11–084, 18–005, 18–006, 21–054, 21–057,
[1987] I.R.L.R. 64 CA (Civ Div)
21–059
Everett v Wilkins (1874) 29 L.T. 846
12–024
Eves v Eves [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1338; [1975] 3 All E.R. 768;
3–123, 3–130, 3–145, 3–150, 4–019, 11–
(1975) 119 S.J. 394 CA (Civ Div)
045
Evia Luck, The. See Dimskal Shipping Co SA v International
Transport Workers Federation (The Evia Luck (No.2))
Evia, The (No.2). See Kodros Shipping Corp of Monrovia v
Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Evia (No.2))
Excelsior Group Productions Ltd v Yorkshire Television Ltd
[2009] EWHC 1751 (Comm)
Excomm v Guan Guan Shipping Pte Ltd (The Golden Bear)
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 330; [1987] 1 F.T.L.R. 61 QBD
(Comm)
Exercise Shipping Co Ltd v Bay Maritime Lines Ltd (The
Fantasy) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 235 CA (Civ Div)
6–023
2–003, 2–005, 2–043
7–034
Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc [2003] EWCA 20–012, 20–013, 20–014, 20–015, 20–016,
Civ 323; [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 830; [2003] E.M.L.R.
20–046, 21–64
25; [2003] F.S.R. 46; (2003) 26(7) I.P.D. 26046; (2003)
100(22) L.S.G. 29; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 509
Expert Clothing Service & Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd
18–085
[1987] 1 E.G.L.R. 65; (1987) 282 E.G. 7 HL
Explora Group Plc v Hesco Bastion Ltd; Explora Group Ltd v
16–086, 16–091
Trading Force Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 646; (2005) 149
S.J.L.B. 924
Expo Fabrics (UK) Ltd v Martin [2003] EWCA Civ 1165
7–079
Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products
20–143
Co [1983] 1 W.L.R. 399; [1983] 2 All E.R. 205 HL
Exportelisa SA v Rocco Giuseppe & Figli Soc Coll [1978] 1
19–033
Lloyd’s Rep. 433 CA (Civ Div)
Extra MSA Services Cobham Ltd v Accor UK Economy Hotels
6–047
Ltd [2011] EWHC 775 (Ch)
Eyestorm Ltd v Hoptonacre Homes Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1366
5–011, 5–032
Eyre v Johnson [1946] K.B. 481; [1946] 1 All E.R. 719 KBD
19–050, 19–061
Eyre v Measday [1986] 1 All E.R. 488; (1986) 136 N.L.J. 91 CA
6–043, 17–069
(Civ Div)
F, Re. See F v West Berkshire HA
F v West Berkshire HA; sub nom F (Mental Patient:
16–036, 16–040, 16–041, 16–042
Sterilisation), Re [1990] 2 A.C. 1; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 1025;
1989] 2 All E.R. 545; [1989] 2 F.L.R. 376; (1989) 139 N.L.J.
789; (1989) 133 S.J. 785 HL
F Drughorn Ltd v Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic. See Fred
Drughorn Ltd v Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic
FA Tamplin Steamship Co Ltd v Anglo Mexican Petroleum
19–021, 19–076, 19–091, 19–115, 19–117
Products Co Ltd [1916] 2 A.C. 397 HL
Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler; Fowler v Faccenda Chicken
6–043, 11–069, 11–071, 11–084
Ltd [1987] Ch. 117; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 288; [1986] 1 All E.R.
617; [1986] I.C.R. 297; [1986] I.R.L.R. 69; [1986] F.S.R.
291; (1986) 83 L.S.G. 288; (1986) 136 N.L.J. 71; (1986) 130
S.J. 573 CA (Civ Div)
Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment,
11–012, 11–013
Transport and the Regions (Costs) (No.2); sub nom R. (on
the application of Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for
Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Costs:
Champertous Agreement) [2002] EWCA Civ 932; [2003]
Q.B. 381
Fairclough Building Ltd v Port Talbot BC, 62 B.L.R. 82; 33
2–013
Con. L.R. 24 CA (Civ Div)
Fairlie v Fenton (1869–70) L.R. 5 Ex. 169 Ex Ct
Fairline Shipping Corp v Adamson [1975] Q.B. 180; [1974] 2
W.L.R. 824 QBD
Fairstate Ltd v General Enterprise and Management Ltd [2010]
EWHC 3072 (QB)
Fairvale v Sabharwal [1992] 2 E.G.L.R. 27; [1992] 32 E.G. 51
CA (Civ Div)
Faith v EIC (1821) 4 B. & Ald. 630
Falck v Williams [1900] A.C. 176 PC (Aus)
Falcke v Gray (1859) 4 Drew. 651
16–068
2–046
5–027
16–088
14–134
8–042
10–045, 14–137, 21–024, 21–032
Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Co (1887) L.R. 34 Ch. D.
16–036
234 CA
Famosa Shipping Co Ltd v Armada Bulk Carriers Ltd (The
20–003, 20–121
Fanis) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 633 QBD (Comm)
Fanis, The. See Famosa Shipping Co Ltd v Armada Bulk
Carriers Ltd (The Fanis)
Fantasy, The. See Exercise Shipping Co Ltd v Bay Maritime
Lines Ltd (The Fantasy)
Fanti and Padre Island, The. See Firma C-Trade SA v Newcastle
Protection and Indemnity Association (The Fanti); Socony
Mobil Oil Co Inc v West of England Shipowners Mutual
Insurance Association (London) Ltd (The Padre Island
(No.2))
Farenco Shipping Co Ltd v Daebo Shipping Co Ltd (The
21–020
Bremen Max) [2008] EWHC 2755 (Comm); [2009] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 423; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81
Farley v Skinner (No.2); sub nom Skinner v Farley [2001]
20–084, 20–087, 20–088, 20–089, 20–101
UKHL 49; [2002] 2 A.C. 732; [2001] 3 W.L.R. 899; [2001]
4 All E.R. 801; [2002] B.L.R. 1; [2002] T.C.L.R. 6; 79 Con.
L.R. 1; [2002] H.L.R. 5; [2002] P.N.L.R. 2; [2001] 3
E.G.L.R. 57; [2001] 48 E.G. 131; [2001] 49 E.G. 120;
[2001] 42 E.G. 139 (C.S.); (2001) 98(40) L.S.G. 41; (2001)
145 S.J.L.B. 230; [2001] N.P.C. 146
Farmer v Russell (1798) 1 B. & P. 296
11–151
Farnham v Atkins (1670) 1 Sid. 446
12–028
Farnworth Finance Facilities Ltd v Attryde [1970] 1 W.L.R.
22–012
1053; [1970] 2 All E.R. 774 CA (Civ Div)
Farquharson v Pearl Insurance Co Ltd [1937] 3 All E.R. 124
17–004
Farr Smith & Co Ltd v Messers Ltd [1928] 1 K.B. 397 KBD
5–024
Farrage v North Wiltshire DC; sub nom Trs of Chippenham Golf
3–160
Club v North Wiltshire DC (1992) 64 P. & C.R. 527; (1992)
156 L.G. Rev 863 CA (Civ Div)
Faruqi v English Real Estates Ltd [1979] 1 W.L.R. 963; (1979)
9–138,9–143
38 P. & C.R. 318 Ch D
Fassihi v Item Software Ltd. See Item Software (UK) Ltd v
Fassihi
Fawcett v Smethurst (1914) 84 L.J.Ch. 473
12–003, 12–034
Fawcett and Holmes’ Contract, Re (1889) L.R. 42 Ch. D. 150
18–033
CA
FC Shepherd & Co v Jerrom. See Shepherd (FC) & Co v Jerrom
FE Rose (London) Ltd v WH Pim Jnr & Co Ltd. See Frederick E
Rose (London) Ltd v William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd
Featherstone v Staples [1986] 1 W.L.R. 861; [1986] 2 All E.R.
11–035
461 CA (Civ Div)
Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc 18–010, 18–036, 18–037, 18–038, 18–050,
(The Nanfri); Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v
18–053, 18–063
Molena Beta Inc (The Benfri); Federal Commerce &
Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Gamma Inc (The Lorfri) [1979]
A.C. 757; [1978] 3 W.L.R. 991; [1979] 1 All E.R. 307;
[1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201; (1978) 122 S.J. 843 HL
Feise v Parkinson (1812) 4 Taunt. 639
9–096
Feldarol Foundry Plc v Hermes Leasing (London) Ltd; sub nom
7–054
Feldaroll Foundry Plc v Hermes Leasing (London) Ltd;
Feldarol Foundry Plc v Amari Sant Agata Classics [2004]
EWCA Civ 747; (2004) 101(24) L.S.G. 32
Felixstowe Dock & Ry Co v British Transport Docks Board; sub
2–106
nom European Ferries Ltd v British Transport Docks Board
[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 656; [1976] 2 C.M.L.R. 655 CA (Civ
Div)
Fellowes v Gwydyr (1829) 1 Russ. & My. 83
8–045, 16–072
Fellowes & Son v Fisher [1976] Q.B. 122; [1975] 3 W.L.R. 184
11–075, 11–076, 21–054
CA (Civ Div)
Feltham v Freer Bouskell [2013] EWHC 1952 (Ch); 152 Con.
14–052
L.R. 124; [2014] P.N.L.R. 2; [2013] W.T.L.R. 1363
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 C.B.(N.S.) 869
2–043, 2–044, 2–046, 8–044
Fender v St John Mildmay; sub nom Fender v Mildmay [1938]
11–032, 11–038
A.C. 1 HL
Fenice Investments Inc v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd [2009]
6–004
EWHC 3272 (TCC); 128 Con L.R. 124
Fenner v Blake [1900] 1 Q.B. 426 QBD
3–063
Fenwick v Macdonald, Fraser & Co Ltd (1904) 6 F. (Ct. of
2–008
Sess.) 850
Fercometal Sarl v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (The
17–026, 17–027, 17–029, 17–092, 18–05,
Simona) [1989] A.C. 788; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 200; [1988] 2 All
20–081
E.R. 742; [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 199; (1988) 138 N.L.J. Rep.
178; (1988) 132 S.J. 966 HL
Feret v Hill (1854) 15 C.B. 207
11–146, 11–147
Ferguson v Davies [1997] 1 All E.R. 315 CA (Civ Div)
3–102
Ferguson v John Dawson & Partners (Contractors) Ltd [1976] 1
6–026
W.L.R. 1213; [1976] 3 All E.R. 817 CA (Civ Div)
Ferguson v Littlewoods Pools Ltd, 1997 S.L.T. 309, OH
4–008
Ferrara Quay Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd [2009] B.L.R.
21–038
367
Ferryways NV v Associated British Ports [2008] EWHC 225;
7–017,7–065,16–058
[2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 639
FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd v John Holt & Co (Liverpool) Ltd;
7–081, 21–007
sub nom Caterpillar (NI) Ltd v John Holt & Co (Liverpool)
Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1232; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 2365; [2014]
1 All E.R. 785; [2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 393; [2014] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 180; [2013] 2 C.L.C. 501; [2014] B.L.R. 103;
[2014] B.P.I.R. 1104
FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC
16–098
[2014] UKSC 45; [2015] A.C. 250; [2014] 3 W.L.R. 535;
[2014] 4 All E.R. 79; [2014] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 425; [2014]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 471; [2014] 2 B.C.L.C. 145; [2014] Lloyd’s
Rep. F.C. 617; [2014] 3 E.G.L.R. 119; [2014] W.T.L.R.
1135; [2015] 1 P. & C.R. DG1
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour
19–006, 19–045, 19–072, 19–073, 19–093,
Ltd; sub nom Fibrosa Société Anonyme v Fairbairn Lawson
19–094, 19–098, 19–107, 19–113, 19–
Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] A.C. 32; [1942] 2 All E.R. 122
122, 22–003
HL
Ficom SA v Sociedad Cadex Ltda [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 118
3–063, 3–073
QBD (Comm)
Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar [1969] 1 W.L.R. 357; [1969]
11–115, 11–119, 11–155, 18–018
2 All E.R. 150 CA (Civ Div)
Figre Ltd v Mander [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 193 QBD (Comm)
18–103
Filby v Hounsell [1896] 2 Ch. 737 Ch D
2–089
Filiatra Legacy, The. See Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA and
Neste Oy v Marlucidez Armadora SA (The Filiatra Legacy)
Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1987] 1
17–015,21–041
W.L.R. 670; [1986] 3 All E.R. 772 Ch D
Filobake Ltd v Rondo Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 563
20–033
Finagrain SA Geneva v P Kruse Hamburg [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
3–081, 3–091
508 CA (Civ Div)
Financial Services Authority v Asset LI Inc (t/a Asset Land
7–108
Investment Inc) [2014] EWCA Civ 435; [2015] 1 All E.R. 1;
[2015] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 116; [2014] Bus. L.R. 993; [2014]
2 B.C.L.C. 545
Financial Techniques (Planning Services) v Hughes [1981]
2–043
I.R.L.R. 32 CA (Civ Div)
Financings Ltd v Baldock [1963] 2 Q.B. 104; [1963] 2 W.L.R.
18–034, 18–070, 18–071
359 CA
Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1184; [1962] 3 All
2–006, 2–040, 2–042, 2–066
E.R. 386 CA
Finch v Brook (1834) 1 Bing.N.C. 253
17–004
Fineland Investments Ltd v Pritchard [2011] EWHC 113 (Ch);
10–045
[2011] 6 E.G. 102 (C.S.)
Finelvet AG v Vinava Shipping Co Ltd (The Chrysalis) [1983] 1 19–006, 19–021, 19–045, 19–052, 19–067,
W.L.R. 1469; [1983] 2 All E.R. 658; [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
19–068
503 QBD
Finland Steamship Co Ltd v Felixstowe Dock & Ry Co [1980] 2
19–033
Lloyd’s Rep. 287 QBD (Comm)
Finmoon Ltd v Baltic Reefers Management Ltd [2012] EWHC
2–075
920 (Comm); [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 388; [2012] 1 C.L.C.
813
Firbank’s Exrs v Humphreys (1887) L.R. 18 Q.B.D. 54 CA
12–080
Fire, Auto and Marine Insurance Co v Greene [1964] 2 Q.B.
9–096
687; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 319 QBD
Firestone & Parson Inc v Union League of Philadelphia, 672 F.
8–020
Supp. 819 (1987)
Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd v Vokins & Co Ltd [1951] 1
7–030
Lloyd’s Rep. 32 KBD
Firma C-Trade SA v Newcastle Protection and Indemnity
14–130, 17–017, 20–145, 21–003
Association (The Fanti); Socony Mobil Oil Co Inc v West of
England Shipowners Mutual Insurance Association
(London) Ltd (The Padre Island (No.2)) [1991] 2 A.C. 1;
[1990] 3 W.L.R. 78; [1990] 2 All E.R. 705; [1990] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 191; [1990] B.C.L.C. 625; 1991 A.M.C. 607; (1990)
134 S.J. 833 HL
First Energy (UK) Ltd v Hungarian International Bank Ltd
[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 194; [1993] B.C.C. 533 CA (Civ Div)
First National Bank Plc v Achampong [2003] EWCA Civ 487;
[2004] 1 F.C.R. 18
First National Bank Plc v Thompson [1996] Ch. 231; [1996] 2
W.L.R. 293 CA (Civ Div)
First National Bank Plc v Walker [2001] 1 F.L.R. 505; [2001] 1
F.C.R. 21 CA (Civ Div)
First National Commercial Bank Plc v Humberts [1995] 2 All
E.R. 673; [1996] 5 Bank. L.R. 177 CA (Civ Div)
First National Commercial Bank Plc v Loxleys [1997] P.N.L.R.
211; [1996] E.G. 174 (C.S.) CA (Civ Div)
First National Reinsurance Co Ltd v JH Greenfield [1921] 2
K.B. 260; (1920) 5 Ll. L. Rep. 402 KBD
First National Securities Ltd v Jones [1978] Ch. 109; [1978] 2
W.L.R. 475 CA (Civ Div)
First Sport Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1229;
[1993] 3 All E.R. 789 CA (Civ Div
Firsteel Cold Rolled Products v Anaco Precision Pressings,
Times, 21 November 1994 QBD
Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1567; [1995] 4
All E.R. 355 CA (Civ Div)
Fisher & Co v Apollinaris Co (1874–75) L.R. 10 Ch. App. 297
CA
Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 Q.B. 394; [1960] 3 W.L.R. 919 DC
Fisher v Bridges (1854) 3 E. & B. 642
Fisher v Brooker [2009] UKHL 41, [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1764;
[2009] 4 All E.R. 789; [2009] Bus. L.R. 1334; [2009]
E.C.D.R. 17; [2010] E.M.L.R. 2; [2009] F.S.R. 25; (2009)
32(9) I.P.D. 32061; (2009) 153(31) S.J.L.B. 29
Fishmongers’ Co v Robertson (1843) 5 Man. & G. 131
Fitch v Dewes; sub nom Dewes v Fitch [1921] 2 A.C. 158 HL
Fitzgerald v Dressler (1859) 7 C.B.(N.S.) 374
Fitzmaurice v Bayley (1856) 6 E. & B. 868
Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] 1 A.C.
27; [1999] 3 W.L.R. 1113 HL
Fitzroy v Cave [1905] 2 K.B. 364 CA
Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd [2009] EWHC
1552 (TCC); [2009] B.L.R. 555
Fjord Wind, The. See Eridania SpA (formerly Cereol Italia Srl) v
Oetker (The Fjord Wind)
Flack v Pattinson [2002] EWCA Civ 1820
Flamar Interocean v Denmac (The Flamar Pride and The Flamar
Progress) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 434; Lloyd’s List, January
5, 1990 QBD (Comm)
Flamar Pride, The. See Flamar Interocean v Denmac
Flame SA v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd; sub nom The Glory
Wealth [2013] EWHC 3153 (Comm); [2014] Q.B. 1080;
[2014] 2 W.L.R. 1405; [2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1043;
2–002, 2–086, 16–025, 16–030
10–042
3–090
10–032
9–070
7–077
9–117
3–171
2–028, 14–006, 16–021, 16–025
20–089
5–008, 17–053
11–046
2–009
11–167
3–129, 3–134, 3–143, 12–030
12–082
11–071, 11–075, 11–076
5–017
16–044
11–045
15–002, 15–012, 15–055, 15–061
9–031,9–034,9–141
9–028
7–078, 7–080
17–010, 17–027, 17–030, 20–081
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 653; [2013] 2 C.L.C. 527
Flanagan v Greenbanks Ltd (t/a Lazenby Insulation) [2013]
EWCA Civ 1702; [2014] T.C.L.R. 2; 151 Con. L.R. 98
Flavell, Re; sub nom Murray v Flavell (1884) L.R. 25 Ch. D. 89
CA
Fleet v Murton (1871–72) L.R. 7 Q.B. 126 QB
Fleetwood’s Policy, Re [1926] Ch. 48 Ch D
Fleming v Bank of New Zealand [1900] A.C. 577 PC (NZ)
Flemyng v Hector (1836) 2 M. & W. 172
Fletcher v Fletcher (1844) 4 Hare 67
Fletcher v Tayleur (1855) 17 C.B. 21
Flight v Boland (1828) 4 Russ. 298
Flight v Booth (1834) 1 Bing. N.C. 370
Flight v Reed (1863) 1 H. & C. 703
Flint v Brandon (1808) 3 Ves. 159
Floating Dock Ltd v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp
[1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 QBD (Comm)
Flood v Shand Construction Ltd [1997] C.L.C. 588; 81 B.L.R.
31 CA (Civ Div)
Floods of Queensferry Ltd v Shand Construction Ltd (No.3)
[2000] B.L.R. 81 QBD (TCC)
Florida Power & Light Co v Westinghouse Electric Corp, 826
F.2d 239 (1987)
Flower v London & North Western Ry Co [1894] 2 Q.B. 65 CA
Flower v Sadler (1882–83) L.R. 10 Q.B.D. 572 CA
Foakes v Beer; sub nom Beer v Foakes (1883–84) L.R. 9 App.
Cas. 605 HL
Foley v Classique Coaches Ltd [1934] 2 K.B. 1 CA
Folgate London Market Ltd v Chaucer Insurance Plc. See
Mayhew v King
Fontana NV v Mautner (1979) 254 E.G. 199
Food Corp of India v Antclizo Shipping Corp (The Antclizo)
[1988] 1 W.L.R. 603; [1988] 2 All E.R. 513 HL
Foodco UK LLP v Henry Boot Developments Ltd [2010]
EWHC 358 (Ch)
Foods UK PLc v Barnes [2008] EWHC 2851 (Ch); [2009]
B.C.L.C. 699
Football League Ltd v Edge Ellison (A Firm) [2006] EWHC
1462; [2007] P.N.L.R. 2 QBD
Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team
Sdn Bhd; sub nom Force India Formula One Team Ltd v
Aerolab Srl [2013] EWCA Civ 780; [2013] R.P.C. 36
Force India Formula One Team Ltd v Aerolab Srl. See Force
India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn
Bhd
Force India Formula One Team Ltd v Etihad Airways PJSC
[2010] EWCA Civ 1051; [2011] E.T.M.R. 10; (2010)
107(40) L.S.G. 22
Ford v Clarksons Holidays [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1412; [1971] 3 All
E.R. 454 CA (Civ Div)
Ford v Cotesworth (1868) L.R. 4 Q.B. 127
Ford v White & Co [1964] 1 W.L.R. 885; [1964] 2 All E.R. 755
20–096
14–082, 14–083, 14–084, 14–086
16–070
14–084
3–023, 16–053
16–002
14–082, 21–046
20–065, 20–106
12–028, 21–047, 21–048
9–138
3–021
21–043
2–003
15–050
9–061
19–031, 19–035
12–012
10–016
3–025, 3–100, 3–101, 3–102, 3–103, 3–
106, 3–112, 3–113, 3–115
2–093, 11–092, 11–101
3–084
2–003, 2–005, 2–043
9–008, 9–012, 9–015, 9–126, 9–141
6–035
20–059
18–080, 20–015
18–085
11–051
18–097
20–008
Ch D
Ford & Sons (Oldham) Ltd v Henry Leetham & Sons Ltd (1915)
21 Com.Cas. 55
Ford Hunt v Singh (Raghbir) [1973] 1 W.L.R. 738; [1973] 2 All
E.R. 700 Ch D
Ford Motor Co (England) Ltd v Armstrong (1915) 31 T.L.R. 267
Ford Motor Co Ltd v AEF. See Ford Motor Co Ltd v
Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers
Ford Motor Co Ltd v Amalgamated Union of Engineering and
Foundry Workers; sub nom Ford Motor Co Ltd v AEF
[1969] 2 Q.B. 303; [1969] 1 W.L.R. 339 QBD
19–036
21–064
20–131
4–022
Forman & Co Proprietary Ltd v Liddesdale, The [1900] A.C.
16–045
190 PC (Aus)
Formby Bros v Formby (1910) 102 L.T. 116
16–058
Forrer v Nash (1865) 35 Beav 167
21–034
Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v Butcher [1989] A.C. 852;
16–022, 8–046, 20–123, 20–124, 20–125,
[1989] 2 W.L.R. 290; [1989] 1 All E.R. 402; [1989] 1
20–126
Lloyd’s Rep. 331; [1989] Fin. L.R. 223; (1989) 133 S.J. 184
HL
Forster v Baker [1910] 2 K.B. 636 CA
15–013
Forster v Elvet Colliery Co Ltd. See Dyson v Forster
Fortescue v Barnett (1834) 3 My. & K. 36
15–028, 15–030
Forth v Stanton (1681) 1 Wms.Saund. 210
15–002
Fortman Holdings Ltd v Modem Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA
18–064
Civ 1235
Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC v Blue Skye Special
14–098
Opportunities Fund LP [2013] EWCA Civ 367; [2013] 1
W.L.R. 3466; [2013] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 315; [2013] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 606; [2013] 1 C.L.C. 752
Forum Craftsman, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 291 CA (Civ Div)
14–059, 14–060
Forum Craftsman, The (1991). See Islamic Republic of Iran
Shipping Lines v Ierax Shipping Co of Panama
Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 A.C. 102; [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1299
11–030
HL
Foster, Re; sub nom Hudson v Foster [1938] 3 All E.R. 357 Ch
14–133
D
Foster v Action Aviation Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1368
9–034
Foster v Dawber (1851) Ex. 839
3–057
Foster v Driscoll; Lindsay v Attfield; Lindsay v Driscoll [1929]
11–060
1 K.B. 470 CA
Foster v London Chatham & Dover Ry Co [1895] 1 Q.B. 711
12–075
CA
Foster v Mackinnon (1868–69) L.R. 4 C.P. 704 CCP
8–080, 8–082, 15–048
Foster v Redgrave (1867) L.R. 4 Ex. 35n
12–006
Foster’s Policy, Re; sub nom Menneer v Foster [1966] 1 W.L.R.
14–082, 14–084, 14–125
222; [1966] 1 All E.R. 432 Ch D
Foster Clark’s Indenture Trust, Re; sub nom Loveland v
15–052
Horscroft [1966] 1 W.L.R. 125; [1966] 1 All E.R. 43 Ch D
Fothergill v Rowland (1873–74) L.R. 17 Eq. 132 Ct of Chancery
21–018, 21–026, 21–058
Fowkes v Manchester Assurance Association (1863) 3 B. & S.
9–096
917; (1863) 32 L.J. Q.B. 153 KBD
Fox v Henderson Investment Fund Ltd [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
11–060
303 QBD (Comm)
Foxtons Ltd v Bicknell [2008] EWCA Civ 419; [2008] 24 E.G.
142
Foxtons Ltd v O’Reardon [2011] EWHC 2946 (QB)
Foxtons Ltd v Thesleff [2005] EWCA Civ 514; [2005] 2
E.G.L.R. 29; [2005] 21 E.G. 140
France v Di Pinto (C361/89) [1991] E.C.R. I–1189; [1993] 1
C.M.L.R. 399 ECJ
France v Gaudet (1870–71) L.R. 6 Q.B. 199 QB
Francis v Cowcliffe Ltd (1977) 33 P. & C.R. 368; 239 E.G. 977
Ch D
Francis v Municipal Councillors of Kuala Lumpur [1962] 1
W.L.R. 1411; [1962] 3 All E.R. 633 PC (FMS)
Frank v Knight (1937) O.Q.P.D. 113
Frank W Clifford Ltd v Garth [1956] 1 W.L.R. 570; [1956] 2 All
E.R. 323 CA
Frans Maas (UK) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd [2004]
EWHC 1502; [2005] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 783; [2004] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 251 QBD (Comm)
Fraser v B N Furman (Productions) Ltd [1967] 1 W.L.R. 898
Fraser v Thames Television Ltd [1984] Q.B. 44; [1983] 2
W.L.R. 917 QBD
Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd v Can-Dive Services Ltd [2000]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 199 Sup Ct (Can)
Fratelli Sorrentino v Buerger [1915] 3 K.B. 367 CA
Fred Drughorn Ltd v Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic; sub nom
Rederi Aktienbolaget Transatlantic v Fred Drughorn Ltd
[1919] A.C. 203 HL
Fredensen v Rothschild [1941] 1 All E.R. 430
Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v William H Pim Junior & Co
Ltd; sub nom FE Rose (London) Ltd v WH Pim Jnr & Co
Ltd [1953] 2 Q.B. 450; [1953] 3 W.L.R. 497 CA
Freedman (t/a John Freedman & Co) v Union Group Plc [1997]
E.G. 28 (C.S.) CA (Civ Div)
Freeguard v Rogers (No.1) [1999] 1 W.L.R. 375; [1998] E.G.
145 (C.S.) CA (Civ Div)
Freeman v Cooke (1848) 2 Ex. 654
Freeman v Taylor (1831) 8 Bing. 124
Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd
[1964] 2 Q.B. 480; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 618 CA
Freeth v Burr (1873–74) L.R. 9 C.P. 208 CCP
Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co KG
v Hofstetter (C–237/02) [2004] E.C.R. I–3403; [2004] 2
C.M.L.R. 13 ECJ
Friends Provident Life & Pensions Ltd v Sirius International
Insurance Corp [2005] EWCA Civ 601; [2005] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 145; [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 517
Friends Provident Life Office v Hillier Parker May & Rowden
[1997] Q.B. 85; [1996] 2 W.L.R. 123; [1995] 4 All E.R. 260
CA (Civ Div)
Frith v Frith [1906] A.C. 254 PC (TCI)
Frobisher (Second Investments) Ltd v Kiloran Trust Co Ltd
16–086, 16–089
7–107
16–069, 16–088
7–100
20–055
17–065, 21–030
21–036
2–040
11–016, 11–158, 11–159
7–015, 7–042
16–094
2–094, 6–035, 16–069
14–017
17–010
16–058
8–062
8–018, 8–064, 8–068
3–038
20–094
3–090
18–050
16–027
18–035, 18–037
7–098
6–039, 18–050, 18–051
6–036, 8–022
16–112
6–035
[1980] 1 W.L.R. 425; [1980] 1 All E.R. 488 Ch D
Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co Ltd [1905] 1 K.B. 608 CA
Frota Oceanica Brasiliera SA v Steamship Mutual Underwriting
Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Frotanorte) [1996] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 461; [1997] C.L.C. 230 CA (Civ Div)
Frotanorte, The. See Frota Oceanica Brasiliera SA v Steamship
Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The
Frotanorte)
Fry v Lane; sub nom Whittet v Bush; Fry, Re (1889) L.R. 40 Ch.
D. 312 Ch D
Fry v Smellie [1912] 3 K.B. 282 CA
Fryer v Ewart; sub nom Ewart v Fryer [1902] A.C. 187 HL
Fuji Electronics and Machinery Enterprise v New Necca
Shipping Corp (The Golden Lake) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
632 HC (Sing)
Fuji Finance Inc v Aetna Life Insurance Co Ltd [1997] Ch. 173;
[1996] 3 W.L.R. 871 CA (Civ Div)
Fuji Seal Europe Ltd v Catalytic Combustion Corp [2005]
EWHC 1659; 102 Con. L.R. 47 QBD (TCC)
Fujitsu Services Ltd v IBM United Kingdom Ltd [2014] EWHC
752 (TCC); [2014] 1 C.L.C. 353; 153 Con. L.R. 203
Fulham Football Club Ltd v Cabra Estates Plc [1992] B.C.C.
863; [1994] 1 B.C.L.C. 363; (1993) 65 P. & C.R. 284 CA
(Civ Div)
Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham & Jones
[2006] EWHC 2017; [2006] 4 All E.R. 1397 (Note) Ch D
Fullerton v Provincial Bank of Ireland [1903] A.C. 309 HL (UKIrl)
Fullwood v Hurley [1928] 1 K.B. 498 CA
Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel SAU
(formerly Travelplan SAU) of Spain [2014] EWHC 1547
(Comm); [2015] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1205; [2014] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 230; [2014] 1 C.L.C. 711; 154 Con. L.R. 183
Furmans Electrical Contractors Ltd v Elecref Ltd [2009] EWCA
Civ 170
Furness Bridge, The. See Seabridge Shipping Ltd v Antco
Shipping Co (The Furness Bridge)
Furness Withy (Australia) Ltd v Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd
(The Amazonia) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 236 CA (Civ Div)
FW Moore & Co Ltd v Landauer & Co; sub nom Arbitration
Between Moore & Co Ltd and Landauer & Co Re [1921] 2
K.B. 519; (1921) 6 Ll. L. Rep. 384 CA
Fyffes Group Ltd v Templeman [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 643;
(2000) 97(25) L.S.G. 40 QBD (Comm)
G (A) v G (T); sub nom G v G [1970] 2 Q.B. 643; [1970] 3
W.L.R. 132 CA (Civ Div)
G Attwood Holdings Ltd v Woodward [2009] EWHC 1083 (Ch)
G Percy Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer Ltd [1993] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 25; 63 B.L.R. 44 CA (Civ Div)
G Scammell and Nephew Ltd v HC&JG Ouston [1941] A.C.
251 HL
G&K Ladenbau (UK) Ltd v Crawley & de Reya [1978] 1
17–066
18–095
10–044, 10–045
16–030
15–043
14–059
11–007, 11–008, 11–119
14–006
7–030
11–046
20–042
3–041, 3–042
16–097
20–121
2–081, 2–086
3–098, 3–099, 4–024
18–048
16–098
12–030, 16–014
16–097
2–002, 2–017, 2–019, 2–075
2–079, 2–093
20–108
W.L.R. 266; [1978] 1 All E.R. 682 QBD
G&N Angelakis Shipping Co SA v Compagnie National
Algerienne de Navigation (The Attika Hope) [1988]; Lloyd’s
Rep. 439 QBD (Comm)
Gabriel v Little [2013] EWCA Civ 1513; 16 I.T.E.L.R. 567
Gadd v Houghton (1875–76) L.R. 1 Ex. D. 357 CA
Gadd v Thompson [1911] 1 K.B. 304 KBD
Gadsden Pty Ltd v Australian Coastal Shipping Commission
[1977] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 575
Gage v King (Quantum) [1961] 1 Q.B. 188; [1960] 3 W.L.R.
460 QBD
Gala v Preston, 172 C.L.R. 243 HC (Aus)
Galaxy Energy International Ltd v Bayoil SA (The Ama Ulgen)
[2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 289; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 512
CA (Civ Div)
Galaxy Energy International Ltd v Novorossiysk Shipping Co
(The Petr Schmidt) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [1998] C.L.C.
894 CA (Civ Div)
Galbraith v Mitchenall Estates [1965] 2 Q.B. 473; [1964] 3
W.L.R. 454 QBD
Gallaher v British Road Services and Containerway & Roadferry
[1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 440 QBD
Galliard Homes Ltd v Jarvis Interiors Ltd. See Jarvis Interiors
Ltd v Galliard Homes Ltd
Gallie v Lee. See Saunders v Anglia Building Society (formerly
Northampton Town and County Building Society)
Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd v Mott Macdonald Ltd [2008]
EWHC 1570 (TCC); 120 Con. L.R. 1
Galloway v Galloway (1914) 30 T.L.R. 531
Galloway v Guardian Royal Exchange (UK) Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s
Rep. I.R. 209 CA (Civ Div)
Galoo Ltd v Bright Grahame Murray [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1360;
[1995] 1 All E.R. 16 CA (Civ Div)
Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 W.L.R.
1226; [1995] C.L.C. 536 QBD
Gandy v Gandy (1885) L.R. 30 Ch. D. 57 CA
Gannon v JC Firth Ltd [1976] I.R.L.R. 415; (1977) 11 I.T.R. 29
EAT
Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v Tunnicliffe [2011] EWHC 1658
(Comm); [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 1
Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board [1984] A.C.
130; [1983] 3 W.L.R. 143 HL
Garden Neptune Shipping v Occidental Worldwide Investment
Corp and Concord Petroleum Corp [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
330 CA (Civ Div)
Gardiner v Moore (No.2) [1969] 1 Q.B. 55; [1966] 3 W.L.R. 786
QBD
Gardner v Coutts & Co [1968] 1 W.L.R. 173; [1967] 3 All E.R.
1064 Ch D
Gardner v Marsh & Parsons [1997] 1 W.L.R. 489; [1997] 3 All
E.R. 871 CA (Civ Div)
Gardner v Moore [1984] A.C. 548; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 714 HL
3–034, 15–025
20–024
16–069
12–016
14–059
4–017
11–114
6–045
2–026
20–152
7–041
7–056, 14–049
8–008
9–146
9–039, 20–003, 20–094
2–109, 19–047, 19–076, 19–098
14–016
18–006
6–008
1–008, 21–018, 21–062
7–042, 9–048
13–014
6–035
20–006, 20–121
11–025, 14–130
Gardner v Walsh (1855) 5 E. & B. 83
Garforth v Fearon (1787) 1 H.B.L. 327
Garnac Grain Co Inc v HMF Faure & Fairclough Ltd; sub nom
Bunge Corp v HMF Faure & Fairclough Ltd [1968] A.C.
1130; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 143 HL
Garner’s Motors Ltd, Re [1937] Ch. 594; [1937] 1 All E.R. 671
Ch D
Garnett, Re; sub nom Gandy v Macaulay (1886) L.R. 31 Ch. D.
1 CA
Garnham, Harris & Elton v Ellis (Alfred W) (Transport) [1967]
1 W.L.R. 940; [1967] 2 All E.R. 940 QBD
Garrard v Frankel (1862) 30 Beav 445
Garrard v James [1925] Ch. 616 Ch D
Garrard v Woolner (1832) 8 Bing. 258
Garratt v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 425;
[2011] I.C.R. 880; [2011] I.R.L.R. 591
Gas Light & Coke Co v Turner (1839) 6 Bing.N.C. 324
Gastronome (UK) Ltd v Anglo Dutch Meats (UK) Ltd [2006]
EWCA Civ 1233; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 587
Gatoil Anstalt v Omenial Ltd (The Balder London (No.1))
[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 489 QBD (Comm)
Gatoil International Inc v Tradax Petroleum Ltd (The Rio Sun)
[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 350 QBD (Comm Ct)
Gator Shipping Corp v Trans-Asiatic Oil SA (The Odenfeld)
[1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 QBD (Comm)
Gaumont-British Picture Corp v Alexander [1936] 2 All E.R.
1686
Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter [2009] 2 S.L.R. 332
Gaydamak v Leviev [2012] EWHC 1740 (Ch)
GB Gas Holdings Ltd v Accenture (UK) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ
91
GE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton [2005] EWCA Civ 1556; [2006]
1 W.L.R. 899
GE Commercial Finance Ltd v Gee [2005] EWHC 2056; [2006]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 QBD
Gebr Metelmann GmbH & Co KG v NBR (London) [1984] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 614; (1984) 81 L.S.G. 515 CA (Civ Div)
Gebr Van Weelde Scheepvaart Kantoor BV v Compania Naviera
Sea Orient SA (The Agrabele) (No.2) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
223 CA (Civ Div)
Gebremariam v Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise (t/a Ethiopian
Airlines) [2014] I.R.L.R. 354 EAT
Geden Operations Ltd v Dry Bulk Handy Holdings Inc (The
Bulk Uruguay) [2014] EWHC 885 (Comm); [2014] 2 All
E.R. (Comm) 196; [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 66; (2014)
164(7601) N.L.J. 20
Gedge v Royal Exchange Assurance Corp [1900] 2 Q.B. 214
QBD (Comm)
Gee v Lancs & Yorks Ry (1860) H. & N. 211
Gee v Lucas (1867) 16 L.T. 357
Geest Plc v Fyffes Plc [1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 672 QBD
(Comm)
13–011
11–057
16–001, 16–018, 20–076
13–015
8–031
7–032
8–075
13–012
3–109
6–048
11–018
6–020, 8–061
15–014, 15–020
22–012
17–023, 17–026, 21–012, 21–013
3–013, 11–061
3–174
16–027
7–017
7–054
9–034, 9–036
20–116
2–003, 2–044
18–086
17–086, 17–087, 18–028
11–007
20–102
9–055
9–137, 21–033
Geier (otherwise Braun) v Kujawa, Weston and Warne Bros
7–008
(Transport) [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 364 QBD
Geipel v Smith (1871–72) L.R. 7 Q.B. 404 QB
17–040
Geismar v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd [1978] Q.B.
11–027, 11–033
383; [1978] 2 W.L.R. 38 QBD
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp Ltd v Tanter (The
3–169, 4–003, 9–015, 9–029, 16–094
Zephyr) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 529 CA (Civ Div)
General Billposting Co Ltd v Atkinson [1909] A.C. 118 HL
18–013, 18–015, 18–019, 18–022, 18–042
General Reinsurance Corp v Forsakringsaktiebolaget Fennia
2–089, 3–161
Patria [1983] Q.B. 856; [1983] 3 W.L.R. 318; [1983] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 287; (1983) 127 S.J. 389 CA (Civ Div)
General Trading Co (Holdings) Ltd v Richmond Corp Ltd
6–041, 20–137, 20–145
[2008] EWHC 1479; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 475
Geniki Investments International Ltd v Ellis Stockbrokers Ltd
16–029
[2008] EWHC 549 (QB); [2008] 1 B.C.L.C. 662
Geogas SA v Trammo Gas Ltd (The Baleares) [1991] 1 W.L.R.
18–044, 20–006, 20–102, 20–108
776; [1991] 3 All E.R. 554; [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 318;
(1991) 141 N.L.J. 1037; (1991) 135 S.J.L.B. 101 HL
George v Clagett (1797) 7 T.R. 359
16–061
George v Ministry of Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 324
6–049
George Barker (Transport) Ltd v Eynon [1974] 1 W.L.R. 462;
18–005,21–010,21–012
[1974] 1 All E.R. 900 CA (Civ Div)
George Fischer (Great Britain) Ltd v Multi Construction Ltd
14–023
[1995] B.C.C. 310; [1995] 1 B.C.L.C. 260 CA (Civ Div)
George Hawkins v Chrysler (UK) Ltd and Burne Associates, 38
17–069
B.L.R. 36 CA (Civ Div)
George Hunt Cranes Ltd v Scottish Boiler & General Insurance
18–046, 18–054
Co Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1964; [2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
366
George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd
7–011, 7–018, 7–023, 7–027, 7–030, 7–
[1983] 2 A.C. 803; [1983] 3 W.L.R. 163; [1983] 2 All E.R.
033, 7–036, 7–041, 7–074, 7–075, 7–
737; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 272; [1983] Com. L.R. 209 HL
078, 7–079, 7–081, 7–082, 7–107, 20–
106
George Wills & Sons Ltd v Thomas Brown & Sons (1922) 12
22–012
Ll. L. Rep. 292 KBD
George Wimpey UK Ltd (formerly Wimpey Homes Holdings
8–064, 8–069
Ltd) v VI Construction Ltd (formerly VI Components Ltd);
sub nom Wimpey (UK) Ltd v VI Construction Ltd [2005]
EWCA Civ 77; [2005] B.L.R. 135; 103 Con. L.R. 67; (2005)
102(9) L.S.G. 28; (2005) 149 S.J.L.B. 182; [2005] 2 P. &
C.R. DG5
German v Yates (1915) 32 T.L.R. 52
15–035
Gerrard v Lewis (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 305
15–002, 15–024
Gewa Chartering BV v Remco Shipping Lines (The Remco)
16–072
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205 QBD (Comm)
Geys v Société Générale [2012] UKSC 63; [2013] 1 A.C. 523;
18–006, 18–064, 21–036, 21–037
[2013] 2 W.L.R. 50; [2013] 1 All E.R. 1061; [2013] I.C.R.
117; [2013] I.R.L.R. 122
GF Sharp & Co Ltd v McMillan [1998] I.R.L.R. 632 EAT
4–024, 19–090
GFI Group Inc v Eaglestone [1994] I.R.L.R. 119; [1994] F.S.R.
11–084
535 QBD
GG 132 Ltd v Hampson Industries Plc. See Erlson Precision
Holdings Ltd (formerly GG132 Ltd) v Hampson Industries
Plc
GH Myers & Co v Brent Cross Service Co [1934] 1 K.B. 46
17–066
KBD
GH Renton & Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corp of Panama (The
7–032
Caspiana) [1957] A.C. 149; [1957] 2 W.L.R. 45 HL
GHLM Trading Ltd v Maroo [2012] EWHC 61 (Ch); [2012] 2
9–162, 16–097
B.C.L.C. 369
GHSP Inc v AB Electronic Ltd [2010] EWHC 1828 (Comm)
2–021
Giannis NK, The. See Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden
Management SA (The Giannis NK)
Gibaud v Great Eastern Ry Co [1921] 2 K.B. 426 CA
7–026, 7–037
Gibbons v Associated British Ports [1985] I.R.L.R. 376 QBD
6–049
Gibbons v Proctor; sub nom Gibson v Proctor (1891) 64 L.T.
2–010, 2–048
594; 55 J.P. 616
Gibbons v Westminster Bank Ltd [1939] 2 K.B. 882 KBD
20–092
Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 C.L.R. 423
12–053
Gibbs v David (1875) L.R. 20 Eq. 373 Ct of Chancery
21–040
Gibson v Dickie (1815) 3 M. & S. 463
11–041
Gibson v Holland (1865–66) L.R. 1 C.P. 1 CCP
5–024
Gibson v Lupton (1832) 9 Bing. 297
13–002
Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 W.L.R. 294; [1979]
2–006, 2–062, 2–075
1 All E.R. 972 HL
Gilbert v Ruddeard (1608) 3 Dy. 272b (n)
3–031
Gilbert Ash (Northern) Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd;
18–069, 20–145
sub nom Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd, Gilbert Ash
(Northern) Ltd [1974] A.C. 689; [1973] 3 W.L.R. 421;
[1973] 3 All E.R. 195; 1 B.L.R. 73; 72 L.G.R. 1; (1973) 117
S.J. 745 HL
Gilchester Properties Ltd v Gomm [1948] 1 All E.R. 493; 64
9–054
T.L.R. 235 Ch D
Giles v Thompson; Devlin v Baslington; Sanders v Templar
11–012, 11–013, 11–035, 15–058
[1994] 1 A.C. 142; [1993] 2 W.L.R. 908 HL
Gill & Duffus Landauer Ltd v London Export Corp [1982] 2
2–034, 2–035
Lloyd’s Rep. 627 QBD (Comm)
Gill & Duffus SA v Berger & Co Inc; sub nom Berger & Co v 17–023, 17–027, 17–028, 17–029, 17–030,
Gill & Duffus SA [1984] A.C. 382; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 95 HL
18–016, 18–020, 20–081
Gill & Duffus SA v Rionda Futures Ltd [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
3–005, 15–052
67 QBD (Comm)
Gill & Duffus SA v Société pour l’Exportation des Sucres SA
18–053
[1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 322 CA (Civ Div)
Gillatt v Sky Television Ltd (formerly Sky Television Plc)
2–095, 2–096
[2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 461; [2000] 2 B.C.L.C. 103 CA
(Civ Div)
Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd v Cheney Eggar & Co [1896] 2 Q.B. 59
6–015, 6–017
QBD
Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd [1973]
7–033, 7–037
Q.B. 400; [1972] 3 W.L.R. 1003 CA (Civ Div)
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch. 210; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 815; [2000] 2 All 3–123, 3–124, 3–125, 3–127, 3–132, 3–
E.R. 289; [2000] 2 F.L.R. 266; [2000] 1 F.C.R. 705; [2000]
134, 3–143, 3–144, 3–145
W.T.L.R. 195; [2000] Fam. Law 714; (2000) 97(12) L.S.G.
40; (2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 141; [2000] N.P.C. 25; (2000) 80 P.
& C.R. D3 CA (Civ Div)
Gillett v Peppercorne (1840) 3 Beav 78
Gillman v Gillman (1946) 174 L.T. 272
Gisborne v Burton [1989] Q.B. 390; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 921 CA
(Civ Div)
Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41; [2010] 4 All E.R. 851;
[2010] I.C.R. 1475; [2010] I.R.L.R. 1073; (2010) 160 N.L.J.
1457; (2010) 154(39) S.J.L.B. 30
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 C.L.R. 101 HC (Aus)
Giuseppe di Vittorio, The. See Bridge Oil Ltd v Owners and/or
Demise Charterers of the Ship Giuseppe di Vittorio (No.1)
(The Giuseppe di Vittorio)
GKN Centrax Gears Ltd v Matbro Ltd [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
555; (1976) 120 S.J. 401 CA (Civ Div)
GKN Distributors, Ltd v Tyne Tees Fabrication, Ltd (1985) 50 P.
& C.R. 403; [1985] 2 E.G.L.R. 181 Ch D
Glacier Bay, The. See West of England Shipowners Mutual
Insurance Association (Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd (The
Glacier Bay)
Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor
[2013] EWCA Civ 1466; [2014] C.P. Rep. 13; [2014]
P.N.L.R. 11; [2013] 47 E.G. 128 (C.S.)
Glafki Shipping Co SA v Pinios Shipping Co (The Maira (No.2)
[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 12 HL
Glaholm v Hays (1841) 2 Man. & G. 257
Glamorgan Coal Co v South Wales Miners’ Federation. See
South Wales Miners Federation v Glamorgan Coal Co Ltd
Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan CC; sub nom Glamorgan CC v
Glasbrook Bros Ltd [1925] A.C. 270 HL
Glasgow & South Western Ry Co v Boyd & Forrest (A Firm)
(No.3); sub nom Boyd & Forrest (A Firm) v Glasgow &
South Western Ry Co (No.3), [1915] A.C. 526; 1915 S.C.
(H.L.) 20 HL
Glazebrook v Woodrow (1799) 8 T.R. 366
Glebe Island Terminals Pty v Continental Seagram Pty (The
Antwerpen) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213 CA (NSW)
Gledhow Autoparts v Delaney [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1366; [1965] 3
All E.R. 288 CA (Civ Div)
Glegg v Bromley [1912] 3 K.B. 474 CA
Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Cirrus Oil Services Ltd [2014]
EWHC 87 (Comm); [2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 513; [2014]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1
Glencore Grain Ltd v Agros Trading Co Ltd; sub nom Agros
Trading Co Ltd v Glencore Grain Ltd [1999] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 288; [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 410 CA (Civ Div)
Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd (The Happy Day);
sub nom Flacker Shipping Ltd v Glencore Grain Ltd (The
Happy Day) [2002] EWCA Civ 1068; [2002] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 896; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 487
Glencore Grain Ltd v Goldbeam Shipping Inc (The Mass
Glory); Goldbeam Shipping Inc v Navios International Inc
(The Mass Glory) [2002] EWHC 27; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
9–109, 9–121
8–084
11–035
1–007, 18–006
3–093
20–103, 20–106, 20–107
18–027
13–014
19–071, 19–115
18–043, 18–044, 18–103
3–046
9–113
18–030
3–054
11–075, 21–062
15–025, 15–059
2–017, 7–017
15–039
3–066, 4–024, 18–082, 18–087, 18–088
20–100
244 QBD (Comm)
Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Lebanese Organisation for
17–026, 17–027, 17–062, 17–063, 18–011
International Commerce (The Lorico) [1997] 4 All E.R. 514;
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 386 CA (Civ Div)
Glencore International AG v Metro Trading International Inc
15–038
(No.1); Metro Trading International Inc v Itochu Petroleum
Co (S) PTE Ltd (No.1) [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 899;
[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 632 QBD (Comm)
Glencore International AG v Ryan (The Beursgracht) (No.1);
18–054
Glencore International AG v Ryan (The Beursgracht) (No.2)
[2001] EWCA Civ 2051; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 574; [2002]
Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 335
Glendarroch, The [1894] P. 226 CA
7–022
Glentree Estates Ltd v Favermead Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1473;
16–086
[2011] 1 E.G.L.R. 23; [2011] 11 E.G. 104; [2011] 1 P. &
C.R. DG20
Glessing v Green [1975] 1 W.L.R. 863; [1975] 2 All E.R. 696
3–173
CA (Civ Div)
Glidden v Hellenic Lines, 275 F. 2d. 253 (1960)
19–031
Gliksten & Son Ltd v State Assurance Co (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep.
2–093
604 KBD
Global Container Lines Ltd v State Black Sea Shipping Co
2–093
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 CA (Civ Div)
Glolite Ltd v Jasper Conran Ltd, Times, 28 January 1998 Ch D
18–064
Glory Wealth, The. See Flame SA v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte
Ltd
Glossop v Ashley [1922] 1 K.B. 1 CA
2–027
Gloucestershire CC v Richardson (t/a WJ Richardson & Son)
6–044
[1969] 1 A.C. 480; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 645HL
Gloyne v Richardson [2001] EWCA Civ 716; [2001] 2 B.C.L.C.
3–038, 3–095, 8–018
669
Gluckstein v Barnes; sub nom Olympia Ltd, Re [1900] A.C. 240
7–043
HL
Glyn v Weston Feature Film Co [1916] 1 Ch. 261 Ch D
11–044
Glynn v Margetson & Co; sub nom Margetson v Glynn [1893]
6–008, 7–030, 7–032
A.C. 351 HL
GN Ry v Swaffield. See Great Northern Ry Co v Swaffield
Godden v Merthyr Tydfil Housing Association [1997] N.P.C. 1;
3–099
(1997) 74 P. & C.R. D1 CA (Civ Div)
Godfrey Davis Ltd v Culling [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 349; (1962)
14–007
106 S.J. 918 CA
Godina v Patrick Operations Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 333
14–065
CA (NSW)
Godley v Perry [1960] 1 W.L.R. 9; [1960] 1 All E.R. 36 QBD
20–085
Godson, Gent. v Good, Administratrix of S Good (1816) 128
13–009
E.R. 1163; (1816) 6 Taunt. 587 CCP
Godwin v Francis (1869–70) L.R. 5 C.P. 295 CCP
5–023, 20–118
Gogay v Hertfordshire CC [2000] I.R.L.R. 703; [2001] 1 F.L.R.
20–083, 20–085
280 CA (Civ Div)
Goker (Ali) v NWS Bank [1990] C.C.L.R. 34 QBD
20–151
Gold Group Properties Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2010] EWHC
2–101, 18–073
1632 (TCC)
Goldcorp Exchange Ltd (In Receivership), Re; sub nom
Kensington v Liggett; Goldcorp Finance Ltd, Re [1995] 1
A.C. 74; [1994] 3 W.L.R. 199 PC (NZ)
Golden Bay Realty Pte v Orchard Twelve Investments Pte
[1991] 1 W.L.R. 981; (1991) 135 S.J.L.B. 92 PC (Sing)
Golden Bear, The. See Excomm v Guan Guan Shipping Pte Ltd
(The Golden Bear)
Golden Lake, The. See Fuji Electronics and Machinery
Enterprise v New Necca Shipping Corp (The Golden Lake)
Golden Leader, The. See Mineralimportexport v Eastern
Mediterranean Maritime Ltd (The Golden Leader)
Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd
[2012] EWCA Civ 265; [2012] 1 W.L.R. 3674; [2012] 3 All
E.R. 842; [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 978; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 542; [2012] 1 C.L.C. 497; [2012] C.I.L.L. 3161; (2012)
162 N.L.J. 425
Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The
Golden Victory) [2007] UKHL 12; [2007] 2 A.C. 353;
[2007] 2 W.L.R. 691; [2007] 3 All E.R. 1; [2007] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 97; [2007] Bus. L.R. 997; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
164; [2007] 1 C.L.C. 352; (2007) 157 N.L.J. 518; (2007) 151
S.J.L.B. 468
Golden Victory, The. See Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen
Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory)
Goldman Sachs International v Videocon Global Ltd [2013]
EWHC 2843 (Comm)
Goldshede v Swan (1847) 1 Ex. 154
Goldsmith v Bruning (1700) 1 Eq.Ca.Abr. 89
Goldsmith v Rodger [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 249 CA
Goldsoll v Goldman [1915] 1 Ch. 292 CA
Goldsworthy v Brickell [1987] Ch. 378; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 133
CA (Civ Div)
Goman v Salisbury (1648) 1 Vern. 240
Gompertz v Bartlett (1853) 2 E. & B. 849
Gonthier v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ
873
Good, Ex p. See Armitage Ex p. Good, Re
Good v Cheesman (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 328
Good Friend, The. See Empresa Cubana Importadora de
Alimentos Alimport v Iasmos Shipping Co SA (The Good
Friend)
Good Helmsman, The. See Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi
Europe Line Ltd (The Good Helmsman)
Good Luck, The. See Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual
War Risk Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Good Luck)
Goodchild v Bradbury [2006] EWCA Civ 1868; [2007]
W.T.L.R. 463
Goode v Harrison (1821) 5 B. & Ald. 147
Goode Durrant Administration v Biddulph [1994] 2 F.L.R. 551;
[1995] 1 F.C.R. 196 Ch D
Goodinson v Goodinson [1954] 2 Q.B. 118; [1954] 2 W.L.R.
19–094, 19–093, 22–003
20–130
5–023, 5–025, 5–028, 6–005
17–081, 20–079, 20–080, 20–081
17–004
3–018
11–042
9–098
11–163, 11–164
10–024, 10–032
5–030
8–015
3–127
3–109
10–028
12–020
10–040
3–154, 11–155
1121 CA
Goodman v Chase (1818) 1 B. & Ald. 297
Goodman v J Eban Ltd [1954] 1 Q.B. 550; [1954] 2 W.L.R. 581
CA
Goodman v Pocock (1850) 15 Q.B. 576
Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service [1996] 1 W.L.R.
1397; [1996] 2 All E.R. 161; [1996] 2 F.L.R. 55; [1996] 2
F.C.R. 680; [1996] P.I.Q.R. P197; [1996] 7 Med. L.R. 129;
(1996) 31 B.M.L.R. 83; (1996) 93(5) L.S.G. 31; (1996) 146
N.L.J. 173; (1996) 140 S.J.L.B. 37 CA (Civ Div)
Gordon, Re; Lloyds Bank and Parratt v Lloyd and Gordon
[1940] Ch. 851 Ch D
Gordon v Commr of Police of the Metropolis [1910] 2 K.B.
1080 CA
Gordon v Selico Ltd (1986) 18 H.L.R. 219; [1986] 1 E.G.L.R.
71; (1986) 278 E.G. 53 CA (Civ Div)
Gordon v Street [1899] 2 Q.B. 641 CA
Gordon Hill Trust Ltd v Segall [1941] 2 All E.R. 379 CA
Gore v Gibson (1843) 13 M. & W. 623
Gore v Van der Lann; sub nom Gore v Van der Lann Corp of
Liverpool (Interveners) [1967] 2 Q.B. 31; [1967] 2 W.L.R.
358; [1967] 1 All E.R. 360; [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 145; 65
L.G.R. 94; (1966) 110 S.J. 928 CA
Gorham v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] 1 W.L.R.
2129; [2000] 4 All E.R. 867; [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 531;
[2000] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 897; [2001] P.N.L.R. 2; [2000]
Pens. L.R. 293; (2000) 97(38) L.S.G. 44; (2000) 144
S.J.L.B. 251 CA (Civ Div)
Goring, The [1988] A.C. 831; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 460 HL
Gorne v Scales [2006] EWCA Civ 311
Gorringe v Irwell India Rubber and Gutta Percha Works (1887)
L.R. 34 Ch. D. 128 CA
Gorse v Durham CC [1971] 1 W.L.R. 775; [1971] 2 All E.R. 666
DC
Gosbell v Archer (1835) 1 A. & E. 500
Goshawk Dedicated Ltd v Tyser & Co Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ
54; [2006] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 501; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
566 CA
Gosling v Anderson (1972) 223 E.G. 1743 CA (Civ Div)
Goss v Chilcott [1996] A.C. 788; [1996] 3 W.L.R. 180 PC (NZ)
Goss v Nugent (1835) 5 B. & Ad. 58
Goulden v Wilson Barca (A Firm); sub nom Wilson Barca (A
Firm) v Goulden [2000] 1 W.L.R. 167; (1999) 96(31) L.S.G.
35 CA (Civ Div)
Goulston Discount Co v Clark [1967] 2 Q.B. 493; [1966] 3
W.L.R. 1280 CA
Graanhandel T Vink BV v European Grain & Shipping Ltd
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 531 QBD (Comm)
Grace Rymer Investments v Waite [1958] Ch. 831; [1958] 3
W.L.R. 337 CA
Graham v Johnson (1869) L.R. 8 Eq. 36, Ct of Chancery
Graham v Pitkin [1992] 1 W.L.R. 403; [1992] 2 All E.R. 235 PC
5–015
5–008
22–001
9–029, 14–053, 17–069
14–082, 14–086
11–151
9–028, 9–137
9–020, 15–055
9–036
12–062
3–004, 3–108, 4–028, 14–038, 14–059,
14–069
14–053
16–035
20–080
15–021
17–073, 18–037
5–023
3–169, 4–003
9–047, 9–048
22–003, 22–004
5–032, 5–033
3–045
13–012
16–037
11–146
15–040
2–108, 18–100
(UK)
Graham & Scott (Southgate) Ltd v Oxlade [1950] 2 K.B. 257;
[1950] 1 All E.R. 856 CA
Grainger & Son v Gough (Surveyor of Taxes) [1896] A.C. 325
HL
Grains & Fourrages SA v Huyton [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 628
QBD (Comm)
Graiseley Properties Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc. See Deutsche
Bank AG v Unitech Global Ltd
Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd [1992] Ch. 560; [1992]
2 W.L.R. 867; [1992] 1 All E.R. 865; [1992] 1 E.G.L.R. 297;
[1991] E.G. 136 (C.S.); (1992) 142 N.L.J. 51 Ch D
Grand Metropolitan Plc v William Hill Group Ltd [1997] 1
B.C.L.C. 390 Ch D
Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v Robinson [1915] A.C. 740 PC
(Can)
Grandi v Le Sage, 399 P.2d 285 (1965)
Grange v Quinn [2013] EWCA Civ 24; [2013] 1 P. & C.R. 18;
[2013] 2 E.G.L.R. 198
Grant v Bragg [2009] EWCA Civ 1228; [2010] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 1166
Grant v Cigman; sub nom Grant v Lapid Developments Ltd
[1996] B.C.C. 410; [1996] 2 B.C.L.C. 24 Ch D
Grant v Dawkins [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1406; [1973] 3 All E.R. 897
Ch D
Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch. 638; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 114 CA (Civ
Div)
Grant v Secretary of State for India in Council (1876–77) L.R. 2
C.P.D. 445, CPD
Grant v United Kingdom Switchback Railways Co (1889) L.R.
40 Ch. D. 135 CA
Granville Oil & Chemicals Ltd v Davies Turner & Co Ltd; sub
nom Granville Oils & Chemicals Ltd v Davis Turner & Co
Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 570; [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 819;
[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 356
Graves v Graves [2007] EWCA Civ 660; [2008] H.L.R. 10
Graves v Legg (1857) 2 H. & N. 210
Gray v Barr [1971] 2 Q.B. 554; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1334 CA (Civ
Div)
Gray v Mathias (1800) 5 Ves. 286
Gray v Pearson (1869–70) L.R. 5 C.P. 568 CCP
Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33; [2009] 1 A.C.
1339; [2009] 3 W.L.R. 167; [2009] 4 All E.R. 81; [2009]
P.I.Q.R. P22; [2009] LS Law Medical 409; (2009) 108
B.M.L.R. 205; [2009] M.H.L.R. 73; [2009] Po. L.R. 229;
(2009) 159 N.L.J. 925; (2009) 153(24) S.J.L.B. 33
Gray (Deceased), Re. See Allardyce v Roebuck
Greasley v Cooke [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1306; [1980] 3 All E.R. 710;
(1980) 124 S.J. 629 CA (Civ Div)
Great Creation, The. See Maestro Bulk Ltd v Cosco Bulk Carrier
Co Ltd
Great Eastern Shipping Co Ltd v Far East Chartering Ltd; sub
16–088
2–011
3–038, 8–011
9–028, 9–042, 9–044, 9–065
8–064
7–044
20–019
20–028
2–089
17–026
20–073, 20–118, 21–063, 21–064
3–131, 3–133, 3–134
1–007
12–070
7–055, 7–076, 7–079
8–006, 8–022
16–020
11–025
11–044
14–010
11–023, 11–025, 11–170
3–131,3–133,3–134, 3–139
2–048, 11–026, 14–092, 14–109
nom The Jag Ravi [2012] EWCA Civ 180; [2012] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 707; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 637; [2012] 1 C.L.C.
427
Great Elephant Corp v Trafigura Beheer BV [2013] EWCA Civ
905; [2013] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 992; [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
1; [2013] 2 C.L.C. 185
Great Estates Group Ltd v Digby [2011] EWCA Civ 1120;
[2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 361; [2011] 3 E.G.L.R. 101;
[2011] 43 E.G. 104 (C.S.); [2011] N.P.C. 102; [2012] 1 P. &
C.R. DG7
Great Marine, The. See Ateni Maritime Corp v Great Marine Ltd
(The Great Marine (No.1))
Great Northern Ry Co v Swaffield (1873–74) L.R. 9 Ex. 132, Ex
Ct
Great Northern Ry Co v Witham (1873–74) L.R. 9 C.P. 16 CCP
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International)
Ltd; sub nom The Great Peace) [2002] EWCA Civ 1407;
[2003] Q.B. 679; [2002] 3 W.L.R. 1617; [2002] 4 All E.R.
689; [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 999; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
653; [2003] 2 C.L.C. 16; (2002) 99(43) L.S.G. 34; (2002)
152 N.L.J. 1616; [2002] N.P.C. 127
Great Peace, The. See Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris
Salvage (International) Ltd
Greater London Council v Connolly [1970] 2 Q.B. 100; [1970] 2
W.L.R. 658 CA (Civ Div)
Greater Nottingham Cooperative Society v Cementation Piling
& Foundations Ltd [1989] Q.B. 71; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 396 CA
(Civ Div)
Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle & Partners
[1975] 1 W.L.R. 1095; [1975] 3 All E.R. 99 CA (Civ Div)
Grecia Express, The. See Strive Shipping Corp v Hellenic
Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Grecia
Express)
Greek Fighter, The. See Ullises Shipping Corp v Fal Shipping
Co Ltd (The Greek Fighter)
Green v Horn (1693) Comb. 219
Green v Portsmouth Stadium [1953] 2 Q.B. 190; [1953] 2
W.L.R. 1206 CA
Green v Russell, McCarthy (Third Party) [1959] 2 Q.B. 226;
[1959] 3 W.L.R. 17 CA QBD
Green (A Bankrupt), Re; sub nom Green (A Bankrupt), Re, Ex p.
Official Receiver v Cutting [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1211; [1979] 1
All E.R. 832 Ch D
Greenalls Management Ltd v Canavan (No.2) [1998] Eu. L.R.
507; [1997] N.P.C. 128 CA (Civ Div)
Greenberg v Cooperstein [1926] Ch. 657 Ch D
Greenclose Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc [2014] EWHC
1156 (Ch); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 169; [2014] 2 B.C.L.C.
486; [2014] 1 C.L.C. 562; (2014) 158(17) S.J.L.B. 37
Greene v Church Commrs for England [1974] Ch. 467; [1974] 3
W.L.R. 349 CA (Civ Div)
Greene King Plc v Quisine Restaurants Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ
19–075
16–086, 16–089
16–038, 16–112
2–022, 2–051
8–002, 8–003, 8–004, 8–005, 8–006, 8–
007, 8–013, 8–014, 8–016, 8–017, 8–
018, 8–020, 8–026, 8–028, 8–029, 8–
030, 8–031, 8–049, 19–042, 19–093,
19–115, 19–121, 19–122, 19–123
2–081
14–006, 14–046, 20–123
17–069
14–016, 14–131
11–133
14–016, 14–082, 14–085, 14–088
15–015
11–092
11–008, 11–112
2–034, 6–042
3–034, 3–160
18–054
698; [2012] 2 E.G.L.R. 64; [2012] 33 E.G. 49
Greene Wood & McClean LLP v Templeton Insurance Ltd
[2009] EWCA Civ 65; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 2013; [2009] C.P.
Rep. 24; [2009] 1 C.L.C. 123; [2009] I.L.Pr. 46; [2009]
Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 505; (2009) 106(8) L.S.G. 17
Greenhalgh v Mallard [1947] 2 All E.R. 255 CA
Greenmast Shipping Co SA v Jean Lion et Cie (The Saronikos)
[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277 QBD (Comm)
Greenwich Marine Inc v Federal Commerce & Navigation Co
Ltd (The Mavro Vetranic) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 580 QBD
(Comm)
Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd v Essex Services Group Plc
(formerly Essex Electrical Group Ltd) [2014] EWCA Civ
960; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 3517; 156 Con. L.R. 1; [2014] 3
E.G.L.R. 111
Greenwood v Bennett [1973] Q.B. 195; [1972] 3 W.L.R. 691 CA
(Civ Div)
Greenwood v Greenwood (1863) 1 D.J. & S. 28
Greenwood v Martins Bank Ltd [1933] A.C. 51 HL
Greer v Downs Supply Co [1927] 2 K.B. 28 CA
Gregory v Ford [1951] 1 All E.R. 121 Assizes (Nottingham)
Gregory v Wallace [1998] I.R.L.R. 387 CA (Civ Div)
Gregory v Wilson (1851) 9 Hare 683
Gregos, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 347 QBD (Adm)
Gregos, The (1994). See Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni
Maritime Corp (The Gregos)
Greig v Insole; World Series Cricket Pty v Insole [1978] 1
W.L.R. 302; [1978] 3 All E.R. 449 Ch D
Grey v IRC; sub nom Grey and Randolph (Hunter’s Nominees)
v IRC [1960] A.C. 1; [1959] 3 W.L.R. 759; [1959] 3 All
E.R. 603 HL
Griffin, Re; sub nom Griffin v Griffin [1899] 1 Ch. 408 Ch D
Griffin v UHY Hacker Young & Partners [2010] EWHC 146
(Ch)
Griffin v Weatherby (1867–68) L.R. 3 Q.B. 753 QB
Griffith v Brymer (1903) 19 T.L.R. 434
Griffith v Tower Publishing Co Ltd [1897] 1 Ch. 21 Ch D
Griffith v Young (1810) 104 E.R. 201; (1810) 12 East 513 KB
Griffiths v Secretary of State for Social Services [1974] Q.B.
468; [1973] 3 W.L.R. 831 QBD
Griffiths v Williams [1978] E.G. Digest of Cases 919
Griffon Shipping LLC v Firodi Shipping Ltd (The Griffon)
[2013] EWCA Civ 1567; [2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 593;
[2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 471; [2014] 1 C.L.C. 1
Griffon, The. See Griffon Shipping LLC v Firodi Shipping Ltd
(The Griffon)
Grimsdick v Sweetman [1909] 2 K.B. 740 KBD
Grimstead (EA) & Son Ltd v McGarrigan [1999] All ER (D)
1163; [1998–99] Info. T.L.R. 384 CA (Civ Div)
Grindell v Bass [1920] 2 Ch. 487 Ch D
Griparion, The. See Tharros Shipping Co Ltd v Bias Shipping
Ltd (The Griparion (No.2))
6–035, 6–037
14–138
2–004, 22–020
18–044, 18–053
7–034
16–039, 22–012
9–153
16–028, 16–046
16–059
6–043, 11–025
20–120
21–045
22–020
11–072, 11–084, 11–090
15–016
15–028
11–022, 11–023
15–004
8–003, 8–007, 8–014, 19–121
15–053
11–151
15–052
3–139, 3–144
20–154
19–050
9–126
5–024, 16–009
Grist v Bailey [1967] Ch. 532; [1966] 3 W.L.R. 618 Ch D
Grogan v Robin Meredith Plant Hire [1996] C.L.C. 1127; 53
Con. L.R. 87 CA (Civ Div)
Groom v Crocker [1939] 1 K.B. 194; (1938) 60 Ll. L. Rep. 393
CA
Gross v Lewis Hillman Ltd [1970] Ch. 445; [1969] 3 W.L.R.
787 CA (Civ Div)
Grossman v Hooper [2001] EWCA Civ 615; [2001] 3 F.C.R.
662
Grosvenor Casinos Ltd v National Bank of Abu Dhabi [2008]
EWHC 511 (Comm); [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep
Group Josi Re Co SA v Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd; sub nom
Group Josi Re (formerly Group Josi Reassurance SA) v
Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd; Deutsche Ruckversicherung
AG v Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1152;
[1996] 1 All E.R. 791; [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 345 CA (Civ
Div)
8–006, 8–028
7–004
20–084, 20–090
9–010, 9–029
5–009
14–009
9–026, 11–129, 21–054
Groveholt Ltd v Hughes [2010] EWCA Civ 538
6–033
Grover & Grover Ltd v Mathews [1910] 2 K.B. 401 KBD
16–049
Grow With Us Ltd v Green Thumb (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ
2–092
1201
Gruber v Bay Wa AG (C–464/01) [2006] Q.B. 204; [2006] 2
7–101, 23–007
W.L.R. 205; [2005] E.C.R. I–439 ECJ
Gryf-Lowczowski v Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust
19–023, 21–037
[2005] EWHC 2407; [2006] I.C.R. 425; [2006] I.R.L.R. 100
QBD
Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Hannay & Co [1918] 2 K.B.
3–159
623 CA
Guardian Ocean Cargoes Ltd v Banco do Brasil SA (The Golden
17–008, 20–147
Med (No.1)) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 152; [1994] C.L.C. 243
CA (Civ Div)
Guardians of Pontypridd Union v Drew; sub nom Pontypridd
12–008, 12–060
Union Guardians v Drew [1927] 1 K.B. 214 CA
Gudermes, The (1985). See Cedar Trading Co Ltd v Transworld
Oil Ltd (The Gudermes)
Gudermes, The (1993). See Mitsui & Co Ltd v Novorossiysk
Shipping Co (The Gudermes)
Guido van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Ltd [2010] 20–015, 20–016, 20–046, 20–059, 20–091,
EWHC 2373 (QB)
22–004
Guild & Co v Conrad [1894] 2 Q.B. 885 CA
5–015
Guildford v Lockyer [1975] Crim. L.R. 235; (1975) 119 S.J. 353
2–011
DC
Guinness Mahon & Co Ltd v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC
3–007, 12–082, 22–015, 22–017, 22–018
[1999] Q.B. 215; [1998] 3 W.L.R. 829 CA (Civ Div)
Guinness Peat Aviation (Belgium) NV v Hispania Lineas Aereas
14–140
SA [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 190 QBD (Comm)
Guinness Plc v Saunders; Guinness v Ward [1990] 2 A.C. 663;
9–110, 22–024
[1990] 2 W.L.R. 324 HL
Gul Bottlers (PVT) Ltd v Nichols Plc [2014] EWHC 2173
20–069, 20–117
(Comm)
Gulf Agri Trade FZCO v Aston Agro Industrial AG [2008]
18–038
EWHC 1252 (Comm); [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 376
GulfAzov Shipping Co Ltd v Chief idisi (No.2); United
Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association
(Bermuda) Ltd v Lonestar Drilling Nigeria Ltd; Gulf Azov
Shipping Co Ltd v Lonestar Drilling Nigeria Ltd; United
Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association
(Bermuda) Ltd v Lonestar Overseas Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ
505; [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 673; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
727
Gulf Shipping Lines Ltd v Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba (The
Matija Gubec) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 31 QBD (Comm)
Gulf Steel Co Ltd v Al Khalifa Shipping Co Ltd (The Anwar Al
Sabar) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 261 QBD (Comm)
Gunn’s Case. See Universal Banking Corp, Re
10–003
18–095
2–012
Gunton v Richmond upon Thames LBC [1981] Ch. 448; [1980] 16–104, 17–054, 17–082, 18–006, 18–009,
3 W.L.R. 714 CA (Civ Div)
18–012, 21–036
Guppys (Bridport) Ltd v Brookling; Guppys (Bridport) Ltd v
20–019
James (1984) 14 H.L.R. 1; (1984) 269 E.G. 846 CA (Civ
Div)
Gurney v Womersley (1854) 4 E. & B. 133
8–015
Gurtner v Beaton [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 369 CA (Civ Div)
16–022
Gurtner v Circuit [1968] 2 Q.B. 587; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 668 CA
14–042, 14–130, 21–046, 21–050
(Civ Div)
GUS Property Management Ltd v Littlewoods Mail Order Stores
15–045, 15–060
Ltd; sub nom J Dykes Ltd v Littlewoods Mail Order Stores
Ltd, 1982 S.C. (H.L.) 157; 1982 S.L.T. 533 HL
GW Atkins Ltd v Scott, 46 Con. L.R. 14 CA (Civ Div)
20–041, 20–043
GW Plowman & Son Ltd v Ash; sub nom Plowman (GW) &
11–071, 11–071, 11–075, 11–078
Son v Ash [1964] 1 W.L.R. 568; [1964] 2 All E.R. 10 CA
GX Networks Ltd v Greenland [2010] EWCA Civ 784; [2010]
2–096
I.R.L.R. 991
Gylbert v Fletcher (1630) Cro.Car. 179
12–016
Gyllenhammar & Partners International Ltd v Sour
2–109, 21–043
Brodogradevna Industrija [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 403 QBD
(Comm)
H Dakin & Co v Lee; sub nom Dakin & Co v Lee [1916] 1 K.B.
17–037, 17–040
566 CA
H Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd [1978]
17–066, 17–068, 20–103, 20–112
Q.B. 791; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 990 CA (Civ Div)
H West & Son Ltd v Shephard; sub nom Shepherd v H West &
20–085
Son Ltd [1964] A.C. 326; [1963] 2 W.L.R. 1359 HL
HA Brightman & Co v Bunge y Born Limitada Sociedad; sub
19–054
nom Brightman & Co v Bunge y Born Limitada Sociedad;
Bunge y Born Limitada Sociedad v HA Brightman & Co
[1925] A.C. 799; (1925) 22 Ll. L. Rep. 395 HL
Habib Bank Ltd v Tufail [2006] EWCA Civ 374; [2006] 2 P. &
3–080, 9–116, 18–087
C.R. DG14
Habibsons Bank Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong)
15–003
Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1335; [2011] Q.B. 943; [2011] 2
W.L.R. 1165; [2011] Bus. L.R. 692
Habton Farms v Nimmo; sub nom Nimmo v Habton Farms
6–078, 20–071, 20–074
[2003] EWCA Civ 68; [2004] Q.B. 11
Hackett v Crown Prosecution Service [2011] EWHC 1170
10–024, 10–028
(Admin); [2011] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C. 371
Hadley Design Associates Ltd v Westminster City Council
[2003] EWHC 1617; [2004] T.C.L.R. 1 QBD (TCC)
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 E.R. 145; (1854) 9 Ex. 341 Ex
Ct
Hadley v Kemp [1999] E.M.L.R. 589 Ch D
Hagedorn v Bazett (1813) 2 M. & S. 100
Hagedorn v Oliverson (1814) 2 M. & S. 485
Haig v Aitken [2001] Ch. 110; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1117 Ch D
Haigh v Brooks (1839) 10 Ad. & El. 309
Hain Steamship Co v Tate & Lyle Ltd. See Tate & Lyle Ltd v
Hain Steamship Co Ltd
Halbot v Lens [1901] 1 Ch. 344 Ch D
Halcyon Skies, The. See Powell v Owners of the Proceeds of
Sale of the Halcyon Skies (No.1)
Halcyon the Great, The. See Court Line v Gotaverken AB (The
Halcyon the Great)
Halifax Building Society v Edell [1992] Ch. 436; [1992] 3
W.L.R. 136 Ch D
Halifax Financial Services Ltd v Intuitive Systems Ltd [1999] 1
All E.R. (Comm) 303; (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 35 QBD
Halkett v Earl of Dudley [1907] 1 Ch. 590 Ch D
Halki Shipping Corp v Sopex Oils Ltd (The Halki) [1998] 1
W.L.R. 726; [1998] 2 All E.R. 23 CA (Civ Div)
Halki, The. See Halki Shipping Corp v Sopex Oils Ltd (The
Halki)
Hall, Ex p. See Whitting Ex p. Hall, Re
Hall v Meyrick [1957] 2 Q.B. 455; [1957] 3 W.L.R. 273 CA
Hall v North Eastern Ry Co (1874–75) L.R. 10 Q.B. 437 QBD
Hall v Palmer (1844) 3 Hare 532
Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd [2001] 1 W.L.R. 225; [2000] 4
All E.R. 787 CA (Civ Div)
Halley v Law Society [2003] EWCA Civ 97; [2003] W.T.L.R.
845
Halpern v Halpern [2007] EWCA Civ 291; [2008] Q.B. 195;
[2007] 3 W.L.R. 849; [2007] 3 All E.R. 478; [2007] 2 All
E.R. (Comm) 330; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 56; [2007] 1
C.L.C. 527
Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch. 169; [1957] 2 W.L.R. 123 Ch D
Hamble Fisheries Ltd v L Gardner & Sons Ltd (The Rebecca
Elaine) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; (1999) 15 Const. L.J. 152
CA (Civ Div)
Hamed el Chiaty & Co (t/a Travco Nile Cruise Lines) v Thomas
Cook Group Ltd (The Nile Rhapsody) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
382; [1994] I.L.Pr. 367 CA (Civ Div)
Hamer v Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538 (1881)
Hamid (t/a Hamid Properties) v Francis Bradshaw Partnership
[2013] EWCA Civ 470; [2013] B.L.R. 447; 148 Con. L.R.
205
Hamilton, Re (1921) 124 L.T. 737
Hamilton v Spottiswoode (1842) 4 Ex. 200
7–065, 7–067, 18–069
7–017, 20–051, 20–060, 20–099, 20–102,
20–107, 20–108, 20–110, 20–111, 20–
118
2–085, 3–010, 4–016
13–028
16–046
15–074
3–013, 3–037
16–080
4–024
11–050
21–048
11–050
20–059
14–058
3–170, 11–044
11–115
11–151
9–109, 9–110, 10–003, 10–012, 10–037
15–081
14–048
3–099, 6–030, 8–059
2–051
6–020
15–019
15–004
Hamilton Jones v David & Snape (A Firm) [2003] EWHC 3147;
[2004] 1 W.L.R. 924 Ch D
Hamlyn & Co v Wood & Co [1891] 2 Q.B. 488 CA
Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Top Shop Centres Ltd;
Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Glassgrove [1990] Ch.
237; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 643 Ch D
Hammond v Osborn [2002] EWCA Civ 885; [2002] W.T.L.R.
1125
Hammond & Co v Bussey (1888) L.R. 20 Q.B.D. 79 CA
Hampshire CC v Supportways Social Services Ltd. See R. (on
the application of Supportways Community Services Ltd) v
Hampshire CC
Hampstead & Suburban Properties Ltd v Diomedous (No.1)
[1969] 1 Ch. 248; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 990 Ch D
Hampton & Sons Ltd v George [1939] 3 All E.R. 627 KBD
Hamsard 3147 Ltd (t/a Mini Mode Childrenswear) v Boots UK
Ltd [2013] EWHC 3251 (Pat)
Hancock v BW Brazier (Anerley) Ltd [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1317;
[1966] 2 All E.R. 901 CA
Hands v Slaney (1800) 8 T.R. 578
Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd v Zenith Chartering Corp (The
Mercedes Envoy) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 QBD (Comm)
Hannah Blumenthal, The. See Paal Wilson & Co A/S v
Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal (The Hannah
Blumenthal)
Hannam v Bradford Corp; sub nom Hannam v Bradford City
Council [1970] 1 W.L.R. 937; [1970] 2 All E.R. 690 CA
(Civ Div)
Hannan’s Empress Gold Mining & Development Co, Re; sub
nom Carmichael’s Case [1896] 2 Ch. 643 CA
Hanover Insurance Brokers Ltd v Schapiro [1994] I.R.L.R. 82
CA (Civ Div)
Hansa Nord, The. See Cehave NV v Bremer Handels GmbH
Hanson v Royden (1867–68) L.R. 3 C.P. 47 CCP
Happy Day, The. See Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd
(The Happy Day)
Happy Ranger, The. See Parsons Corp v CV
Scheepvaartonderneming Happy Ranger
Haq v Island Homes Housing Association [2011] EWCA Civ
805; [2011] 2 P. & C.R. 17; [2011] 30 E.G. 56 (C.S.); [2011]
N.P.C. 77
Harbinger UK Ltd v GE Information Services Ltd [2000] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 166; (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 463; [2000] I.T.C.L.R.
501 CA (Civ Div)
Harbour Assurance Co (UK) Ltd v Kansa General International
Insurance Co Ltd [1993] Q.B. 701; [1993] 3 W.L.R. 42 CA
(Civ Div)
Harburg India Rubber Comb Co v Martin [1902] 1 K.B. 778 CA
Harbutt’s Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd; sub
nom Harbutts Plasticine v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd
[1970] 1 Q.B. 447; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 198 CA (Civ Div)
Harding v Harding (1886) L.R. 17 Q.B.D. 442 QBD
20–087
6–041
3–131, 3–133
10–020, 10–027, 10–029
20–118
21–054
2–056, 16–091
6–042
17–066
12–004
2–079, 4–015, 19–033
14–008
16–112
11–075
3–052
3–127, 4–011
18–018, 19–037
11–111, 11–112
5–017
7–023, 7–026, 7–031, 18–005, 20–007
15–013, 15–026, 15–029
Hardman v Booth (1863) 1 Hurl. & C. 803
Hardwick v Johnson [1978] 1 W.L.R. 683; [1978] 2 All E.R. 935
CA (Civ Div)
Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural, etc. Association.
See Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd
Hardy v Elphick [1974] Ch. 65; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 824 CA (Civ
Div)
Hardy v Haselden [2011] EWCA Civ 1387; [2011] N.P.C. 122
Hardy v Motor Insurers Bureau [1964] 2 Q.B. 745; [1964] 3
W.L.R. 433 CA
Hare v Murphy Bros [1974] 3 All E.R. 940; [1974] I.C.R. 603
CA (Civ Div)
Hare v Nicholl. See Hare v Nicoll
Hare v Nicoll; sub nom Hare v Nicholl [1966] 2 Q.B. 130;
[1966] 2 W.L.R. 441 CA
Hargreaves Transport Ltd v Lynch [1969] 1 W.L.R. 215; [1969]
1 All E.R. 455 CA (Civ Div)
Harling v Eddy [1951] 2 K.B. 739; [1951] 2 All E.R. 212 CA
Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine
Art Ltd [1991] 1 Q.B. 564; [1990] 3 W.L.R. 13; [1990] 1 All
E.R. 737 CA (Civ Div)
Harlow and Jones v American Express Bank and CreditanstaltBankverein [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 343 QBD (Comm)
Harlow and Jones Ltd v Panex (International) Ltd [1967] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 509; (1967) 118 N.L.J. 38 QBD (Comm)
Harmer v Armstrong [1934] Ch. 65 CA
Harmer v Cornelius (1858) 5 C.B.(N.S.) 236
Harmony Shipping Co SA v Davis; Harmony Shipping Co SA v
Saudi Europe Line Ltd; Harmony Shipping Co SA v Orri (t/a
Saudi Europe Line Ltd) [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1380; [1979] 3 All
E.R. 177 CA (Civ Div)
Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi Europe Line Ltd (The Good
Helmsman) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 377; (1979) 123 S.J. 691
CA (Civ Div)
Harold Wood Brick Co Ltd v Ferris [1935] 2 K.B. 198 CA
Harper & Co v Vigers Bros [1909] 2 K.B. 549 KBD
Harries v Edmonds (1845) 1 Car. & K. 686
Harriette N, The. See Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy
Services LP (The Harriette N)
Harrington v Kent CC [1980] I.R.L.R. 353 EAT
Harris v Carter (1854) 3 E. & B. 559
Harris v Sheffield United Football Club Ltd; sub nom Sheffield
United Football Club v South Yorkshire Police Authority
[1988] Q.B. 77; [1987] 3 W.L.R. 305 CA (Civ Div)
Harris v Watson (1791) Peake 102
Harris’ Case (1872) L.R. 7 Ch.App. 587
Harrison v Battye [1975] 1 W.L.R. 58; [1974] 3 All E.R. 830 CA
(Civ Div)
Harrison v Black Horse Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1128; [2012]
E.C.C. 7; [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 521; [2011] C.T.L.C. 105;
(2011) 155(39) S.J.L.B. 31
Harrison v Bloom Camillin (No.2) [2000] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 89;
8–038
3–114, 4–018
5–024
5–005
11–025, 14–130
18–006
18–076, 18–103, 18–105
2–109, 18–103, 18–105
7–006, 7–041, 18–046, 20–040, 22–012
7–056, 8–015, 8–018, 8–020, 9–012, 9–
051, 9–055, 18–044
6–050
20–070, 20–117
14–085
6–043
11–046
2–075, 2–092, 6–023
18–103
16–072
20–117
19–084
3–048
3–046
3–048, 11–036
2–014, 2–035
2–019, 4–010
10–047
20–024, 20–059
[2001] P.N.L.R. 7 Ch D
Harrison v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts Ltd [1922] 1 K.B. 211
CA
Harrison v Shepherd Homes Ltd [2011] EWHC 1811 (TCC);
(2011) 27 Const. L.J. 709
Harrison & Jones v Bunten & Lancaster [1953] 1 Q.B. 646;
[1953] 2 W.L.R. 840 QBD
Harrison (T&J) v Knowles [1918] 1 K.B. 608 CA
Harriss v Fawcett (1872–73) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 866 CA in
Chancery
Harrods Ltd v Lemon [1931] 2 K.B. 157; 80 A.L.R. 1067 CA
Harrop v Thompson [1975] 1 W.L.R. 545; [1975] 2 All E.R. 94
Ch D
Harry Parker Ltd v Mason [1940] 2 K.B. 590 CA
Harse v Pearl Life Assurance Co [1904] 1 K.B. 558 CA
Hart v Burbidge [2014] EWCA Civ 992; [2014] W.T.L.R. 1361;
[2015] 1 P. & C.R. DG9
Hart v Hart (1881) 18 Ch.D. 670
Hart v Mills (1846) 15 L.J.Ex. 200
Hart v O’Connor [1985] A.C. 1000; [1985] 3 W.L.R. 214 PC
(NZ)
Hart (RN) v AR Marshall & Sons (Bulwell) [1977] 1 W.L.R.
1067; [1978] 2 All E.R. 413 EAT
Hartle v Laceys [1997] C.L.Y. 3839
Hartley v Hymans [1920] 3 K.B. 475 KBD
Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 7 E. & B. 872
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All E.R. 566
Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd
[1986] A.C. 207; [1985] 3 W.L.R. 276; [1985] 2 All E.R.
966; (1985) 82 L.S.G. 3171; (1985) 135 N.L.J. 730; (1985)
128 S.J. 522 HL
Harvey v Facey [1893] A.C. 552 PC (Jam)
Harvey v Johnston (1848) 6 C.B. 295
Harvey v O’Dell (RG), Galway, Third Party [1958] 2 Q.B. 78;
[1958] 2 W.L.R. 473 QBD
Harvey v Pratt [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1025; [1965] 2 All E.R. 786 CA
Harvey Shopfitters Ltd v ADI Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1757;
[2004] 2 All E.R. 982
Haseldine v Hosken [1933] 1 K.B. 822; (1933) 45 Ll. L. Rep. 59
CA
Haseler v Lemoyne (1858) 5 C.B.(N.S.) 530
Hasham v Zenab (Executrix of Harji) [1960] A.C. 316; [1960] 2
W.L.R. 374 PC (EA)
Haslemere Estates v Baker [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1109; [1982] 3 All
E.R. 525 Ch D
Hastelow v Jackson (1828) 8 B. & C. 221
Hastingwood Property Ltd v Saunders Bearman Anselm [1991]
Ch. 114; [1990] 3 W.L.R. 623 Ch D
Haugesund Kommune v Depfa ACS Bank [2010] EWCA Civ
579; [2012] Q.B. 549; [2012] 2 W.L.R. 199; [2011] 1 All
E.R. 190; [2011] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 985; [2012] Bus. L.R.
1; [2010] 1 C.L.C. 770
20–147
7–106
8–016
9–054
2–068
16–097
11–102
11–011, 11–139, 11–151
11–136, 11–137, 11–138
10–014, 10–035
2–080
2–004, 2–018
10–020, 10–045, 12–055
19–017, 19–023
20–087
3–072, 3–076, 3–089, 18–103
3–052
8–044, 8–047, 8–050, 8–051, 8–053
2–006, 2–013, 2–022, 2–023, 2–040, 2–
052, 2–053, 3–158, 4–024, 17–078,
21–018
2–006, 2–011
2–018
16–100
2–085
2–089
11–025
16–044
17–081, 21–062
3–151
11–140
16–008
12–081, 22–016
Haugesund Kommune v Depfa ACS Bank [2011] EWCA Civ
33; [2011] 3 All E.R. 655; [2012] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 65;
[2012] Bus. L.R. 230; [2011] 1 C.L.C. 166; 134 Con. L.R.
51; [2011] P.N.L.R. 14; (2011) 108(6) L.S.G. 19
Havprins, The. See Chevron International Oil Co Ltd v A/S Sea
Team (The Havprins)
Hawkins v Price [1947] Ch. 645 Ch D
Hawksford Trustees Jersey Ltd v Stella Global UK Ltd [2012]
EWCA Civ 55; [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 748
Hayes v James & Charles Dodd (A Firm) [1990] 2 All E.R. 815;
[1988] E.G. 107 (C.S.) CA (Civ Div)
Haysman v Mrs Rogers Films Ltd [2008] EWHC 2494
Hayward v Zurich Insurance Co Plc [2015] EWCA Civ 327;
[2015] C.P. Rep. 30
Haywood v Cope (1858) 25 Beav 140
Hazel v Akhtar [2001] EWCA Civ 1883; [2002] 2 P. & C.R. 17
20–022, 20–024
5–022
8–064
20–089
20–007, 20–087
9–024
21–032
3–072, 3–081, 3–086, 3–089
Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1992] 2 A.C. 1;
8–022, 12–064, 12–073, 12–075, 12–077,
[1991] 2 W.L.R. 372; [1991] 1 All E.R. 545; 89 L.G.R. 271;
12–081, 22–014
(1991) 3 Admin. L.R. 549; [1991] R.V.R. 28; (1991) 155
J.P.N. 527; (1991) 155 L.G. Rev. 527; (1991) 88(8) L.S.G.
36; (1991) 141 N.L.J. 127 HL
Hazelmoor, The. See Anchor Line v Keith Rowell (The
Hazelmoor)
Head v Diggon (1828) 3 M. & Ry. 97
3–160
Head v Tattersall (1871) L.R. 7 Ex. 7
9–107, 22–005
Heald v Kenworthy (1855) 10 Ex. 739
16–065
Heald v O’Connor [1971] 1 W.L.R. 497; [1971] 2 All E.R. 1105
13–012
QBD
Healey v SA Française Rubastic [1917] 1 K.B. 946 KBD
17–035, 17–047
Heard v Pilley (1868–69) L.R. 4 Ch. App. 548 CA in Chancery
16–016
Heartley v Nicholson (1874–75) L.R. 19 Eq. 233 Ct of Chancery
15–029
Heath v Heath [2009] EWHC 1908 (Ch); [2010] F.L.R. 610
8–031, 21–031
Heath v Tang; Stevens v Peacock [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1421; [1993]
15–074
4 All E.R. 694 CA (Civ Div)
Heathrow Airport Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2009]
2–096
EWCA Civ 992
Heaton v Axa Equity & Law Life Assurance Society Plc [2002]
13–016, 14–002, 14–038, 20–121
UKHL 15; [2002] 2 A.C. 329; [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1081; [2002]
2 All E.R. 961; [2002] C.P. Rep. 52; [2002] C.P.L.R. 475;
[2003] 1 C.L.C. 37
Heaven and Kesterton v Etablissements Francois Albiac et Cie
20–117
[1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 316 QBD
Hebb’s Case. See National Savings Bank Association, Re
Hector v Lyons (1989) 58 P. & C.R. 156; [1988] E.G. 170 (C.S.)
8–039, 8–040, 16–072
CA (Civ Div)
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] A.C.
3–160, 3–169, 9–022, 9–037, 9–038, 9–
465; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 101; [1963] 2 All E.R. 575; [1963] 1
040, 9–042, 9–044, 9–079, 9–128, 9–
Lloyd’s Rep. 485; (1963) 107 S.J. 454 HL
139, 14–047, 16–095, 20–095
Heffield v Meadows (1868–69) L.R. 4 C.P. 595 CCP
6–028
Heglibiston Establishments v Heyman (1978) 36 P. & C.R. 351;
11–044, 11–045
(1977) 246 E.G. 567 CA (Civ Div)
Heifer International Inc v Christiansen [2007] EWHC 3015
7–101, 7–112
(TCC)
Heilbut Symons & Co v Buckleton [1913] A.C. 30 HL
4–005, 9–025, 9–054, 9–057
Heislerv Anglo Dal Ltd [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1273; [1954] 2 All E.R.
2–083, 17–062
770 CA
Helden v Strathmore Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542; [2011] Bus
5–009, 5–012
L.R. 1592
Hellespont Ardent, The. See Red Sea Tankers Ltd v
Papachristidis (The Hellespont Ardent)
Helmsley Acceptances Ltd v Lambert Smith Hampton [2010]
14–033
EWCA Civ 356
Helps v Clayton (1864) 17 C.B. (N.S.) 553
12–007
Helstan Securities Ltd v Hertfordshire CC [1978] 3 All E.R.
15–050
262; 76 L.G.R. 735 QBD
Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 Q.B. 549; [1967] 3
16–018, 16–027
W.L.R. 1408 CA (Civ Div)
Hemmens v Wilson Browne (A Firm) [1995] Ch. 223; [1994] 2
14–052
W.L.R. 323 Ch D
Henderson v Arthur [1907] 1 K.B. 10 CA
6–030
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd (No.1); sub nom Gooda
3–169, 7–033, 9–038, 9–040, 14–009, 14–
Walker Ltd v Deeny; McLarnon Deeney v Gooda Walker
029, 14–045, 14–047, 14–048, 14–049,
Ltd; Arbuthnott v Fagan; Hallam-Eames v Merrett
14–051, 14–073, 14–076, 16–099, 17–
Syndicates Ltd; Hughes v Merrett Syndicates Ltd, Feltrim
069, 20–112, 20–123, 20–125
Underwriting Agencies Ltd v Arbuthnott; Deeny v Gooda
Walker Ltd (Duty of Care) [1995] 2 A.C. 145; [1994] 3
W.L.R. 761; [1994] 3 All E.R. 506; [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
468; [1994] C.L.C. 918; (1994) 144 N.L.J. 1204 HL
Henderson v Stevenson (1870–75) L.R. 2 Sc. 470; (1875) 2 R.
7–008
(H.L.) 71 HL
Henderson v Stobart (1850) 5 Ex. 99
3–060
Hendry v Chartsearch Ltd [1998] C.L.C. 1382; (2000) 2
15–050
T.C.L.R. 115 CA (Civ Div)
Henkel v Pape (1870–71) L.R. 6 Ex. 7, Ex Ct
2–037
Hennessy v Craigmyle & Co [1986] I.C.R. 461; [1986] I.R.L.R.
10–008
300 CA (Civ Div)
Henrik Sif, The. See Pacol Ltd v Trade Lines Ltd (The Henrik
Sif)
Henriksens Rederi A/S v Centrala Handlu Zagranicznego (CHZ)
17–037
Rolimpex (The Brede); sub nom Henriksens Rederi A/S v
THZ Rolimpex (The Brede) [1974] Q.B. 233; [1973] 3
W.L.R. 556 CA (Civ Div)
Henry v Henry [2010] UKPC 3; [2010] 1 All E.R. 988; [2010]
3–134, 3–140, 3–143, 3–146
W.T.L.R. 1011; [2010] 2 P. & C.R. DG8
Henry Ansbacher & Co Ltd v Binks Stern [1998] Lloyd’s Rep.
9–010
Bank. 1; [1998] P.N.L.R. 221 CA (Civ Div)
Henry Dean & Sons (Sydney) Ltd v O’Day Pty Ltd (1929) 39
17–029
C.L.R. 330
Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd; sub nom
7–011, 8–051
Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural and Poultry
Producers Association Ltd; Holland Colombo Trading
Society Ltd v Grimsdale & Sons Ltd; Grimsdale & Sons Ltd
v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association [1969]
2 A.C. 31; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 110; [1968] 2 All E.R. 444;
[1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 547 HL
Hensman v Traill (1980) 124 S.J. 776
Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27 CA
Hepburn v A Tomlinson (Hauliers) Ltd 39168; sub nom A
Tomlinson (Hauliers) Ltd v [1966] A.C. 451; [1966] 2
W.L.R. 453; [1966] 1 All E.R. 418; [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
309; (1966) 110 S.J. 86 HL
Hepworth Manufacturing Co Ltd v Ryott [1920] 1 Ch. 1; 9
A.L.R. 1484 CA
Herbert v Doyle [2010] EWCA Civ 1095; [2011] 1 E.G.L.R.
119; 13 I.T.E.L.R. 561; [2010] N.P.C. 100
Herbert Clayton & Jack Waller Ltd v Oliver [1930] A.C. 209;
[1930] All E.R. Rep. 414 HL
Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 A.C. 688 HL
Hereford and South Wales Waggon and Engineering Co, Re
(1875–76) L.R. 2 Ch. D. 621 CA
Herkules Piling Ltd v Tilbury Construction Ltd, 61 B.L.R. 107;
32 Con. L.R. 112 QBD
Herman v Jeuchner (1884–85) L.R. 15 Q.B.D. 561 CA
Hermann v Charlesworth [1905] 2 K.B. 123 CA
Hermosa, The. See Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp v Marine
Transportation Co Ltd (The Hermosa)
Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 K.B. 683 CA
Heron Garage Properties Ltd v Moss [1974] 1 W.L.R. 148;
[1974] 1 All E.R. 421 Ch D
Heron II, The. See Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd
Heskell v Continental Express Ltd [1950] 1 All E.R. 1033;
(1949–50) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 438 KBD
Heslop v Burns [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1241; [1974] 3 All E.R. 406
CA (Civ Div)
Hewett v First Plus Financial Group Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 312;
[2010] 2 F.L.R. 177
Hewitt v Bonvin [1940] 1 K.B. 188 CA
Hewlings v Graham (1901) 84 L.T. 497
Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] A.C. 356; [1942] 1 All E.R. 337
HL
Heyman v European Central Ry (1868) L.R. 7 Eq. 154
Heywood v Wellers (A Firm) [1976] Q.B. 446; [1976] 2 W.L.R.
101 CA (Civ Div)
HFI Farnborough LLP v Park Garage Group Plc [2012] EWHC
3577 (Ch)
HHY Luxembourg Sarl v Barclays Bank Plc [2010] EWCA Civ
1248; [2011] 1 B.C.L.C. 336
Hick v Raymond & Reid; sub nom Hick v Rodocanachi;
Pantland Hick v Raymond & Reid [1893] A.C. 22; [1891–4]
All E.R. Rep. 491 HL
Hickman v Berens [1895] 2 Ch. 638 CA
Hickman v Haynes (1874–75) L.R. 10 C.P. 598 CCP
Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association
[1915] 1 Ch. 881 Ch D
Higgins v Sargent (1823) 2 B. & C. 348
11–080
2–025, 2–030, 2–031, 2–032, 2–032, 2–
035, 2–060
14–016, 14–128
11–061
3–127, 5–011
17–054, 20–092
11–070, 11–071, 11–080, 11–085
16–048
15–014, 15–020, 15–022
11–046
11–042, 11–131, 11–132, 11–140
19–042
2–111
2–012, 20–095
4–016
10–014, 10–024
16–004
12–005
2–093, 7–023, 18–001, 18–005, 18–019
9–158
20–087, 22–005
8–065
6–012, 6–013
18–097
8–049
3–068, 3–070, 5–034
14–012
20–060
Higgons v Burton (1857) 26 L.J.Ex. 342
8–038
Higgs (Inspector of Taxes) v Olivier [1952] Ch. 311; [1952] 1
11–072
T.L.R. 441 CA
Higham v Horton. See 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton
Highlands Insurance Co v Continental Insurance Co [1987] 1
9–015, 9–060, 9–061
Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (Note) QBD (Comm)
HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan
6–013, 7–016, 7–034, 7–042, 9–150, 9–
Bank; Chase Manhattan Bank v HIH Casualty & General
164,9–166,11–036
Insurance Ltd [2003] UKHL 6; [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
349; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 61
HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v New Hampshire
2–089, 6–024, 7–005, 18–007
Insurance Co [2001] EWCA Civ 735; [2001] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 39; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 161; [2003] 1 C.L.C.
358; [2003] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 230; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 264
Hilberry v Hatton (1864) 2 H. & C. 822
22–011
Hi-Lite Electrical Ltd v Wolseley UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 2153
20–124
(TCC); [2011] B.L.R. 629
Hill v CA Parsons & Co [1972] Ch. 305; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 995
21–037
CA (Civ Div)
Hill v Gomme (1839) 5 My. & Cr. 250
14–084, 14–089
Hill v Gray (1816) 1 Stark. 434
9–138
Hill v Harris [1965] 2 Q.B. 601; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 1331 CA
9–056, 9–057
Hill v Hill [1947] Ch. 231; [1947] 1 All E.R. 54; 176 L.T. 216;
5–023
(1947) 91 S.J. 55 CA
Hill v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural
11–116
Affairs [2005] EWHC 696; [2006] 1 B.C.L.C. 601 Ch D
Hill v Spencer (1767) Amb. 641, 836
11–044
Hill v Van Erp (1997) 142 A.L.R. 687
14–052
Hillel v Christoforides (1992) 63 P. & C.R. 301 Ch D
18–027
Hillingdon Estates Co v Stonefield Estates Ltd [1952] Ch. 627;
19–065, 21–019
[1952] 1 All E.R. 853 Ch D
Hillingdon LBC v ARC Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 191
3–097
Hills v Sughrue (1846) 15 M. & W. 252
17–065
Hilti AG v Commission of the European Communities (C–53/92
11–108
P); sub nom Hilti AG v Commission of the European
Communities (T–30/89) [1994] E.C.R. I–667; [1994] 4
C.M.L.R. 614ECJ
Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood; sub nom Hilton v Baker
16–097
Booth & Eastwood; Hilton v Bariker Booth & Eastwood
[2005] UKHL 8; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 567; [2005] 1 All E.R.
651; [2005] P.N.L.R. 23; [2006] Pens. L.R. 1; [2005] 6 E.G.
141 (C.S.); (2005) 102(14) L.S.G. 27; (2005) 155 N.L.J.
219; (2005) 149 S.J.L.B. 179; [2005] N.P.C. 14
Hindley & Co Ltd v General Fibre Co Ltd [1940] 2 K.B. 517;
11–117, 19–050
(1940) 67 Ll. L. Rep. 272 KBD
Hinton v Sparkes (1867–68) L.R. 3 C.P. 161 CCP
20–154
Hirachand Punamchand v Temple [1911] 2 K.B. 330 CA
3–108, 14–044, 17–008
Hirji Mulji v Cheong Yue Steamship Co Ltd [1926] A.C. 497;
19–020, 19–056, 19–090, 19–116, 19–119
[1926] 1 W.W.R. 917; [1926] W.N. 89 PC (HK)
Hirst v Etherington [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 938; (1999) 96(31)
16–025
L.S.G. 42 CA (Civ Div)
Hiscox v Outhwaite (No.1) [1992] 1 A.C. 562; [1991] 3 W.L.R.
3–088, 3–094, 3–095, 3–097
297; [1991] 3 All E.R. 641; [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 435 HL
Hispanica de Petroles SA v Vencedora Oceanica Navegacion SA
(The Kapetan Markos NL (No.2)) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 321
CA (Civ Div)
Hitchcock v Giddings (1817) 4 Price 135
Hitchcock v Way (1837) 6 A. & E. 943
Hitchens v General Guarantee Corp Ltd; sub nom Hichens v
General Guarantee Corp Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 359
Hitchman v Avery (1892) 8 T.L.R. 698
Hitchman v Stewart (1855) 3 Drew. 271
Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd [1946] Ch.
169 CA
Hizzett v Hargreaves [1987] C.L.Y 1164 CA (Civ Div)
HO Brandt & Co v HN Morris & Co; sub nom HO Brandt & Co
v HN Morris & Co Ltd [1917] 2 K.B. 784 CA
Hobbs v London & South Western Ry Co (1874–75) L.R. 10
Q.B. 111 QBD
Hobson v Pattenden & Co
Hochster v De La Tour (1853) 2 El. & Bl. 678
Hodson, Re; sub nom Williams v Knight [1894] 2 Ch. 421 Ch D
Hoecheong Products Co Ltd v Cargill Hong Kong Ltd [1995] 1
W.L.R. 404; [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 584 PC (HK)
Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All E.R. 176; [1952] 1 T.L.R. 1360 CA
Hofflinghouse & Co v C-Trade SA (The Intra Transporter)
[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 CA (Civ Div)
Hoffman v Red Owl Stores Inc, 133 N.W. 2d. 267 (1965)
Hoggart v Scott (1830) 1 Russ. & My. 293
Hole v Bradbury (1879) L.R. 12 Ch. D. 886 Ch D
Hole & Pugsley v Sumption [2002] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 419;
[2002] P.N.L.R. 20; (2001) 151 N.L.J. 1851 Ch D
Hole & Son (Sayers Common) v Harrisons of Thurnscoe [1973]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 345; (1972) 116 S.J. 922 QBD
Holiday Credit Ltd v Erol [1977] 1 W.L.R. 704; [1977] 2 All
E.R. 696 HL
Holland Hannen & Cubitts (Northern) v Welsh Health Technical
Services Ltd (1987) 7 Con.L.R. 14
Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1972] 2 Q.B. 71; [1972]
2 W.L.R. 401; [1972] 1 All E.R. 399; [1972] R.T.R. 190;
(1972) 116 S.J. CA (Civ Div)
Hollingworth v Southern Ferries (The Eagle) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 70 QBD
Hollins v Davy (J) [1963] 1 Q.B. 844; [1963] 2 W.L.R. 201
QBD
Hollis & Co v Stocks [2000] U.K.C.L.R. 658; [2000] I.R.L.R.
712 CA (Civ Div)
Holloway Bros Ltd v Hill [1902] 2 Ch. 612 Ch D
Holman Construction Ltd v Delta Timber Co Ltd [1972]
N.Z.L.R. 1081
Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp
Holman v Pullin (1884) Cab. & El. 254
Holsworthy UDC v Holsworthy RDC [1907] 2 Ch. 62
Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 K.B. 1 KBD
2–075, 4–005, 14–059, 14–072, 14–073
8–028, 8–031
11–031
2–040, 5–006
8–079
13–019
6–043, 21–058
22–011
2–109, 16–069
2–012, 20–084
19–093
17–080, 17–081, 17–082, 17–08
12–044
19–075
17–037, 17–040, 20–041
2–093
2–099
21–048
15–053
19–026
20–043
5–025
14–006
7–011, 7–037, 17–068
2–012, 7–006, 7–009, 7–010
7–001, 7–028
11–076, 21–020, 21–052
11–100
3–160
11–113
16–073
3–038
15–020, 15–021, 15–034
Holt v Ward Clarencieux (1732) 2 Stra. 937
3–154
Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 W.L.R. 155; [1974] 1
2–024, 2–033, 2–035, 2–040
All E.R. 161 CA (Civ Div)
Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin); 6–004, 6–008, 7–016, 8–039, 14–005, 14–
sub nom Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Starsin
016, 14–050, 14–059, 14–060, 14–061,
v Owners of the Starsin; Hunter Timber Ltd v Agrosin
14–063, 14–065, 14–066, 14–069, 14–
Private Ltd [2003] UKHL 12; [2004] 1 A.C. 715; [2003] 2
073, 14–141, 16–058
W.L.R. 711; [2003] 2 All E.R. 785; [2003] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 625; [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 571; [2003] 1 C.L.C.
921; 2003 A.M.C. 913; (2003) 100(19) L.S.G. 31
Home Counties Dairies v Skilton [1970] 1 W.L.R. 526; [1970] 1
11–078
All E.R. 1227 CA (Civ Div)
Home Insurance Co and St Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co v
4–008, 11–051, 11–161
Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 674
QBD (Comm)
Honam Jade, The. See Phibro Energy AG v Nissho Iwai Corp
(The Honam Jade)
Honck v Muller (1880–81) L.R. 7 Q.B.D. 92 CA
17–033
Hong Kong Borneo Services Co v Pilcher [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
21–003
593 QBD (Comm)
Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd 17–088, 18–034, 18–035, 18–036, 18–037,
(The Hongkong Fir) [1962] 2 Q.B. 26; [1962] 2 W.L.R. 474;
18–045, 18–050, 18–053, 18–057, 18–
[1962] 1 All E.R. 474; [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 478; (1961)
063
106 S.J. 35 CA
Hood v Anchor Line (Henderson Bros) Ltd; sub nom Hood v
7–008
Anchor Line [1918] A.C. 837; 1918 S.C. (H.L.) 143 HL
Hood v West End Motor Car Packing Co [1917] 2 K.B. 38 CA
9–146
Hooker v Lange, Bell & Co [1937] 4 L.J.N.C.C.R. 199
6–049
Hooper v Oates [2013] EWCA Civ 91; [2014] Ch. 287; [2014] 2
20–071
W.L.R. 743; [2013] 3 All E.R. 211; [2013] 1 E.G.L.R. 93;
[2013] 16 E.G. 108; [2013] 9 E.G. 93 (C.S.); (2013) 157(8)
S.J.L.B. 31; [2013] 1 P. & C.R. DG22
Hooper v Sherman [1995] C.L.Y. 840
5–008
Hope v Hope (1857) 8 D.M. & G. 731
11–039
Hopkins v Tanqueray (1854) 15 C.B. 130
9–052
Hopkins v TL Dallas Group Ltd; Hopkins v TL Dallas & Co Ltd
16–017, 16–027
[2004] EWHC 1379; [2005] 1 B.C.L.C. 543 Ch D
Hopkinson v Lee (1845) 6 Q.B. 964
13–021
Hopkinson v Logan (1839) 5 M. & W. 241
3–020
Hopper v Burness (1875–76) L.R. 1 C.P.D. 137, CPD
17–042
Horcal Ltd v Gatland; sub nom Horcal Ltd v Gartland (1984) 1
9–162, 22–005
B.C.C. 99089; [1984] I.R.L.R. 288 CA (Civ Div)
Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International; sub nom Cantor
2–096
Fitzgerald International v Horkulak [2004] EWCA Civ 1287;
[2005] I.C.R. 402
Horlock v Beal; sub nom Beal v Horlock [1916] 1 A.C. 486 HL
19–032
Horn v Minister of Food [1948] 2 All E.R. 1036; 65 T.L.R. 1906
19–010
KBD
Horne v Midland Ry Co (1872–73) L.R. 8 C.P. 131 Ex Chamber
20–107
Horrocks v Forray [1976] 1 W.L.R. 230; [1976] 1 All E.R. 737
3–024, 3–174, 4–017, 4–019, 11–045
CA (Civ Div)
Horry v Tate & Lyle Refineries [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 QBD
7–040, 10–051
Horsefall v Haywards; sub nom Horsfall v Haywards [1999] 1
F.L.R. 1182; [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 332 CA (Civ Div)
Horsfall v Thomas (1862) 1 H. & C. 90
Horsler v Zorro [1975] Ch. 302; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 183 Ch D
Horton v Horton (No.2); sub nom Hutton v Hutton [1961] 1
Q.B. 215; [1960] 3 W.L.R. 914 CA
Horwood v Land of Leather Ltd [2010] EWHC 546 (Comm);
[2010] 1 C.L.C. 423
Horwood v Millar’s Timber & Trading Co Ltd [1917] 1 K.B.
305 CA
Hotel Services Ltd v Hilton International Hotels (UK) Ltd
[2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 750; [2000] B.L.R. 235 CA (Civ
Div)
Houghton Main Colliery Co, Re [1956] 1 W.L.R. 1219; [1956] 3
All E.R. 300 Ch D
Houlder Bros & Co Ltd v Public Works Commr; Public Works
Commr v Houlder Bros & Co Ltd [1908] A.C. 276 PC
(Cape)
Houldsworth v Glasgow City Bank (1879–80) L.R. 5 App. Cas.
317 HL
Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd
[1971] Ch. 233; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 538 Ch D
Household Fire & Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant
(1878–79) L.R. 4 Ex. D. 216 CA
Household Machines Ltd v Cosmos Exporters Ltd [1947] K.B.
217; [1946] 2 All E.R. 622 KBD
Howard v Jones [1989] Fam. Law 231 CA (Civ Div)
Howard v Odhams Press Ltd [1938] 1 K.B. 1 CA
Howard v Shirlstar Container Transport [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1292;
[1990] 3 All E.R. 366 CA (Civ Div)
Howard E Perry & Co Ltd v British Railways Board [1980] 1
W.L.R. 1375; [1980] 2 All E.R. 579 Ch D
Howard-Jones v Tate [2011] EWCA Civ 1330; [2012] 2 All E.R.
369; [2012] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1136; [2012] 1 P. & C.R. 11;
[2011] N.P.C. 121; [2012] Bus. L.R. D89
Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons
(Excavations) Ltd [1978] Q.B. 574; [1978] 2 W.L.R. 515;
[1978] 2 All E.R. 1134; [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334; 9 B.L.R.
34 CA (Civ Div)
Howatson v Webb [1907] 1 Ch. 537 Ch D
Howe v Smith (1884) L.R. 27 Ch. D. 89 CA
Howell v Coupland (1875–76) L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 258 CA
Howes Percival LLP v Page [2013] EWHC 4104 (Ch)
Howes v Bishop [1909] 2 K.B. 390 CA
Hoyle, Re; sub nom Hoyle v Hoyle [1893] 1 Ch. 84 CA
HR&S Sainsbury Ltd v Street [1972] 1 W.L.R. 834; [1972] 3 All
E.R. 1127 Assizes (Bristol)
HSBC Rail (UK) Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2005]
EWCA Civ 1437; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 643
HSBC Trust Co (UK) Ltd v Quinn [2007] EWHC 1543 (Ch)
Hubert v Treherne (1842) 3 Man. & G. 743
14–052
9–138
18–022
3–038
3–050, 3–052
11–061
7–017, 20–108
20–066
6–026
9–033
21–010, 21–043
2–031,2–035
20–057
3–131
11–026, 11–046
11–113
21–026, 21–030
18–016
9–041, 9–044, 9–046, 9–047, 9–051, 9–
054
8–082, 8–083, 8–086
20–147
17–059, 19–025, 19–028, 19–113
22–022
10–016
5–015, 5–024
17–059, 19–028
14–027
3–170
5–023
Huddersfield Banking Co Ltd v Henry Lister & Son Ltd (No.2)
[1895] 2 Ch. 273 CA
Hudson, Re (1885) 54 L.J. Ch. 811
Hudson v Temple (1860) 29 Beav 536
Hudson Bay Apparel Brands LLC v Umbro International Ltd
[2010] EWCA Civ 949; [2011] 1 B.C.L.C. 259; [2010]
E.T.M.R. 62
Huggins v Wiseman (1690) Carth. 110
Hughes v Asset Managers Plc [1995] 3 All E.R. 669; [1994]
C.L.C. 556 CA (Civ Div)
Hughes v Clewley (The Siben (No.2)); sub nom Hughes v Vail
Blyth Clewley (The Siben) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 35 QBD
(Admlty)
Hughes v Graeme (1864) 33 L.J.Q.B. 335
Hughes v Greenwich LBC [1994] 1 A.C. 170; [1993] 3 W.L.R.
821 HL
Hughes v Kingston upon Hull City Council [1999] Q.B. 1193;
[1999] 2 W.L.R. 1229 DC
Hughes v Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society [1916] 2
K.B. 482
Hughes v Metropolitan (1877) 2 App.Cas. 439
Hughes v Pump House Hotel Co Ltd (No.1) [1902] 2 K.B. 190
CA
Hughes v Southwark LCB [1988] I.R.L.R. 55
Huilerie L’Abeille v Société des Huileries du Niger (The
Kastellon) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 203 QBD (Comm)
Hulbert v Avens [2003] EWHC 76 (Ch); [2003] W.T.L.R. 387;
(2003) 100(12) L.S.G. 30 Ch D
Hulthen v Stewart & Co [1903] A.C. 389 HL
Hulton v Hulton [1917] 1 K.B. 813 CA
Humble v Hunter (1842) 12 Q.B. 310
Humfrey v Dale (1857) 7 E. & B. 266
Hummingbird Motors Ltd v Hobbs [1986] R.T.R. 276; (1988)
85(1) L.S.G. 28 CA (Civ Div)
Hunt v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 714; [2015]
1 W.L.R. 1346; [2014] 2 C.L.C. 89; [2014] B.L.R. 613; 155
Con. L.R. 29; [2014] P.N.L.R. 29; [2014] 3 E.G.L.R. 169
Hunt v Severs; sub nom Severs v Hunt [1994] 2 A.C. 350;
[1994] 2 W.L.R. 602 HL
Hunt v Silk (1804) 5 East 449
Hunter v Bradford Property Trust Ltd, 1970 S.L.T. 173 HL
Hunter v Walters; Curling v Walters; Darnell v Hunter (1871–
72) L.R. 7 Ch. App. 75 CA in Chancery
Huntoon Co v Kolynos (Inc) [1930] 1 Ch. 528 CA
Hurley Palmer Flatt Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [2014] EWHC
3042 (TCC); [2015] Bus. L.R. 106; [2014] 2 C.L.C. 538;
[2014] B.L.R. 713; 156 Con. L.R. 213; [2014] C.I.L.L. 3577
Hurley v Dyke [1979] R.T.R. 265 HL
Hurst v Bryk [2002] 1 A.C. 185; [2000] 2 W.L.R. 740; [2000] 2
All E.R. 193; [2000] 2 B.C.L.C. 117; [2000] E.G. 49 (C.S.);
8–024
3–002, 3–174
18–103
16–018, 18–087
12–007
11–123
9–111, 11–044, 11–114, 11–137, 11–150,
11–154
20–118
6–036
11–011
11–007, 11–136
3–077, 3–081, 3–084, 3–085, 3–086, 3–
090, 3–091, 3–112, 3–113, 3–116, 3–
160
15–012, 15–025
21–037
20–052
20–073
18–097
9–108, 9–110
16–058, 17–010
6–019, 6–027
9–053
3–024, 9–024
14–043, 20–121
9–110, 22–005, 22–006
3–041
8–084
17–023
14–091, 14–097, 14–098
9–138
18–016
(2000) 97(17) L.S.G. 35; (2000) 150 N.L.J. 511; (2000) 144
S.J.L.B. 189 HL
Hurst Stores & Interiors Ltd v ML Europe Property Ltd [2004]
EWCA Civ 490; [2004] B.L.R. 249
Husband v Davis (1851) 10 C.B. 645
Hussain v Brown 9592 [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep CA (Civ Div)
Hussey v Eels [1990] 2 Q.B. 227; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 234; [1990] 1
All E.R. 449; [1990] 19 E.G. 77; [1989] E.G. 168 (C.S.);
(1990) 140 N.L.J. 53 CA (Civ Div)
Hussey v Horne-Payne (1878–79) L.R. 4 App. Cas. 311 HL
Hussey v Palmer [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1286; [1972] 3 All E.R. 744
CA (Civ Div)
Hut Group Ltd v Nobahar-Cookson [2014] EWHC 3842 (QB)
Hutton v Eyre (1815) 6 Taunt. 289
Hutton v Warren (1836) 1 M. & W. 466
Hutton v Watling [1948] Ch. 398; [1948] 1 All E.R. 803 CA
Huyton SA v Distribuidora Internacional de Productos Agricolas
SA [2002] EWHC 2088 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 780
Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
620; [1999] C.L.C. 230 QBD (Comm)
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334
Hyeling v Hastings (1699) 1 Ld. Raym. 389
Hyland v JH Barker (North West) [1985] I.C.R. 861; [1985]
I.R.L.R. 403 EAT
Hylton v Hylton (1745) 2 Ves. Sen. 547
Hyman v Hyman; Hughes v Hughes [1929] A.C. 601 HL
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd v Papadopoulos [1980] 1
W.L.R. 1129; [1980] 2 All E.R. 29; [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1;
(1980) 124 S.J. 592 HL
Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Americas Bulk Transport
Ltd (The Pacific Champ) [2013] EWHC 470 (Comm);
[2013] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 649; [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 320
Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Karander Maritime Inc
(The Nizuru) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 66; [1996] C.L.C. 749
QBD (Comm)
Hyundai Merchant Marine Co v Gesuri Chartering Co (The
Peonia) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 100 CA (Civ Div)
Hyundai Shipbuilding & Heavy Industries Co v Pournaras;
Hyundai Shipbuilding & Heavy Industries Co v Bouboulina
Shipping SA [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 502 CA (Civ Div)
IAI v Cook. See Independents Advantage Insurance Co v
Personal Representatives of Cook (Deceased)
IBA v EMI (Electronics) Ltd. See Independent Broadcasting
Authority v EMI Electronics Ltd
Ibberson v Neck (1886) 2 T.L.R. 427
IBM United Kingdom Ltd v Rockware Glass Ltd [1980] F.S.R.
335 CA (Civ Div)
Ibrahim v Barclays Bank Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 640; [2013] Ch.
400; [2013] 2 W.L.R. 768; [2012] 4 All E.R. 160; [2012] 2
All E.R. (Comm) 1167; [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 13; [2012] 2
B.C.L.C. 1; [2012] 2 C.L.C. 240
IFE Fund SA v Goldman Sachs International [2006] EWHC
8–069
13–032
18–007
20–116, 20–121
2–017
3–130, 3–145, 4–019
9–009, 20–080
13–014
6–027
6–015
8–058
3–102,3–117, 10–002, 10–006, 10–008,
10–009, 21–007
2–062
3–022
11–056, 11–161
10–020, 10–023
11–048
18–018, 18–020, 18–073, 20–154
2–104
14–141, 18–053, 18–054
20–110
20–154
3–103
2–100
15–038
9–006, 9–007, 9–008, 9–055, 9–124, 9–
2887 (Comm); [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 264 QBD (Comm)
126
Iggleden v Fairview New Homes (Shooters Hill) Ltd [2007]
20–087
EWHC 1573 (TCC)
Ignazio Messina & Co v Polskie Linie Oceaniczne [1995] 2
2–002, 2–003, 2–017, 2–089, 2–092, 16–
Lloyd’s Rep. 566 QBD (Comm)
069
Ile aux Moines, The. See Vanda Compania Limitada of Costa
Rica v Société Maritime Nationale of Paris (The Ile aux
Moines)
IM Properties Plc v Cape & Dalgleish [1999] Q.B. 297; [1998] 3
20–062, 20–064
W.L.R. 457 CA (Civ Div)
Imageview Management Ltd v Jack [2009] EWCA Civ 63;
16–098
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 436
Imam-Sadeque v Bluebay Asset Management (Services) Ltd
20–145
[2012] EWHC 3511 (QB); [2013] I.R.L.R. 344
Immingham Storage Co Ltd v Clear Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 89;
135 Con. L.R. 224; (2011) 108(8) L.S.G. 21
Imperial Bank of Canada v Begley [1936] 2 All E.R. 367
Imperial Loan Co Ltd v Stone [1892] 1 Q.B. 599 CA
IMT Shipping & Chartering GmbH v Chansung Shipping Co
Ltd (The Zenovia)[2009] EWHC 739 (Comm); [2009] 2 All
E.R. (Comm) 177; [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 139
Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd [2001] 2 All E.R. 385;
[2001] C.P. Rep. 28 Ch D
Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie bin Omar [1929] A.C. 127; [1928]
All E.R. Rep. 189 PC (Sing)
Independent Air Travel Ltd, Re [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 604 QBD
Independent Broadcasting Authority v EMI Electronics Ltd; sub
nom IBA v EMI Electronics Ltd and BICC Construction
Ltd14 B.L.R. 1; [1955–95] P.N.L.R. 179 HL
Independiente Ltd v Music Trading Online (HK) Ltd [2007]
EWCA Civ 111; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 608
India v India Steamship Co Ltd (The Indian Endurance and The
Indian Grace (No.2)) [1998] A.C. 878; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 818
HL
Indian Endurance, The (No.2). See India v India Steamship Co
Ltd (The Indian Endurance and The Indian Grace (No.2))
Industrial Properties (Barton Hill) Ltd v Associated Electrical
Industries Ltd [1977] Q.B. 580; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 726; [1977]
2 All E.R. 293; (1977) 34 P. & C.R. 329; (1977) 242 E.G.
955; (1977) 121 S.J. 155 CA (Civ Div)
Industrie Chimiche Italia Centrale and Cerealfin SA v Alexander
G Tsavliris & Sons Maritime Co (The Choko Star); Industrie
Chimiche Italia Centrale v Pancristo Shipping Co SA;
Industrie Chimiche Italia Centrale v Bula Shipping Corp
[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 516 CA (Civ Div)
Industrie Chimiche Italia Centrale v NEA Ninemia Shipping Co
SA (The Emmanuel C) [1983] 1 All E.R. 686; [1983] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 310 QBD (Comm)
Industries and General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis [1949] 2 All
E.R. 573; [1949] W.N. 333 KBD
Ines, The. See MB Pyramid Sound NV v Briese Schiffahrts
GmbH & Co KG MS Sina (The Ines)
2–089
16–046
12–055
3–081
21–054
10–024, 10–027
14–085
4–005, 14–008
6–035
3–090, 3–094, 3–095
9–020, 9–023
16–034, 16–040
7–034
16–098
ING Bank NV v Ros Roca SA [2011] EWCA Civ 353; [2012] 1
W.L.R. 472; [2012] Bus. L.R. 266
Ing Re (UK) Ltd v R&V Versicherung AG [2006] EWHC 1544;
[2006] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 870 QBD (Comm)
Ingram v Little [1961] 1 Q.B. 31; [1960] 3 W.L.R. 504; [1960] 3
All E.R. 332; (1960) 104 S.J. 704 CA
Initial Services v Putterill [1968] 1 Q.B. 396; [1967] 3 W.L.R.
1032 CA (Civ Div)
IRC v Fry [2001] S.T.C. 1715; [2002] B.T.C. 3 Ch D
IRC v Mills (Hayley); sub nom Mills (Hayley) v IRC [1975]
A.C. 38; [1974] 2 W.L.R. 325; [1974] 1 All E.R. 722; [1974]
S.T.C. 130; 49 T.C. 367; [1974] T.R. 39; (1974) 118 S.J. 205
HL
IRC v Raphael; IRC v Ezra [1935] A.C. 96 HL
3–081, 3–082, 3–094, 6–013, 9–161
16–025, 16–044
8–034, 8–038, 8–054
11–035, 11–069
2–016, 3–059
12–001, 12–011
6–023, 8–065
Innisfail Laundry v Dawe186 E.G. 879; (1963) 107 S.J. 437
7–047
Inntrepreneur Pub Co Ltd v East Crown Ltd; sub nom
4–006, 9–057
Inntrepreneur Pub Co (GL) v East Crown Ltd [2000] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 611; [2000] 3 E.G.L.R. 31 Ch D
Inntrepreneur Pub Co Ltd v Sweeney [2002] EWHC 1060;
9–118
[2002] E.G.L.R. 132
Institution of Mechanical Engineers v Cane; Institution of
12–064
Mechanical Engineers v Westminster City Council [1961]
A.C. 696; [1960] 3 W.L.R. 978; [1960] 3 All E.R. 715;
(1961) 125 J.P. 141; 59 L.G.R. 1; 7 R.R.C. 79; 53 R. & I.T.
785; (1960) 104 S.J. 1032 HL
Insurance Co v Lloyd’s Syndicate [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 272;
21–030, 21–052
[1994] C.L.C. 1303 QBD (Comm)
Inta Navigation Ltd v Ranch Investments Ltd [2009] EWHC
6–033
1216; [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 74
Intelsec Systems Ltd v Grech Cini [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1190; [1999]
11–071, 11–077
4 All E.R. 11 Ch D
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd
2–006, 2–018, 2–075, 7–009, 7–047, 7–
[1989] Q.B. 433; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 615; [1988] 1 All E.R.
108, 20–143
348; (1988) 7 Tr. L.R. 187; (1988) 85(9) L.S.G. 45; (1987)
137 N.L.J. 1159; (1988) 132 S.J. 460 CA (Civ Div)
International Contract Co, Re; sub nom Levita’s Case (1867–68)
2–024
L.R. 3 Ch. App. 36 CA in Chancery
International Minerals & Chemical Corp v Karl O Helm AG
20–108
[1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 QBD (Comm)
International Paper Co v Rockefeller, 146 N.Y.S. 371 (1914)
19–028
International Pediatric Products Ltd v Cuddle-King Products Ltd
11–104
(1964) 46 D.L.R. (2d) 581
International Petroleum Refining & Supply Sociedad LtdA v
3–024, 14–007
Caleb Brett & Son Ltd (The Busiris); sub nom International
Petroleum Refining & Supply Sociedad v Caleb Brett &
Son; Caleb Brett & Son (Continentaal) BV; Caleb Brett &
Son Italia SpA and Petrinspecteur Srl (The Busiris) [1980] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 569 CA (Civ Div)
International Sea Tankers Inc of liberia v Hemisphere Shipping
11–052
Co of Hong Kong (The Wenjiang) [1982] 2 All E.R. 437;
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 128 CA (Civ Div)
International Sea Tankers Inc of liberia v Hemisphere Shipping 19–006, 19–021, 19–052, 19–067, 19–068,
Co Ltd of Hong Kong (The Wenjiang (No.2)) [1983] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 400; [1983] Com. L.R. 16 QBD (Comm)
Internaut Shipping GmbH v Fercometal Sarl [2003] EWCA Civ
812; [2003] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 760; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
430
Internet Broadcasting Corp Ltd v MAR LLC [2009] EWHC 84
(Ch); [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 295
Internet Trading Clubs Ltd v Freeserve (Investments) Ltd [2001]
E.B.L.R. 142 QBD
Inter-Office Telephones v Freeman (Robert) Co [1958] 1 Q.B.
190; [1957] 3 W.L.R. 971 CA
Intertradex SA v Lesieur Tourteaux Sarl [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
509 CA (Civ Div)
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce v Leidig; sub nom
Leidig v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce [2000]
Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 144 CA (Civ Div)
Intra Transporter, The. See Hofflinghouse & Co v C-Trade SA
(The Intra Transporter)
Introductions Ltd, Re (No.1); sub nom Introductions Ltd v
National Provincial Bank [1970] Ch. 199; [1969] 2 W.L.R.
791 CA (Civ Div)
Introductions Ltd v National Provincial Bank Ltd. See
Introductions Ltd, Re (No.1)
Investec Bank (UK) Ltd v Zulman [2010] EWCA Civ 536
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building
Society (No.1); Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v
Hopkin & Sons; Alford v West Bromwich Building Society;
Armitage v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1
W.L.R. 896; [1998] 1 All E.R. 98; [1998] 1 B.C.L.C. 531;
[1997] C.L.C. 1243; [1997] P.N.L.R. 541; (1997) 147 N.L.J.
989 HL
Investors in Industry Commercial Properties Ltd v South
Bedfordshire DC [1986] Q.B. 1034; [1986] 2 W.L.R. 937;
[1986] 1 All E.R. 787 CA (Civ Div)
Invicta UK v International Brands Ltd [2013] EWHC 1564
(QB); [2013] E.C.C. 30
Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 Q.B. 29; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 212 CA
Ion, The. See Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Pacifica Navegacion SA
(The Ion)
Ionides v Pacific Fire & Marine Insurance Co (1871–72) L.R. 7
Q.B. 517 Ex Chamber
Ionides v Pender (1873–74) L.R. 9 Q.B. 531 QB
Irani v Southampton and South West Hampshire HA [1985]
I.C.R. 590; [1985] I.R.L.R. 203 Ch D
Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co SA (The
Angel Bell) [1981] Q.B. 65; [1980] 2 W.L.R. 488 QBD
(Comm)
Irvani v Irvani [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412; [2000] C.L.C. 477
CA (Civ Div)
Irvine & Co v Watson & Sons (1879–80) L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 414 CA
Irwin v Wilson [2011] EWHC 326 (Ch); [2011] 2 P. & C.R. 8;
[2011] 2 E.G.L.R. 61; [2011] 23 E.G. 88
19–090
6–020, 16–069
7–028
21–038, 21–044
20–058
19–026, 19–029, 19–073
20–022
12–074, 12–076
2–089
6–006, 6–007, 6–008, 6–010, 6–013, 6–
022, 6–033, 7–016, 15–006, 15–064
17–013
16–109
3–130, 3–139, 3–145
2–089
9–020, 9–084, 9–146
21–037
11–112
10–045, 12–055, 12–062, 12–063
16–064, 16–065
2–111
Isaac Cooke & Sons v Eshelby (1887) L.R. 12 App. Cas. 271
HL
Isabella Shipowner SA v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd (The
Aquafaith) [2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm); [2012] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 461; [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 61; [2012] 1 C.L.C. 899
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Ierax Shipping Co of
Panama (The Forum Craftsman) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
81QBD (Comm)
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Steamship Mutual
Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd [2010] EWHC
2661 (Comm); [2011] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 609; [2011] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 195; [2010] 2 C.L.C. 534; [2011] Lloyd’s Rep.
I.R. 145
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Zannis Compania
Naviera SA (The Tzelepi) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 265 QBD
(Comm)
16–056, 16–061
21–012, 21–013
20–103
19–008, 19–049
16–017
Island Archon, The. See Triad Shipping Co v Stellar Chartering
& Brokerage Inc (The Island Archon)
Island Records Ltd v Tring International Plc [1996] 1 W.L.R.
16–098
1256; [1995] 3 All E.R. 444 Ch D
Isle of Mull, The, 278 F. 131 (1921)
19–091
Islington LBC v UCKAC [2006] EWCA Civ 340; [2006] 1
9–094
W.L.R. 1303
Ismail v Polish Ocean Lines (The Ciechocinek) [1976] Q.B.
9–016
893; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 477 CA (Civ Div)
Italian Flat Glass, Re (Case IV/31906) [1990] 4 C.M.L.R. 535
11–106
Italmare Shipping Co v Ocean Tanker Co Inc (The Rio Sun)
3–081, 11–052
[1982] 1 W.L.R. 158; [1982] 1 All E.R. 517; [1981] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 489; [1981] Com. L.R. 233; (1981) 125 S.J.
859 CA (Civ Div)
Item Software (UK) Ltd v Fassihi; sub nom Fassihi v Item
9–162, 16–097, 17–047
Software (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1244; [2004] B.C.C.
994; [2004] I.R.L.R. 928
Itex Itagrani Export SA v Care Shipping Corp (The Cebu
15–025
(No.2)) [1993] Q.B. 1; [1991] 3 W.L.R. 609 QBD (Comm)
J & E Kish v Charles Taylor & Sons & Co; sub nom Kish v
7–032, 18–010
Taylor [1912] A.C. 604 HL
J Aron & Co Inc v Comptoir Wegimont SA [1921] 3 K.B. 435;
18–059
(1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 236 KBD
J Dennis & Co Ltd v Munn. See Dennis & Co v Munn
J Evans & Co v Heathcote. See Joseph Evans & Co v Heathcote
J Evans & Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd [1976]
4–030,6–015,7–030, 7–041
1 W.L.R. 1078; [1976] 2 All E.R. 930 CA (Civ Div)
J Jarvis & Sons Ltd v Castle Wharf Developments Ltd; J Jarvis
9–047
& Sons Ltd v Gleeds Management Services Ltd; J Jarvis &
Sons Ltd v Franklin Ellis Architects Ltd; Castle Wharf
Developments Ltd v J Jarvis & Sons Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ
19; [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 308
J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant Two)
7–037, 17–076, 18–063, 19–005, 19–025,
[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 CA (Civ Div)
19–029, 19–036, 19–053, 19–085, 19–
088, 19–090, 19–092, 19–115, 19–116
J Leavey & Co Ltd v George H Hirst & Co Ltd [1944] K.B. 24
20–057
CA
J Murphy & Sons Ltd v Johnston Precast Ltd [2008] EWHC
3024 (TCC)
J Pereira Fernandes SA v Mehta; sub nom Mehta v J Pereira
Fernandes SA [2006] EWHC 813; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1543 Ch
D
J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 1 W.L.R. 461; [1956] 2 All
E.R. 121 CA
JA Mont (UK) Ltd v Mills [1993] I.R.L.R. 172; [1993] F.S.R.
577 CA (Civ Div)
Jack L Israel Ltd v Ocean Dynamic Lines SA and Ocean Victory
Ltd (The Ocean Dynamic) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 88 QBD
(Comm)
7–008, 7–074
5–023, 5–024, 5–028
7–009, 7–011, 7–022, 7–028, 7–032
11–078
20–102
Jackson v Chrysler Acceptances Ltd [1978] R.T.R. 474 CA (Civ
20–088
Div)
Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1468; [1975] 3
14–009, 14–023, 14–043, 20–087
All E.R. 92; (1975) 119 S.J. 759 CA (Civ Div)
Jackson v Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] UKHL 3; [2005] 1
20–059, 20–102, 20–106, 20–110
W.L.R. 377; [2005] 2 All E.R. 71; [2005] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
337; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 366; (2005) 102(11) L.S.G. 29;
(2005) 149 S.J.L.B. 146
Jackson v Turquand (1869–70) L.R. 4 H.L. 305 HL
2–014, 2–019
Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1874–75) L.R. 10
19–016, 19–019, 19–023, 19–074
C.P. 125 Ex Chamber
Jacob & Youngs v Kent, 129 N.E. 889 (1921)
20–041
Jacobs v Batavia & General Plantations Trust Ltd [1924] 2 Ch.
6–005, 6–014
329 CA
Jacobs v Morris [1902] 1 Ch. 816 CA
16–027
Jacobs v Revell [1900] 2 Ch. 858 Ch D
18–033
Jacoby v Whitmore (1883) 49 L.T. 335
15–015
Jacovides v Constantinou, Times, 27 October 1986
20–040
Jacques v Millar (1877) 6 Ch D. 153
20–065
Jaffray v Society of Lloyds [2002] EWCA Civ 1101
9–012
Jag Ravi, The. See Great Eastern Shipping Co Ltd v Far East
Chartering Ltd
Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 W.L.R. 269; [1995] 2 All E.R. 189; 20–015, 20–016, 21–030, 21–055, 21–063
[1995] 1 E.G.L.R. 146; [1995] 13 E.G. 132; [1994] E.G. 139
(C.S.); [1994] N.P.C. 116 CA (Civ Div)
Jaglom v Excess Insurance Co Ltd [1972] 2 Q.B. 250; [1971] 3
3–161
W.L.R. 594 QBD (Comm)
Jaks (UK) Ltd v Cera Investment Bank SA [1998] 2 Lloyd’s
17–075, 17–079, 18–011
Rep. 89 QBD (Comm)
Jamal (AKAS) v Moolla Dawood Sons & Co [1916] 1 A.C. 175
9–068, 20–054, 20–071, 20–116
PC (Burma)
James v British General Insurance Co Ltd [1927] 2 K.B. 311;
11–025
(1927) 27 Ll. L. Rep. 328 KBD
James v Emery (1818) 5 Price 529
13–021, 13–024
James v Greenwich LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 35; [2008] I.C.R.
4–024
545
James v Heim Gallery (London) Ltd (1981) 41 P. & C.R. 269;
3–081
(1980) 256 E.G. 819 CA (Civ Div)
James v Hutton [1950] 1 K.B. 9; [1949] 2 All E.R. 243 CA
20–041
James Baird Co v Gimbel Bros, 64 F. 2d. 344 (1933)
James E McCabe Ltd v Scottish Courage Ltd [2006] EWHC 538
(Comm)
James Finlay & Co Ltd v NV Kwik Hoo Tung Handel
Maatschappij; sub nom James Finlay & Co Ltd v NV Kwik
Hoo Tong Handel Maatschappij [1929] 1 K.B. 400; [1928]
All E.R. Rep. 110 CA
James Macara v Barclays Bank Ltd [1944] 2 All E.R. 31
James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson & Co
[1991] 2 Q.B. 113; [1991] 2 W.L.R. 641; [1991] 1 All E.R.
134 CA (Civ Div)
James Shaffer Ltd v Findlay Durham & Brodie [1953] 1 W.L.R.
106; (1953) 97 S.J. 26 CA
James Talcott Ltd v John Lewis & Co Ltd [1940] 3 All E.R. 592
3–161
11–163
20–052, 20–116
19–065, 20–150
9–039
18–038
15–020
Jameson v Central Electricity Generating Board (No.1) [2000] 1
2–103, 3–060, 13–013, 17–005
A.C. 455; [1999] 2 W.L.R. 141; [1999] 1 All E.R. 193;
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 573; [1999] P.I.Q.R. Q81; (1999)
96(5) L.S.G. 37; (1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 29; HL
Jameson v Midland Ry (1884) 50 L.T. 426
20–107
Janes v Johal. See Allan Janes LLP v Johal
Janmohamed v Hassam (1976) 241 E.G. 609
2–108
Janred Properties Ltd v Ente Nazionale Italiano per il Turismo
9–168, 16–029, 20–056, 20–060, 20–064,
(ENIT) (No.2) [1989] 2 All E.R. 444; [1987] 2 F.T.L.R. 179
20–071
CA (Civ Div)
Janson v Driefontein Consolidated Mines Ltd; sub nom
11–033
Driefontein Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd v Janson; West
Rand Central Gold Mines Co Ltd v De Rougemont [1902]
A.C. 484 HL
Jaques v Lloyd D George & Partners [1968] 1 W.L.R. 625
16–089
Jarvis v Swan Tours Ltd [1973] Q.B. 233; [1972] 3 W.L.R. 954;
20–046, 20–087
[1973] 1 All E.R. 71; (1972) 116 S.J. 822 CA (Civ Div)
Jarvis Interiors Ltd v Galliard Homes Ltd; sub nom Galliard
2–089, 22–021
Homes Ltd v J Jarvis & Sons Plc [2000] C.L.C. 411; [2000]
B.L.R. 33 CA (Civ Div)
Jawara v Gambia Airways [1992] E.G. 54 (C.S.); [1992] N.P.C.
16–008
61 PC (Gam)
Jayaar Impex Ltd v Toaken Group Ltd (t/a Hicks Brothers)
2–017, 2–018, 2–043, 2–089, 7–007
[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 437 QBD (Comm)
JD Cleverly Ltd v Family Finance Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1477;
4–003
[2011] R.T.R. 22
Jeancharm Ltd (t/a Beaver International) v Barnet Football Club
20–137
Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 58; 92 Con. L.R. 26
JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks Bloom & Co [1983] 1 All E.R. 583
9–024, 9–030
CA (Civ Div)
Jebson v E&W India Dock Co (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 300
20–058
Jefferys v Jefferys (1841) Cr. & Ph. 138
3–016
Jell v Douglas (1821) 4 B. & Ald. 374
13–023
Jendwine v Slade (1797) 2 Esp. 571
9–012, 9–055
Jenkin v Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain [1921] 1 Ch.
12–064
392 Ch D
Jenkins v Jenkins [1928] 2 K.B. 501 KBD
13–013, 13–015
Jenkins v Livesey (formerly Jenkins) [1985] A.C. 424; [1985] 2
8–024, 8–045, 9–142
W.L.R. 47 HL
Jenkins v Reid. See Jenkins Deed of Partnership, Re
Jenkins’ Deed of Partnership, Re; sub nom Jenkins v Reid
[1948] 1 All E.R. 471; [1948] W.N. 98 Ch D
Jenner v Walker (1869) 19 L.T. 398
Jennings v Broughton (1854) 5 D.M. & G. 126
Jennings v Brown (1842) 9 M. & W. 496
Jennings v Cairns; sub nom Davidge, In the Estate of [2003]
EWCA Civ 1935; [2004] W.T.L.R. 361
Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159; [2003] 1 F.C.R. 501;
[2003] 1 P. & C.R. 8; [2002] W.T.L.R. 367; [2002] N.P.C.
28; [2002] 2 P. & C.R. DG2
Jennings v Rundall (1799) 8 T.R. 335
Jerome v Bentley & Co [1952] 2 All E.R. 114; [1952] 2 T.L.R.
58 QBD
Jervis v Harris [1996] Ch. 195; [1996] 2 W.L.R. 220; [1996] 1
All E.R. 303; [1996] 1 E.G.L.R. 78; [1996] 10 E.G. 159;
[1995] E.G. 177 (C.S.); (1996) 93(3) L.S.G. 30; (1996) 140
S.J.L.B. 13; [1995] N.P.C. 171 CA (Civ Div)
Jervis v Howle and Talke Colliery Co Ltd [1937] Ch. 67 Ch D
Jet2.com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 417;
[2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 1053; [2012] 1 C.L.C. 605; 142
Con. L.R. 1; [2012] C.I.L.L. 3165
Jet2.com Ltd v SC Compania Nationala de Transporturi Aeriene
Romane Tarom SA [2014] EWCA Civ 87
Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd. See Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation)
v Nazir
Jeune v Queen’s Cross Properties Ltd [1974] Ch. 97; [1973] 3
W.L.R. 378 Ch D
Jewsbury v Newbold (1857) 26 L.J.Ex. 247
JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and
Industry; Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v Department of Trade
and Industry; Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v International Tin
Council; TSB England and Wales v Department of Trade and
Industry; Amalgamated Metal Trading Ltd v International
Tin Council [1990] 2 A.C. 418; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 969; [1989]
3 All E.R. 523; (1989) 5 B.C.C. 872; [1990] B.C.L.C. 102;
(1990) 87(4) L.S.G. 68; (1989) 139 N.L.J. 1559; (1989) 133
S.J. 1485 HL
Jirehouse Capital v Beller [2009] EWHC 2538 (Ch)
JIS (1974) Ltd v MCP Investment Nominees Ltd [2003] EWCA
Civ 721
Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40; [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1872;
[2012] 1 All E.R. 629; [2012] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1177;
[2011] Bus. L.R. 1182; [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 513; [2011] 2
C.L.C. 427; [2012] 1 C.M.L.R. 12; [2011] I.C.R. 1004;
[2011] I.R.L.R. 827; [2011] Eq. L.R. 1088; [2011] Arb. L.R.
28; [2011] C.I.L.L. 3076; [2011] 32 E.G. 54 (C.S.)
JJ Huber Ltd v The Private DIY Company Ltd (1995) 70 P. &
C.R. 33
JM Allan (Merchandising) v Cloke [1963] 2 Q.B. 340; [1963] 2
W.L.R. 899 CA
11–073
12–005
9–024
4–017
10–014, 10–28
3–123, 3–131, 3–132, 3–134, 3–143, 3–
145
12–034
16–030, 16–031
20–143, 21–002, 21–003, 21–004
8–060
2–098, 2–100
20–069
21–043
16–018
14–012, 16–003, 16–063
4–011
8–066
11–053
8–062
11–018, 11–117
JM Finn & Co Ltd v Holliday [2013] EWHC 3450 (QB); [2014]
21–057
I.R.L.R. 102
Jobson v Johnson [1989] 1 W.L.R. 1026; [1989] 1 All E.R. 621; 20–136, 20–139, 20–148, 20–151, 20–152,
(1988) 4 B.C.C. 488 CA (Civ Div)
21–018
Joel v Law Union & Crown Insurance Co [1908] 2 K.B. 863 CA
9–020, 9–139, 9–148
Johanna Oldendorff, The. See EL Oldendorff & Co GmbH v
Tradax Export SA (The Johanna Oldendorff)
John v Rees; Martin v Davis; Rees v John [1970] Ch. 345;
6–046
[1969] 2 W.L.R. 1294 Ch D
John Carter (Fine Worsteds) Ltd v Hanson Haulage (Leeds) Ltd
7–028
[1965] 2 Q.B. 495; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 553 CA
John D Wood & Co v Dantata; Beauchamp Estates v Dantata
16–087
(1987) 283 E.G. 314 CA (Civ Div)
John Grimes Partnership Ltd v Gubbins [2013] EWCA Civ 37;
20–109, 20–111
[2013] B.L.R. 126; 146 Con. L.R. 26; [2013] P.N.L.R. 17;
[2013] 2 E.G.L.R. 31
John Harris Partnership v Groveworld Ltd, 75 Con. L.R. 7;
14–028
[1999] P.N.L.R. 697 QBD (TCC)
John Lewis Properties Plc v Viscount Chelsea (1994) 67 P. &
17–059, 18–080, 19–050
C.R. 120; [1993] 34 E.G. 116; [1993] 2 E.G.L.R. 77 Ch D
John McCann & Co v Pow [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1643; [1975] 1 All
2–056, 16–008, 16–099, 17–010
E.R. 129 CA (Civ Div)
John Michael Design Plc v Cooke [1987] 2 All E.R. 332; [1987]
11–075
I.C.R. 445 CA (Civ Div)
John S Darbyshire, The. See Albion Sugar Co v William Tankers
Johnson v Agnew [1980] A.C. 367; [1979] 2 W.L.R. 487; [1979] 9–087, 18–022, 18–026, 18–027, 18–084,
1 All E.R. 883; (1979) 38 P. & C.R. 424; (1979) 251 E.G.
20–003, 20–016, 20–071, 20–074, 20–
1167; (1979) 123 S.J. 217 HL
154, 21–063
Johnson v Bragge [1901] 1 Ch. 28 Ch D
8–059, 8–073
Johnson v Collings (1880) 1 East 98
15–002
Johnson v Coventry Churchill International Ltd [1992] 3 All
20–123
E.R. 14 QBD
Johnson v Davies [1999] Ch. 117; [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1299 CA
3–060, 3–108, 6–039, 13–014, 13–022,
(Civ Div)
14–044
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (No.1); sub nom Johnson v Gore
3–089, 3–090, 3–096, 3–098, 14–002, 20–
Woods & Co [2002] 2 A.C. 1; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 72; [2001] 1
083, 20–084, 20–087, 20–138
All E.R. 481; [2001] C.P.L.R. 49; [2001] B.C.C. 820; [2001]
1 B.C.L.C. 313; [2001] P.N.L.R. 18; (2001) 98(1) L.S.G. 24;
(2001) 98(8) L.S.G. 46; (2000) 150 N.L.J. 1889; (2001) 145
S.J.L.B. 29 HL
Johnson v Hudson (1805) 11 East 180
11–019
Johnson v Moreton [1980] A.C. 37; [1978] 3 W.L.R. 538;
11–034, 11–035, 11–123
[1978] 3 All E.R. 37; (1979) 37 P. & C.R. 243; (1978) 247
E.G. 895; (1978) 122 S.J. 697 HL
Johnson v Pye (1665) 1 Sid. 258
12–035
Johnson v Raylton Dixon & Co (1880–81) L.R. 7 Q.B.D. 438
17–010
CA
Johnson v Shrewsbury and Birmingham Ry (1853) 3 D.M. & G.
21–036
358
Johnson v Stephens & Carter Ltd [1923] 2 K.B. 857 CA
13–023
Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] UKHL 13; [2003] 1 A.C. 518;
1–007, 20–019, 20–082, 20–083, 20–084,
[2001] 2 W.L.R. 1076; [2001] 2 All E.R. 801; [2001] I.C.R.
20–085, 20–091, 21–036
480; [2001] I.R.L.R. 279; [2001] Emp. L.R. 469
Johnson Matthey & Co v Constantine Terminals and
International Express Co [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215 QBD
(Comm)
Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd v State Trading Corp of India Ltd
[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 427 QBD (Comm)
Johnston v Boyes [1899] 2 Ch. 73 Ch D
Johnston v Reading (1893) 9 T.L.R. 200
Johnstone v Bloomsbury HA [1992] Q.B. 333; [1991] 2 W.L.R.
1362; [1991] 2 All E.R. 293; [1991] I.C.R. 269; [1991]
I.R.L.R. 118; [1991] 2 Med. L.R. 138; (1991) 141 N.L.J. 271
CA (Civ Div)
Johnstone v Milling; sub nom Johnston v Milling (1885–86)
L.R. 16 Q.B.D. 460 CA
Joiner v George [2002] EWCA Civ 160; [2003] B.C.C. 298
Jolly v Rees (1864) 15 C.B.(N.S.) 628
Jon Beauforte (London) Ltd, Re; Grainger Smith & Co
(Builders) Ltd’s Application; John Wright & Son (Veneers)
Ltd’s Application; Lowell Baldwin Ltd’s Application [1953]
Ch. 131; [1953] 2 W.L.R. 465 Ch D
Jones, Ex p. See Jones, Re
Jones v Ashburnham (1804) 4 East 455
Jones v Barkley (1781) 2 Dougl. 648
Jones v Bowden (1813) 4 Taunt. 847
Jones v Bright Capital Ltd [2006] EWHC 3151 (Ch)
Jones v Broadhurst (1850) 9 C.B. 173
Jones v Callagher (t/a Gallery Kitchens & Bathrooms); sub nom
Jones v Gallagher (t/a Gallery Kitchens & Bathrooms)
[2004] EWCA Civ 10; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 377
Jones v Clifford (1876) L.R. 3 Ch. D. 779 Ch D
Jones v Daniel [1894] 2 Ch. 332 Ch D
Jones v European General Express (1920) 25 Com.Cas. 296
Jones v Farrell (1857) 1 D. & J. 208
Jones v Gwent CC [1992] I.R.L.R. 521
Jones v Herbert (1817) 7 Taunt. 421
Jones v Humphreys [1902] 1 K.B. 10 KBD
Jones v Jones [1977] 1 W.L.R. 438; (1977) 33 P. & C.R. 147 CA
(Civ Div)
Jones v Lee [1980] I.C.R. 310; [1980] I.R.L.R. 67; 78 L.G.R.
213 CA (Civ Div)
Jones v Link Financial Ltd [2012] EWHC 2402 (QB); [2013] 1
W.L.R. 693; [2013] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 572; [2012] E.C.C.
23; [2012] C.T.L.C. 54
Jones v Lock (1865–66) L.R. 1 Ch. App. 25, Lord Chancellor
Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 W.L.R. 328; [1969] 2 All E.R. 616;
(1968) 112 S.J. 965 CA (Civ Div)
Jones v Ricoh UK Ltd [2010] EWHC 1743 (Ch)
Jones v Rimmer (1880) L.R. 14 Ch. D. 588 CA
Jones v Robinson (1847) 1 Ex. 454
Jones v Sherwood Computer Services Plc [1992] 1 W.L.R. 277;
[1992] 2 All E.R. 170; [1989] E.G. 172 (C.S.) CA (Civ Div)
Jones v Society of Lloyd’s; Standen v Society of Lloyd’s, Times,
14–073
2–021,7–011,19–048, 19–072, 20–074
3–162
16–030
6–040, 6–043, 6–045, 7–055, 20–123
17–019, 17–079
20–080
16–018
12–076
3–036
17–021
9–144
6–025
17–008
18–090
8–031
2–019
16–008
15–022
21–037
13–030
15–012
3–139
21–037
15–080
15–029
3–024, 4–018, 4–026
2–098, 11–107, 20–017, 20–069
8–056
3–023
11–051
18–066, 20–143
2 February 2000 Ch D
Jones v Vernon’s Pools [1938] 2 All E.R. 464
4–008
Jones v Waite (1839) 5 Bing. N.C. 341
3–055
Jordan v Norton (1838) 4 M. & W. 155
2–019
Jorden v Money (1854) 5 H.L.C. 185
3–090
Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 Q.B. 86; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 509;
8–062, 8–064
[1970] 1 All E.R. 1213; (1969) 114 S.J. 55 CA (Civ Div)
Joseph v National Magazine Co [1959] Ch. 14; [1958] 3 W.L.R.
20–092, 21–038, 21–042
366 Ch D
Joseph Constantine SS Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd 19–009, 19–070, 19–085, 19–089, 19–116,
[1942] A.C. 154
19–122
Joseph Evans & Co v Heathcote [1918] 1 K.B. 418 CA
3–021, 11–088
Joseph Thorley Ltd v Orchis Steamship Co Ltd [1907] 1 K.B.
7–032
660 CA
Joseph Travers & Sons Ltd v Cooper [1915] 1 K.B. 73 CA
7–034
Josselson v Borst [1938] 1 K.B. 723 CA
13–022
Jotunheim, The. See More OG Romsdal Fylkesbatar AS v
Demise Charterers of the Jotunheim
Joyce v Epsom and Ewell BC [2012] EWCA Civ 1398; [2013] 1
3–133, 3–142
E.G.L.R. 21; [2013] 4 E.G. 108; [2012] 45 E.G. 94 (C.S.);
[2013] 1 P. & C.R. DG1
Joyce v Rigolli [2004] EWCA Civ 79; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 234;
5–008
[2004] All E.R. (D) 203
JP Morgan Chase Bank v Springwell Navigation Corp [2006]
20–035
EWCA Civ 161; [2006] P.N.L.R. 28
JS Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Calcott (No.2) [2002] 1 E.G.L.R. 1;
3–128
[2002] 09 E.G. 222 Ch D
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (Granton Action) [2013] EWHC 867
20–060
(Comm)
JSC Zestafoni G Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant v Ronly Holdings
2–034
Ltd [2004] EWHC 245; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 335 QBD
(Comm)
JSD Corp Pte Ltd v Al Waha Capital PJSC [2009] EWHC 3376
2–099, 4–014, 20–147
(Ch)
JT Developments v Quinn (1991) 62 P. & C.R. 33; [1991] 2
3–123, 3–139
E.G.L.R. 257 CA (Civ Div)
JT Sydenham & Co v Enichers Elastomers [1989] 1 E.G.L.R.
3–114
257
Juliana, The (1822) 2 Dods. 504
17–038
Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] 1 A.C. 520; [1982] 3
14–049, 14–070, 14–074, 14–094
W.L.R. 477; [1982] 3 All E.R. 201; 1982 S.C. (H.L.) 244;
1982 S.L.T. 492; [1982] Com. L.R. 221; 21 B.L.R. 66;
(1982) 79 L.S.G. 1413; (1982) 126 S.J. 538 HL
Junior K, The. See Star Steamship Society v Beogradska
Plovidba (The Junior K)
K (Enduring Powers of Attorney), Re; F, Re [1988] Ch. 310;
12–055
[1988] 2 W.L.R. 781 CA (Civ Div)
K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v Lloyd’s Underwriters (The
9–023, 9–165, 18–037, 18–050, 18–051
Mercandian Continent); sub nom K/S Merc-Scandia
XXXXII v Underwriters of Lloyd’s Policy 25T 105487 (The
Mercandian Continent) [2001] EWCA Civ 1275; [2001] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 563
K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser (Stores Management) Ltd
[2011] EWCA Civ 904; [2012] Ch. 497; [2012] 2 W.L.R.
470; [2011] 2 P. & C.R. 15; [2011] L. & T.R. 28; [2011] 2
E.G.L.R. 11; [2011] 32 E.G. 56; [2011] 31 E.G. 52 (C.S.);
[2011] N.P.C. 93
Kaines (UK) v Oesterreichische Warenhandelsgesellschaft
Austrowaren GmbH (formerly CGL Handelsgesellschaft
mbH) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 CA (Civ Div)
Kaliningrad, The and Nadezhda Krupskaya, The [1997] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 35 QBD (Admlty)
Kall Kwik Printing (UK) Ltd v Bell [1994] F.S.R. 674 Ch D
Kall Kwik Printing (UK) Ltd v Rush [1996] F.S.R. 114 Ch D
Kalsep Ltd v X-Flow BV (2001) 24(7) I.P.D. 24044 Ch D
Kammins Ballrooms Co Ltd v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd
(No.1) [1971] A.C. 850; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 287 HL
Kanchenjunga, The. See Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries
SA v Shipping Corp of India (The Kanchenjunga)
Kapetan Georgis, The. See Virgo Steamship Co SA v Skaarup
Shipping Corp (The Kapetan Georgis)
Kapetan Markos NL (No.2), The. See Hispanica de Petroles SA
v Vencedora Oceanica Navegacion SA (The Kapetan Markos
NL (No.2))
Kapitan Petko Voivoda, The. See Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd
v Klipriver Shipping Ltd (The Kapitan Petko Voivoda)
Karflex Ltd v Poole [1933] 2 K.B. 251 KBD
Karin Vatis, The. See Vagres Compania Maritima SA v NisshoIwai American Corp (The Karin Vatis)
Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis [1956] 1 W.L.R. 936; [1956] 2
All E.R. 866 CA
Káslerv OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt (C-26/13) [2014] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 443; [2014] Bus. L.R. 664; EU:C:2014:282 ECJ
(4th Chamber)
Kastellon, The. See Huilerie L’Abeille v Société des Huileries du
Niger (The Kastellon)
Kasumu v Baba-Egbe [1956] A.C. 539; [1956] 3 W.L.R. 575 PC
(West Africa)
Kathleen, The (1874) L.R. 4 A. & E. 269
Kaufman v Gerson [1904] 1 K.B. 591 CA
Kaukomarkkinat O/Y v Elbe Transport-Union GmbH (The
Kelo) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 85 QBD (Comm)
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd, In the matter of [2010]
EWCA Civ 561; [2010] 2 B.C.L.C. 259
Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1507; [2005]
I.C.R. 625; [2005] I.R.L.R. 40
Kawasaki Steel Corp v Sardoil SpA (The Zuiho Maru) [1977] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 552 QBD (Comm)
Kay, Re [1939] Ch. 239
Kaye SN Co Ltd v W&R Barnett Ltd (1932) 48 T.L.R. 400
Kazakstan Wool Processors (Europe) Ltd v Nederlandsche
Credietverzekering Maatschappij NV [2000] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 708; [2000] C.L.C. 822 CA (Civ Div)
KC Sethia (1944) Ltd v Partabmull Rameshwar [1950] 1 All
7–015
20–077
3–008
11–075, 21–020
11–073, 11–075, 11–078, 18–019
8–009
18–082
22–010
7–023
7–109, 7–120, 23–077
11–133
17–032
10–016
15–065
8–025
6–049
17–065, 19–002
21–046
20–069
17–015, 18–063, 20–152
6–035
E.R. 51
Kearley v Thomson (1890) L.R. 24 Q.B.D. 742 CA
Kearney v Whitehaven Colliery Co [1893] 1 Q.B. 700 CA
Keates v Cadogan (1851) 10 C.B. 591
Keay v Morris Homes (West Midlands) Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ
900; [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2855; [2012] 2 P. & C.R. 18; [2012] 2
E.G.L.R. 173
Keeley v Fosroc International Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1277;
[2006] I.R.L.R. 961
Keeley v Guy McDonald (1984) 134 N.L.J. 522; (1984) 134
N.L.J. 706 QBD
Keelwalk Properties Ltd v Waller [2002] EWCA Civ 1076;
[2002] 3 E.G.L.R. 79
Keen v Holland [1984] 1 W.L.R. 251; [1984] 1 All E.R. 75 CA
(Civ Div)
Kehera, The. See Japan Line Ltd v Himoff Maritime Enterprises
(The Kehera)
Kehoe v Borough of Rutherford, 27 A. 912 (1893)
Keighley Maxsted & Co v Durant (t/a Bryan Durant & Co); sub
nom Durant & Co v Roberts [1901] A.C. 240 HL
Keightley v Watson (1849) 3 Ex. 716
Keir v Leeman (1846) 9 Q.B. 371
Kekewich v Manning (1851) 1 D.M. & G. 176
Kellar v Williams [2004] UKPC 30; [2005] 4 Costs L.R. 559;
(2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 821
Kelly v Cooper [1993] A.C. 205; [1992] 3 W.L.R. 936 PC (Ber)
Kelly v Fraser [2012] UKPC 25; [2013] 1 A.C. 450; [2012] 3
W.L.R. 1008; [2013] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 296; [2012] I.C.R.
1408; [2012] Pens. L.R. 405
Kelly v Lombard Banking Co [1959] 1 W.L.R. 41; [1958] 3 All
E.R. 713 CA
Kelly v Solari (1841) 9 M. & W. 54
Kelner v Baxter (1866–67) L.R. 2 C.P. 174 CCP
Kelo, The. See Kaukomarkkinat O/Y v Elbe Transport-Union
GmbH (The Kelo)
Kelsey v Dodd (1883) 52 L.J. Ch. 34
Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141
Kemp v Baerselman [1906] 2 K.B. 604 CA
Kemp v Balls (1854) 10 Ex. 607
Kemp v Sober (1851) 1 Sim. (N.S.) 517
Kendall v Hamilton (1878–79) L.R. 4 App. Cas. 504 HL
Kennard v Cory Bros & Co Ltd (No.2) [1922] 2 Ch. 1 CA
Kennedy v Broun (1863) 13 C.B.(N.S.) 667
Kennedy v De Trafford [1897] A.C. 180 HL
Kennedy v Lee (1817) 3 Mer. 441
Kennedy v Panama New Zealand & Australian Royal Mail Co;
sub nom Lord Gilbert Kennedy v Panama, New Zealand, &
Australian Royal Mail Co (Ltd); Panama, New Zealand &
Australian Royal Mail Co (Ltd) v Lord Gilbert Kennedy
(1866–67) L.R. 2 Q.B. 580 QB
Kennedy v Thomassen [1929] 1 Ch. 426 Ch D
Kenneth Allison Ltd (In Liquidation) v AE Limehouse & Co
11–046, 11–140
11–155
9–136, 9–138
5–012
6–049
20–040
3–121
3–098, 3–099, 8–060
22–022
14–016, 16–046, 16–057
13–021, 13–022, 13–024
11–046
14–088, 15–024, 15–028, 15–030
11–013, 11–033
16–097
16–025
22–010
22–017
12–080, 16–048, 16–073
14–133
20–130, 20–131
15–054, 15–056
17–008
21–052
13–007, 13–010
21–040
3–019, 11–036
16–004
2–017
8–016, 9–084, 19–121
2–024, 2–069
3–095
[1992] 2 A.C. 105; [1991] 3 W.L.R. 671 HL
Kenney v Wexham (1822) 6 Madd. 355
Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Ltd [2000] Lloyd’s
Rep. P.N. 25 HC (Aus)
Kenya Railways v Antares Co Pte Ltd (The Antares (Nos 1 and
2)) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 424 CA (Civ Div)
Kenyon v Darwen Cotton Manufacturing Co Ltd [1936] 2 K.B.
193 CA
Kenyon, Son & Craven v Baxter Hoare & Co [1971] 1 W.L.R.
519; [1971] 2 All E.R. 708 QBD
Kepong Prospecting Ltd v Schmidt; sub nom Kepong
Prospecting Ltd v Jagatheesan [1968] A.C. 810; [1968] 2
W.L.R. 55 PC (Mal)
Kerr v Morris [1987] Ch. 90; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 662; [1986] 3 All
E.R. 217 CA (Civ Div)
Keteley’s Case (1613) 1 Brownl. 120
KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft fur Mineraloele mbH & Co
KG v Petroplus Marketing AG (The Mercini Lady) [2010]
EWCA Civ 1145; [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 442; [2010] 2
C.L.C. 637
Khatri v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA
[2010] EWCA Civ 397; [2010] I.R.L.R. 715
Kidderminster Corp v Hardwick (1873) L.R. 9 Ex. 13
Kijowski v New Capital Properties (1990) 15 Con. L.R. 1 QBD
Kilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd [2005]
EWCA Civ 1355; [2005] N.P.C. 132; [2006] 1 P. & C.R.
DG20
Killen v Horseworld Ltd [2011] EWHC 1600 (QB)
Killick v Roberts [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1146; [1991] 4 All E.R. 289
CA (Civ Div)
Kilmer v British Columbia Orchard Lands Ltd [1913] A.C. 319
PC (Can)
Kim v Chasewood Park Residents Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 239;
[2013] H.L.R. 24; [2013] 2 P. & C.R. DG4
Kinahan & Co Ltd v Parry [1911] 1 K.B. 459 CA
Kinane v Mackie-Conteh; Kinane v Almack Marketing Services
Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 45; [2005] W.T.L.R. 345
Kinch v Bullard [1999] 1 W.L.R. 423; [1998] 4 All E.R. 650 Ch
D
King, Re (1858) 3 D. & J. 63
King v King (1981) 41 P. & C.R. 311; (1980) 255 E.G. 1205 Ch
D
King v Michael Faraday & Partners Ltd [1939] 2 K.B. 753 KBD
King v Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 W.L.R. 29; [1973] 1 All
E.R. 206; [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 189 CA (Civ Div)
King v Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [1896] A.C. 250 PC (Aus)
King’s Motors (Oxford) v Lax [1970] 1 W.L.R. 426; [1969] 3
All E.R. 665, Chancery Ct of Lancaster
King’s Norton Metal Co v Edridge Merrett & Co (1897) 14
T.L.R. 98
Kings North Trust Ltd v Bell [1986] 1 W.L.R. 119; [1986] 1 All
E.R. 423; (1985) 17 H.L.R. 352; [1985] Fam. Law 225;
21–020
20–022
7–032
11–162
7–020, 7–023, 7–025, 7–032
14–014
11–068, 11–075, 11–080
12–024
7–016
2–018
12–082
15–017
5–008, 5–012
22–021
9–089
20–151
3–081, 3–083, 3–084, 3–121
16–031
5–011
2–038
12–043
2–092
11–061, 15–067
20–072
15–015, 15–059
2–092
8–036, 8–037, 8–039
10–023
(1985) 82 L.S.G. 1329; (1986) 130 S.J. 88 CA (Civ Div)
Kingscroft Insurance Co Ltd v HS Weavers (Underwriting)
16–007, 16–096, 21–020
Agencies [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 187 Ch D
Kingscroft Insurance Co Ltd v Nissan Fire & Marine Insurance
2–076
Co Ltd (No.2) [2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 272; [1999] C.L.C.
1875 QBD (Comm)
Kingsley v Sterling Industrial Securities Ltd [1967] 2 Q.B. 747;
11–143, 11–151
[1966] 2 W.L.R. 1265 CA
Kingston v Ambrian Investment Co [1975] 1 W.L.R. 161;
3–173
[1975] 1 All E.R. 120 CA (Civ Div)
Kingston v Preston (1773) Lofft. 194
17–021
KingswayHall Hotel Ltd v Red Sky IT (Hounslow) Ltd [2010]
18–090
EWHC 965 (TCC)
Kirby (Inspector of Taxes) v Thorn EMI Plc [1988] 1 W.L.R.
11–068
445; [1988] 2 All E.R. 947; [1987] S.T.C. 621; [1987] 2
F.T.L.R. 403; 60 T.C. 519; (1987) 84 L.S.G. 2693; (1987)
131 S.J. 1456 CA (Civ Div)
Kiriri Cotton Co Ltd v Dewani; sub nom Kiriri Cotton Ct v
11–133, 11–135
Dewani [1960] A.C. 192; [1960] 2 W.L.R. 127 PC (EA)
Kirker v Ridley Unreported 17 December 2008 Ch D
3–127, 3–129
Kirkham v Marter (1819) 2 B. & Ald. 613
5–014
Kirklees MBC v Yorks Woollen District Transport Co (1978) 77
19–037
L.G.R. 448
Kirknes, The. See Alsey Steam Fishing Co Ltd v Hillman (The
Kirknes)
Kish v Taylor. See J&E Kish v Charles Taylor & Sons & Co
Kissavos Shipping Co SA v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The
19–006, 19–021, 19–090
Agathon) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 211 CA (Civ Div)
Kite, The [1933] P. 154; (1933) 46 Ll. L. Rep. 83 PDAD
14–071, 14–072
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham City Council [1997] Q.B.
22–015
380; [1996] 3 W.L.R. 1139 CA (Civ Div)
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Glasgow City Council (No.2) [1999] 1
22–004, 22–015
A.C. 153; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 923; [1997] 4 All E.R. 641 HL
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council; Kleinwort
8–022, 8–023, 8–024, 8–025, 9–017, 12–
Benson Ltd v Birmingham City Council; Kleinwort Benson
082, 16–023, 16–081, 22–017
Ltd v Southwark LBC; Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Kensington
and Chelsea RLBC [1999] 2 A.C. 349; [1998] 3 W.L.R.
1095; [1998] 4 All E.R. 513; [1998] Lloyd’s Rep. Bank. 387;
[1999] C.L.C. 332; (1999) 1 L.G.L.R. 148; (1999) 11
Admin. L.R. 130; [1998] R.V.R. 315; (1998) 148 N.L.J.
1674; (1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 279; [1998] N.P.C. 145 HL
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corp Bhd [1989] 1
4–021, 6–016, 9–014, 9–044
W.L.R. 379; [1989] 1 All E.R. 785; [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
556; (1989) 5 B.C.C. 337; (1989) 86(16) L.S.G. 35; (1989)
139 N.L.J. 221; (1989) 133 S.J. 262 CA (Civ Div)
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v South Tyneside MBC [1994] 4 All E.R.
22–003, 22–016
972 QBD
Kloeckner & Co AG v Gatoil Overseas Inc [1990] 1 Lloyd’s
16–005
Rep. 177; [1990] I.L.Pr. 53 QBD
Knatchbull-Hugessen v SISU Capital Ltd [2014] EWHC 1194
2–100
(QB)
Knight Frank LLP v Du Haney [2011] EWCA Civ 404; [2011]
16–078
16 E.G. 78 (C.S.); (2011) 108(17) L.S.G. 15; [2011] N.P.C.
40
Knight Frank LLP v Haney [2011] EWCA Civ 404
Knott v Bolton; sub nom Knutt v Bolton45 Con. L.R. 127;
(1995) 11 Const. L.J. 375 CA (Civ Div)
Knye v Moore (1822) 1 S. & S. 61
Koch Marine Inc v D’Amica Societa di Navigazione arl (The
Elena D’Amico) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 75 QBD (Comm)
Kodros Shipping Corp of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana de Fletes
(The Evia (No.2)) [1983] 1 A.C. 736; [1982] 3 W.L.R. 637;
[1982] 3 All E.R. 350; [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 307; [1982]
Com. L.R. 199; (1982) 126 S.J. 656 HL
Koenigsblatt v Sweet [1923] 2 Ch. 314 CA
Kofi Sunkersette Obu v A Strauss & Co Ltd [1951] A.C. 243;
(1951) 95 S.J. 137 PC (West Africa)
16–078
20–087
11–044
20–048, 20–116
19–006, 19–052, 19–074
16–051
16–085
Kollerich & Cie SA v State Trading Corp of India Ltd [1980] 2
17–011
Lloyd’s Rep. 32 CA (Civ Div)
Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises Pvt Ltd [2010] EWHC
10–006, 10–008, 10–012
113 (Comm); [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 653
Komercni Banka AS v Stone & Rolls Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ
20–121
311; [2003] C.P. Rep. 58
Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd
18–051
[2007] H.C.A. 61, 233 C.L.R. 115
Kooragang Investments Pty v Richardson & Wrench [1982]
16–027, 16–028
A.C. 462; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 493 PC (Aus)
Kores Manufacturing Co Ltd v Kolok Manufacturing Co Ltd
11–089
[1959] Ch. 108; [1958] 2 W.L.R. 858 CA
Kos, The. See ENE 1 Kos Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras
(The Kos)
Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd (The Heron II); sub nom C
9–071, 20–101, 20–102, 20–107, 20–108,
Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (The Heron II) [1969] 1 A.C. 350;
20–109, 20–112
[1967] 3 W.L.R. 1491; [1967] 3 All E.R. 686; [1967] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 457; (1967) 111 S.J. 848 HL
KPMG v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ
6–024, 8–074
363; [2007] Bus L.R. 1336
Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All E.R. 119;
20–092, 20–100, 20–108
[1996] 5 Bank. L.R. 182 CA (Civ Div)
Krall v Burnett (1877) 25 W.R. 305
6–027
Krasner v Dennison; sub nom Lesser v Lawrence; Dennison v
15–074, 15–075
Krasner; Lawrence v Lesser [2001] Ch. 76; [2000] 3 W.L.R.
720 CA (Civ Div)
Krell v Henry [1903] 2 K.B. 740 CA
19–004, 19–005, 19–042, 19–043, 19–056,
19–059, 19–076, 19–121
Kris Motor Spares Ltd v Fox Williams LLP [2009] EWHC 2813
18–073
(QB)
Kriti Palm, The. See AIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd
(The Kriti Palm)
Kriti Rex, The. See Fyffes Group Ltd v Reefer Express Lines
Pty Ltd (The Kriti Rex)
Krohn & Co v Mitsui & Co Europe GmbH [1978] 2 Lloyd’s
18–054
Rep. 419 CA (Civ Div)
Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire [2001] UKHL 29;
[2002] 2 A.C. 122; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1789; [2001] 3 All E.R.
193; (2001) 3 L.G.L.R. 45; [2001] Po. L.R. 181; (2001)
98(28) L.S.G. 43; (2001) 151 N.L.J. 936; (2001) 145
S.J.L.B. 166
Kudos Catering (UK) Ltd v Manchester Central Convention
Complex Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 38; [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
270
Kuenigl v Donnersmarck [1955] 1 Q.B. 515; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 82
QBD
Kumar (A Bankrupt), Re; sub nom Lewis v Kumar [1993] 1
W.L.R. 224; [1993] 2 All E.R. 700 Ch D
Kumar v Life Assurance Co of India [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 147;
(1973) 117 S.J. 833 QBD
Kurnia Dewi, The. See Smit International Singapore Pte Ltd v
Kurnia Dewi Shipping SA (The Kurnia Dewi)
Kurt A Becher GmbH & Co KG v Roplak Enterprises SA (The
World Navigator); sub nom World Navigation, Re; Roplak
Enterprises SA v Tradax Ocean Transportation SA [1991] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 23 CA (Civ Div)
20–019
7–028, 7–030
11–161, 11–164
3–156, 14–133
9–086
17–065, 20–069, 20–078
Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (No.6); sub nom
9–071
Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraq Airways Co (No.6); Kuwait
Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (No.5) [2002] UKHL 19;
[2002] 2 A.C. 883; [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1353; [2002] 3 All E.R.
209; [2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 843; [2003] 1 C.L.C. 183
Kuwait Rocks Co v AMN Bulkcarriers Inc; sub nom MV Astra
18–071
[2013] EWHC 865 (Comm); [2013] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 689;
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 69; [2013] 1 C.L.C. 819
Kuwait Supply Co v Oyster Marine Management Inc (The
19–053, 19–068, 19–070
Safeer) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 637 QBD (Comm)
Kwei Tek Chao (t/a Zung Fu Co) v British Traders & Shippers 18–042, 18–077, 20–048, 20–052, 22–001
Ltd [1954] 2 Q.B. 459; [1954] 2 W.L.R. 365 QBD
Kydon Compania Naviera SA v National Westminster Bank Ltd
17–062
(The Lena) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68; [1980] Com. L.R. 12
QBD (Comm)
Kyle Bay Ltd (t/a Astons Nightclub) v Underwriters; sub nom
8–003, 8–025, 9–012, 9–024
Kyle Bay Ltd (t/a Astons Nightclub) v Underwriters
Subscribing under Policy No. 019057/08/01 [2007] EWCA
Civ 57
Kynixa Ltd v Hynes [2008] EWHC 1495 (QB)
11–078
Kyriaki, The. See Bank of America National Trust and Savings
Association v Chrismas (The Kyriaki)
L v L [1962] P. 101; [1961] 3 W.L.R. 1182 CA
11–048
L French & Co Ltd v Leeston Shipping Co Ltd [1922] 1 A.C.
16–091
451; (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 448 HL
L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd; sub nom
6–026, 18–046, 18–108
Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd v L Schuler AG [1974]
A.C. 235; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 683; [1973] 2 All E.R. 39; [1973]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 53; (1973) 117 S.J. 340 HL
L’Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 K.B. 394 KBD
7–004
L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates Unitramp SA v Yamashita2–005
Shinnihon Steamship Co Ltd (The Boucraa) [1994] 1 A.C.
486; [1994] 2 W.L.R. 39; [1994] 1 All E.R. 20; [1994] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 251; (1994) 138 S.J.L.B. 19 HL
La Pintada, The. See President of India v La Pintada Compania
Navigacion SA (The La Pintada)
Lace v Chantler [1944] K.B. 368 CA
Laceys (Wholesale) Footwear Ltd v Bowler International
Freight Ltd [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 369 CA (Civ Div)
Lacis v Cashmarts [1969] 2 Q.B. 400; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 329 DC
Laconia, The. See Mardorf Peach & Co Ltd v Attica Sea
Carriers Corp of Liberia (The Laconia)
Laemthong Glory (No.2), The. See Laemthong International
Lines Co Ltd v Artis (The Laemthong Glory (No.2))
Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v Artis (The Laemthong
Glory (No.2)); sub nom Laemthong International Lines Co
Ltd v Abdullah Mohammed Fahem & Co [2005] EWCA Civ
519; [2005] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 167
Lagden v O’Connor; sub nom Clark v Tull (t/a Ardington
Electrical Ser-vices); Clark v Ardington Electrical Services;
Dennard v Plant; Sen v Steelform Engineering Co Ltd;
Burdis v Livsey [2003] UKHL 64; [2004] 1 A.C. 1067;
[2003] 3 W.L.R. 1571; [2004] 1 All E.R. 277; [2004] R.T.R.
24; [2004] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 315; (2003) 153 N.L.J. 1869;
(2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 1430
Lagunas Nitrate Co v Lagunas Syndicate [1899] 2 Ch. 392 CA
Laing Management Ltd (formerly Laing Management
Contracting Ltd) v Aegon Insurance Co (UK) Ltd, 86 B.L.R.
70; 55 Con. L.R. 1 QBD (OR)
Lake v Bayliss [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1073; [1974] 2 All E.R. 1114
Ch D
Lake v Lake [1989] S.T.C. 865 Ch D
Lake v Simmons [1927] A.C. 487; (1927) 27 Ll. L. Rep. 377 HL
Lakeman v Mountstephen. See Mountstephen v Lakeman
Lakeport Navigation Co Panama SA v Anonima Petroli Italiana
SpA (The Olympic Brilliance) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205
CA (Civ Div)
Lakschmijit S/O Bhai Suchit v Sherani; sub nom Lakshmijit s/o
Bhai Suchit v Sherani (Faiz Mohammed Khan) (As
Administrator for the Estate of Shahbaz Khan, deceased)
[1974] A.C. 605; [1974] 2 W.L.R. 232 PC (Fiji)
Lalji v Post Office Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1873
Lamare v Dixon (1873) L.R. 6 H.L. 414 HL
Lamb v Evans [1893] 1 Ch. 218 CA
Lambert v Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd [1975] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 485 CA (Civ Div)
Lambert v Lewis; sub nom Lexmead (Basingstoke) Ltd v Lewis
[1982] A.C. 225; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 713 HL
Lambourn v Cruden (1841) 2 M. & G. 253
Lamdon Trust Ltd v Hurrell; sub nom Landom Trust Ltd v
Hurrell [1955] 1 W.L.R. 391; [1955] 1 All E.R. 839 QBD
Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Hob. 105
Lamport & Holt Lines v Coubro & Scrutton (M&I) Ltd (The
Raphael) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 42 CA (Civ Div)
11–146
7–044, 20–107
2–009
14–092, 14–093, 14–095
20–113
9–080, 9–106
18–073
20–010
8–072
8–038
7–015, 17–037
18–012
7–066
21–029, 21–033
16–097
9–146
2–010, 4–004, 14–008, 20–096
17–032, 17–041
20–144
3–019
7–013, 7–033, 17–068
Lamson Pneumatic Tube Co v Phillips (1904) 91 L.T. 363
Lancashire CC v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [1997] Q.B.
897; [1996] 3 W.L.R. 493 CA (Civ Div)
Lancashire Loans Ltd v Black [1934] 1 K.B. 380 CA
Lancaster, The. See Ellerman Lines Ltd v Lancaster Maritime
Co Ltd (The Lancaster)
Lancore Services Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [2010] EWCA Civ
752; [2010] 1 All E.R. 763
Land Rover Group Ltd v UPF (UK) Ltd (In Administrative
Receivership) [2002] EWHC 3183; [2003] 2 B.C.L.C. 222
QBD (Merc)
Landau (A Bankrupt), Re; sub nom Pointer v Landau; L (A
Bankrupt), Re [1998] Ch. 223; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 225 Ch D
Landfast (Anglia) Ltd v Cameron Taylor One Ltd [2008] EWHC
343 (TCC); 117 Con L.R. 53
Lane v O’Brien Homes Ltd [2004] EWHC 303 QBD
Lane v Robinson [2010] EWCA Civ 384
Langdale v Danby [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1123; [1982] 3 All E.R. 129
HL
Langen & Wind Ltd v Bell [1972] Ch. 685; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 170
Ch D
Langsam v Beachcroft LLP [2012] EWCA Civ 1230; [2013] 1
Costs L.O. 112
Langston v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers
(No.2); sub nom Langston v Amalgamated Union of
Engineering Workers (Engineering Section) and Chrysler
(UK) [1974] I.C.R. 510; [1974] I.R.L.R. 182, NIRC
Langston Group Corp v Cardiff City Football Club Ltd [2008]
EWHC 535 (Ch)
Langton v Hughes (1813) 1 M. & S. 593
Langton v Langton [1995] 2 F.L.R. 890; [1995] 3 F.C.R. 521 Ch
D
Langton v Waite (1868–69) L.R. 4 Ch. App. 402 CA in
Chancery
Lansat Shipping Co Ltd v Glencore Grain BV (The Paragon)
[2009] EWHC 551 (Comm); [2009] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 12;
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 658
Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr [1991] 1 W.L.R. 251; [1991] 1 All
E.R. 418 CA (Civ Div)
Lapthorne v Eurofi Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 993; [2001]
U.K.C.L.R. 996
Larios v Bonany y Gurety (1873–74) L.R. 5 P.C. 346 PC (Gib)
Larissa, The. See Showa Oil Tanker Co of Japan Ltd v Maravan
SA of Caracas (The Larissa)
Lark v Outhwaite [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 QBD (Comm)
Larrinaga & Co v Société Franco-Américaine des Phosphates de
Médulla (1923) 92 L.J.K.B. 455
Lasky v Economic Grocery Stores, 65 N.E. 2d 305 (1946)
Latter v Bradell (1880) 50 L.J.C.P. 166; (1881) 50 L.J.Q.B. 448
Lauffer v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals
NHS Trust [2009] EWHC 2360 (QB); [2010] Med L.R. 68
11–068
11–025
10–023
6–040
21–024
15–074
15–045
20–014, 20–015
5–008
3–013
21–018, 21–048
22–026
17–054
15–078
11–018
10–043
16–056
20–134, 20–143
11–071, 11–075, 21–054
11–075
21–018
2–019, 2–048, 2–050, 3–083, 3–089, 4–
002
19–071
2–009
10–003
21–037
Laughton & Hawley v BAPP Industrial Supplies [1986] I.C.R.
634; [1986] I.R.L.R. 245 EAT
Launchbury v Morgans; sub nom Morgans v Launchbury [1973]
A.C. 127; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 1217; [1972] 2 All E.R. 606;
[1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 483; [1972] R.T.R. 406; (1972) 116
S.J. 396 HL
Laurence v Lexcourt Holdings [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1128; [1978] 2
All E.R. 810 CA (Civ Div)
LauritzenCool AB v Lady Navigation Inc; sub nom Lady
Navigation Inc v LauritzenCool AB [2005] EWCA Civ 579;
[2005] 1 W.L.R. 3686
Lavarack v Woods of Colchester [1967] 1 Q.B. 278; [1966] 3
W.L.R. 706 CA
Law v Coburn; sub nom Bonar Law v Coburn (Inspector of
taxes) [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1238; [1972] 3 All E.R. 1115 Ch D
Law v Jones [1974] Ch. 112; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 994 CA (Civ Div)
Law v Law (1735) 3 P.Wms. 391
Law v Wilkin (1837) 6 A. & E. 718
Law Debenture Trust Corp Plc v Elektrim SA [2010] EWCA Civ
1142
Law Debenture Trust Corp v Ural Caspian Oil Corp Ltd [1995]
Ch. 152; [1994] 3 W.L.R. 1221; [1995] 1 All E.R. 157;
[1994] C.L.C. 299 CA (Civ Div)
Law Society v KPMG Peat Marwick; sub nom R. v KPMG Peat
Marwick McLintock [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1921; [2000] 4 All
E.R. 540 CA (Civ Div)
Lawlor v Gray [1984] 3 All E.R. 345 Ch D
Lawrence David Ltd v Ashton [1991] 1 All E.R. 385; [1989]
I.C.R. 123 CA (Civ Div)
Laws v Society of Lloyds [2003] EWCA Civ 1887
Lawson v Supasink (1984) Tr.L. 37
Laythoarp v Bryant (1836) 2 Bing.N.C. 735
Layton v Martin [1986] 2 F.L.R. 227; [1986] Fam. Law 212 Ch
D
Lazenby Garages v Wright [1976] 1 W.L.R. 459; [1976] 2 All
E.R. 770 CA (Civ Div)
LCC v Allen. See London CC v Allen
LCC v Att Gen. See London CC v Att Gen
Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 K.B. 86; [1950] 1 All
E.R. 693 CA
League, The. See Rumput (Panama) SA v Islamic Republic of
Iran Shipping Lines (The League)
Leaman v King, The [1920] 3 K.B. 663 KBD
Learoyd Bros & Co and Huddersfield Fine Worsteds v Pope &
Sons (Dock Carriers) [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 142 QBD
Lease Management Services v Purnell Secretarial Services; sub
nom Purnell Secretarial Services v Lease Management
Services [1994] C.C.L.R. 127; [1994] Tr. L.R. 337 CA (Civ
Div)
Leather Cloth Co v Hieronimus (1874–75) L.R. 10 Q.B. 140
QBD
Ledingham v Bermejo Estancia Co Ltd; Agar v Bermejo
17–075
16–004
8–006, 8–028, 9–028
21–038, 21–058
20–069, 20–120
15–015
4–011
11–057
12–003, 16–018
20–059
14–008, 14–139, 14–140, 15–081
9–039
21–002
11–077, 18–015
9–048
17–040
3–156, 5–023
3–132
20–058
8–018, 8–020, 9–055, 9–098, 9–119, 9–
122
1–007
17–012
7–081
3–072
3–105
Estancia Co Ltd [1947] 1 All E.R. 749 KBD
Lee v Nixon (1834) 1 A. & E. 201
Lee v Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 Q.B. 329;
[1952] 1 All E.R. 1175; [1952] 1 T.L.R. 1115; (1952) 96 S.J.
296 CA
Leeder v Stevens. See Stevens v Newey
Leeds Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd v Slack. See Slack v
Leeds Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd (No.1)
Leeds Rugby Ltd v Harris [2005] EWHC 1591 QBD
Leeds Shipping Co v Société Française Bunge SA (The Eastern
City) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 CA
Leeds United Football Club Ltd v Chief Constable of West
Yorkshire [2013] EWCA Civ 115; [2014] Q.B. 168; [2013] 3
W.L.R. 539; [2013] 2 All E.R. 760
Leeman v Stocks [1951] Ch. 941; [1951] 1 All E.R. 1043 Ch D
Lefevre v White [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 569 QBD
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores, 86 N.W. 2d 689
(1957)
13–002
11–054, 14–010
11–084
17–056
3–046
5–023
17–079
2–011
Legal & General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Co
13–017
(t/a Drake Motor Policies at Lloyd’s) [1992] Q.B. 887;
[1992] 2 W.L.R. 157 CA (Civ Div)
Legal & General Assurance Society Ltd v Expeditors
6–034
International (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 7; (2007) 5 E.G.
307
Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 C.L.R. 406
20–152
Lehman Bros Special Financing Inc v Carlton Communications
20–145
Ltd [2011] EWHC 718 (Ch)
Leicestershire CC v Michael Faraday and Partners, Ltd [1941] 2
16–008
K.B. 205 CA
Leigh & Sillivan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd (The
14–050, 14–070, 14–071, 14–072, 14–073,
Aliakmon); sub nom Leigh & Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon
14–074, 14–076, 21–024
Shipping Co Ltd (The Aliakmon) [1986] A.C. 785; [1986] 2
W.L.R. 902; [1986] 2 All E.R. 145; [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1;
(1986) 136 N.L.J. 415; (1986) 130 S.J. 357 HL
Leila, The. See Swaziland Central Transport Administration and
Alfko Aussenhandels GmbH v Leila Maritime Co Ltd and
Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (The Leila)
Leiston Gas Co v Leiston-Cum-Sizewell UDC [1916] 2 K.B.
19–043
428 CA
Lemenda Trading Co Ltd v African Middle East Petroleum Co
11–058
Ltd [1988] Q.B. 448; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 735 QBD (Comm)
Lemprière v Lange (1879) L.R. 12 Ch. D. 675 Ch D
12–043
Lena, The. See Kydon Compania Naviera SA v National
Westminster Bank Ltd (The Lena)
Leni Gas and Oil Investments Ltd v Malta Oil Pty Ltd [2014]
9–010, 9–031
EWHC 893 (Comm);
Lennon v Commr of Police of the Metropolis; sub nom Commr
3–169
of Police of the Metropolis v Lennon [2004] EWCA Civ
130; [2004] 1 W.L.R. 2594
Lens v Devonshire Club, Times, 4 December 1914
4–016
Leofelis SA v Lonsdale Sports Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 680
9–009, 18–010, 18–073
Leonidas D, The. See Allied Marine Transport v Vale do Rio
Doce Navegacao SA (The Leonidas D)
Lep Air Services Ltd v Rolloswin Investments Ltd. See Moschi
v Lep Air Services Ltd
Leppard v Excess Insurance Co Ltd [1979] 1 W.L.R. 512; [1979]
2 All E.R. 668; [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91; (1979) 250 E.G.
751; (1978) 122 S.J. 182 CA (Civ Div)
Leroux v Brown (1852) 12 C.B. 801
Les Affréteurs Réunis, SA v Leopold Walford (London) Ltd; sub
nom Leopold Walford (LONDON) Ltd v Les Affréteurs
Réunis SA [1919] A.C. 801 HL
Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc [2014] UKSC 55; [2015]
A.C. 430; [2014] 3 W.L.R. 1257; [2015] 1 All E.R. 671;
[2014] Bus. L.R. 1217; [2015] R.P.C. 10
Leslie Shipping Co v Welstead [1921] 3 K.B. 420; (1921) 7 Ll.
L. Rep. 251 KBD
Leslie v Fitzpatrick (1877–78) L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 229 QBD
Lesters Leather & Skin Co Ltd v Home and Overseas Brokers
Ltd (1948–49) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 202; 64 T.L.R. 569 CA
Letts v IRC; sub nom Letts, Re [1957] 1 W.L.R. 201; [1956] 3
All E.R. 588 Ch D
Levene v Brougham (1909) 25 T.L.R. 265
Lever v Koffler [1901] 1 Ch. 543 Ch D
Levett v Barclays Bank Plc [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1260; [1995] 2 All
E.R. 615 QBD
Levey & Co v Goldberg [1922] 1 K.B. 688 KBD
Levi v Berk (1886) 2 T.L.R. 898
Levison v Farin [1978] 2 All E.R. 1149 QBD
Levison v Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co [1978] Q.B. 69;
[1977] 3 W.L.R. 90; [1977] 3 All E.R. 498; (1977) 121 S.J.
406 CA (Civ Div)
Levita’s Case. See International Contract Co, Re
Levy v Goldhill [1917] 2 Ch. 297 Ch D
Levy v Sale (1877) 37 L.T. 709
Lewis v Averay (No.1) [1972] 1 Q.B. 198; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 603;
[1971] 3 All E.R. 907; (1971) 115 S.J. 755 CA (Civ Div)
Lewis v Clay (1897) 67 L.J.Q.B. 224
Lewis v Lord Lechmere (1722) 10 Mod. 503
Lewis v Read (1845) 13 M. & W. 834
Lewis Emanuel & Son Ltd v Sammut [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 629
QBD (Comm)
Lexi Holdings Plc v Pannone & Partners [2009] EWHC 3507
(Ch)
Leyland DAF Ltd v Automotive Products Plc [1993] B.C.C.
389; [1994] 1 B.C.L.C. 245 CA (Civ Div)
LGOC Ltd v Holloway. See London General Omnibus Co Ltd v
Holloway
Lia Oil SA v ERG Petroli [2007] EWHC 505 (Comm); [2007] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 509
Liberty Life Assurance Co v Sheikh, Times, 25 June 1985 CA
Liberty Mercian Ltd v Cuddy Civil Engineering Ltd Queen’s
Bench Division (Technology & Construction [2013] EWHC
2688 (TCC); [2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 761; [2014] B.L.R.
20–043
5–026
14–081, 14–093
11–026, 11–110, 11–111, 11–172
18–020, 18–072
12–012
20–055
15–024
12–043
5–024
9–154
3–070
18–033
20–068, 20–120, 20–121
7–004, 7–022, 7–023, 7–026, 7–028, 7–
037, 7–044, 10–051
16–086
13–003
8–038, 8–039, 8–055
8–085, 8–086
21–019
16–044
17–065, 19–002, 19–009
16–027
18–035
3–022
20–152
8–061, 8–067
179; [2013] T.C.L.R. 9; 150 Con. L.R. 124
Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v Bankers Trust Co [1989] Q.B. 728; 11–060, 17–002, 19–046, 19–050, 19–056
[1989] 3 W.L.R. 314; [1989] 3 All E.R. 252; [1988] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 259; [1987] 2 F.T.L.R. 509; (1989) 133 S.J. 568
QBD (Comm)
Libyaville, The. See Oceanic Freighters Corp v Reederei und
Schiffahrts GmbH (The Libyaville)
Licenses Ins Corp v Lawson
4–027
Lictor Anstalt v Mir Steel UK Ltd; sub nom Mir Steel UK Ltd v
7–035
Morris [2012] EWCA Civ 1397; [2013] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
54; [2013] C.P. Rep. 7; [2013] 2 B.C.L.C. 76
Liebman v Rosenthal, 57 N.Y.S. 2d 875 (1945)
11–135
Lilly, Wilson & Co v Smales, Eeles & Co [1892] 1 Q.B. 456
16–080
QBD
Lim Foo Yong v Collector of Land Revenue [1963] 1 W.L.R.
20–066
295; [1963] 1 All E.R. 186 PC (Mal)
Lim Teng Huan v Ang Swee Chuan [1992] 1 W.L.R. 113; (1992)
3–141
64 P. & C.R. 233 PC (HK)
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) 1 Hurl. & C. 526
16–030
Linck, Moeller & Co v Jameson & Co (1885) 2 T.L.R. 206
16–056
Lincoln v CB Richard Ellis Hotels Ltd [2009] EWHC 2344
11–161, 11–171
(TCC)
Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposal Ltd; St
14–022, 14–023, 14–025, 14–026, 14–027,
Martins Property Corp Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons
14–028, 14–029, 14–030, 14–031, 14–
[1994] 1 A.C. 85; [1993] 3 W.L.R. 408; [1993] 3 All E.R.
032, 14–033, 14–035, 14–036, 14–043,
417; 63 B.L.R. 1; 36 Con. L.R. 1; [1993] E.G. 139 (C.S.);
14–094, 15–045, 15–053, 15–077, 17–
(1993) 143 N.L.J. 1152; (1993) 137 S.J.L.B. 183 HL
066
Lindenau v Desborough (1828) 8 B. & C. 586
9–020
Lindrea, Re (1913) 109 L.T. 623
5–020
Lindsay v O’Loughnane [2010] EWHC 529
5–023
Lindsay (Sir) Parkinson & Co v Commrs of Works and Public
19–043, 19–074, 22–020
Buildings [1949] 2 K.B. 632; [1950] 1 All E.R. 208 CA
Lindsay Petroleum Co v Hurd; Lindsay Petroleum Co v
9–116
Farewell; Lindsay Petroleum Co v Kemp (1873–74) L.R. 5
P.C. 221 PC (Can)
Lingen v Simpson (1824) 1 S. & S. 600
21–024
Linklaters Business Services v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd [2010]
20–121
EWHC 2931 (TCC)
Linnett Bay Shipping Co Ltd v Patraicos Gulf Shipping Co SA
17–065, 18–022
(The Al Tawfiq) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 598 QBD (Comm)
Linz v Electric Wire Co of Palestine [1948] A.C. 371; [1948] 1
22–005
All E.R. 604 PC (Pal)
Lion Nathan Ltd v CC Bottlers Ltd [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1438;
9–067
[1996] 2 B.C.L.C. 371 PC (NZ)
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 A.C. 548; [1991] 3
3–008, 3–032, 3–157, 22–006
W.L.R. 10; [1992] 4 All E.R. 512; (1991) 88(26) L.S.G. 31;
(1991) 141 N.L.J. 815; (1991) 135 S.J.L.B. 36 HL
Lips, The. See President of india v Lips Maritime Corp
Lipton Ltd v Ford [1917] 2 K.B. 647 KBD
19–027
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd; sub nom
6–043, 6–046, 11–026, 16–092, 16–100
Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co v Lister [1957] A.C. 555;
[1957] 2 W.L.R. 158; [1957] 1 All E.R. 125; [1956] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 505; (1957) 121 J.P. 98; (1957) 101 S.J. 106
HL
Lister & Co v Stubbs (1890) L.R. 45 Ch. D. 1 CA
Liston v Owners of the SS Carpathian [1915] 2 K.B. 42 KBD
Litsion Pride, The. See Black King Shipping Corp v Massie
(The Litsion Pride)
Litster v Forth Dry Dock & Engineering Co Ltd; sub nom Forth
Estuary Engineering Ltd v Litster [1990] 1 A.C. 546; [1989]
2 W.L.R. 634; [1989] 1 All E.R. 1134; 1989 S.C. (H.L.) 96;
1989 S.L.T. 540; [1989] 2 C.M.L.R. 194; [1989] I.C.R. 341;
[1989] I.R.L.R. 161; (1989) 86(23) L.S.G. 18; (1989) 139
N.L.J. 400; (1989) 133 S.J. 455 HL
Little v Courage Ltd [1995] C.L.C. 164; (1995) 70 P. & C.R.
469 CA (Civ Div)
Little v Poole (1829) 9 B. & C. 192
Littlewoods Organisation Ltd v Harris [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1472;
[1978] 1 All E.R. 1026; (1977) 121 S.J. 727 CA (Civ Div)
Littman v Aspen Oil (Broking) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1579;
[2006] 2 P. & C.R. 2; [2006] L. & T.R. 9; (2006) 103(5)
L.S.G. 29; [2005] N.P.C. 150
Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner (1860) 2 D.F. & J. 502
Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] A.C. 239; [1976] 2
W.L.R. 562; [1976] 2 All E.R. 39; (1984) 13 H.L.R. 38; 74
L.G.R. 392; (1976) 32 P. & C.R. 43; (1976) 238 E.G. 879;
[1976] J.P.L. 427; (1976) 120 S.J. 267 HL
Liverpool Corp v Wright (1859) 28 L.J.Ch. 868
Liversidge v Broadbent (1859) 4 H. & N. 603
LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 1345
QBD
Lloyd v Browning [2013] EWCA Civ 1637; [2014] 1 P. & C.R.
11; [2014] 1 E.G.L.R. 73
Lloyd v Johnson (1798) 1 B. & P. 340
Lloyd v MGL (Rugby) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 153; (2007) 22
E.G. 162
Lloyd v Stanbury [1971] 1 W.L.R. 535; [1971] 2 All E.R. 267
Ch D
Lloyd’s v Harper (1880–81) L.R. 16 Ch. D. 290 CA
Lloyds and Scottish Finance Ltd v Modern Cars and Caravans
(Kingston) Ltd [1966] 1 Q.B. 764; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 859
QBD
Lloyds Bank Ltd, Re; sub nom Bomze v Bomze; Lederman v
Bomze [1931] 1 Ch. 289 Ch D
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1975] Q.B. 326; [1974] 3 W.L.R.
501; [1974] 3 All E.R. 757; [1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 366;
(1974) 118 S.J. 714 CA (Civ Div)
Lloyds Bank Plc v Burd Pearse; sub nom Lloyds Bank Plc v
Crosse & Crosse; Crosse & Crosse v Lloyds Bank Plc
[2001] EWCA Civ 366; [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 452;
[2001] P.N.L.R. 34 CA (Civ Div)
Lloyds Bank Plc v Carrick [1996] 4 All E.R. 630; [1996] 2
F.L.R. 600 CA (Civ Div)
Lloyds Bank Plc v Egremont [1990] 2 F.L.R. 351; [1990] F.C.R.
16–098
3–052
18–006
2–051, 2–100, 2–110, 3–160, 6–038, 18–
076
11–019
11–071, 11–078, 11–163
8–061, 8–070
11–009
6–039, 6–045, 6–046
15–067
15–002, 15–004
2–036, 2–038, 2–064
9–134
11–044
4–006
20–027, 20–028
2–054, 14–081, 14–083
20–118
10–023
3–013, 10–020, 10–024, 10–045, 10–051
20–024
3–123, 3–128
9–136
770 CA (Civ Div)
Lloyds Bank Plc v Independent Insurance Co Ltd [2000] Q.B.
110; [1999] 2 W.L.R. 986 CA (Civ Div)
Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset [1991] 1 A.C. 107; [1990] 2 W.L.R.
867; [1990] 1 All E.R. 1111; [1990] 2 F.L.R. 155; (1990) 22
H.L.R. 349; (1990) 60 P. & C.R. 311; (1990) 140 N.L.J. 478
HL
Lloyds Bank Plc v Waterhouse [1993] 2 F.L.R. 97; (1991) 10 Tr.
L.R. 161 CA (Civ Div)
Lloyds Bank v Swiss Bankverein (1912) 107 L.T. 309; 108 L.T.
143
Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group
Plc [2013] UKSC 3; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 366; [2013] 2 All E.R.
103; 2013 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 169; 2013 S.C.L.R. 569
LNOC Ltd v Watford Association Football Club Ltd [2013]
EWHC 3615 (Comm)
Load v Green (1846) 153 E.R. 828; (1846) 15 M. & W. 216 Ct
of Exch
Lobster Group Ltd v Heidelberg Graphic Equipment Ltd [2009]
EWHC 1919 (TCC)
17–008
3–121, 3–134,4–017
8–052, 8–079, 8–080, 8–082, 8–086
16–030
6–010
16–017, 16–027
9–115
7–074
Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agroexport and Atlanta
21–034
(UK) Ltd (The Sea Hawk) [1986] 1 W.L.R. 657; [1986] 1
All E.R. 901 CA (Civ Div)
Local Authority X v MM (an adult) [2007] EWHC 2003 (Fam);
12–053
[2009] 1 F.L.R. 443
Lock International Plc v Beswick [1989] 1 W.L.R. 1268; [1989]
21–042
3 All E.R. 373 Ch D
Lock v Bell [1931] 1 Ch. 35 Ch D
18–103
Locker & Woolf ltd v Western Australian Insurance Co Ltd
9–020
[1936] 1 K.B. 408; (1936) 54 Ll. L. Rep. 211 CA
Lockett v AM Charles Ltd [1938] 4 All E.R. 170
14–009, 14–023, 17–066
Lockland Builders v Rickwood (1995) 46 Con L.R. 92
18–072
Lodder v Slowey [1904] A.C. 442 PC (NZ)
22–022
Lodgepower Ltd v Taylor; sub nom Taylor v Lodgepower Ltd
16–107
[2004] EWCA Civ 1367; [2005] 1 E.G.L.R. 1
Loftus v Roberts (1902) 18 T.L.R. 532
2–093
Logan v Le Mesurier (1846) 6 Moo.P.C. 116
19–111
Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd (No.2)
16–098
[1988] 1 W.L.R. 1256; [1988] E.G. 114 (C.S.) Ch D
Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 419; [2012] 2
6–042, 18–078
All E.R. (Comm) 1076; [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 548; [2013] 1
B.C.L.C. 27; [2012] 1 C.L.C. 713
Lombank v Excell [1964] 1 Q.B. 415; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 700 CA
20–130
Lombard North Central Plc v Butterworth [1987] Q.B. 527;
18–045, 18–071, 18–073, 18–102, 20–135
[1987] 2 W.L.R. 7 CA (Civ Div)
Lombard North Central Plc v Stobart (1990) 9 Tr. L.R. 105;
3–090
[1990] C.C.L.R. 53 CA (Civ Div)
Lombard Tricity Finance v Paton [1989] 1 All E.R. 918; (1989)
2–096, 3–052
8 Tr. L.R. 129 CA (Civ Div)
London & Birmingham Ry v Winter (1840) Cr. & Ph. 57
6–021
London & Clydebank Properties v HM Investment Co [1993]
3–081
E.G. 63 (C.S.)
London and Harrogate Securities Ltd v Pitts [1976] 1 W.L.R.
1063; [1976] 3 All E.R. 809 CA (Civ Div)
London and Northern Bank Ex p. Jones, Re [1900] 1 Ch. 220 Ch
D
London & Northern Estates Co v Schlesinger [1916] 1 K.B. 20
KBD
London & Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc [2002] EWCA
Civ 355
London and South of England Building Society v Stone [1983] 1
W.L.R. 1242; [1983] 3 All E.R. 105 CA (Civ Div)
London Assurance Co v Mansel; sub nom London Assurance v
Mansel (1879) L.R. 11 Ch. D. 363 Ch D
London CC v Allen [1914] 3 K.B. 642 CA
London CC v Att Gen; sub nom Att Gen v London CC [1902]
A.C. 165 HL
London, Chatham & Dover Ry Co v South Eastern Ry Co
[1893] A.C. 429 HL
London County Commercial Reinsurance Office Ltd, Re [1922]
2 Ch. 67; (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 370 Ch D
London County Freehold and Leasehold Properties Ltd v
Berkeley Property Investment Co [1936] 2 All E.R. 1039 CA
London County Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association v
Nichols; London County Territorial and Auxiliary Forces
Association v Parker [1949] 1 K.B. 35; [1948] 2 All E.R.
432 CA
London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagle International Ltd [1992] 3
S.C.R. 299
London General Omnibus Co Ltd v Holloway [1912] 2 K.B. 72
CA
London Holeproof Hosiery Co Ltd v Padmore (1928) 44 T.L.R.
499
London Lion, The. See Anglomar Shipping Co v Swan Hunter
Shipbuilders and Swan Hunter Group (The London Lion)
London Regional Transport v Wimpey Group Services Ltd
(1987) 53 P. & C.R. 356; [1986] 2 E.G.L.R. 41 Ch D
London Wine Co (Shippers), Re [1986] P.C.C. 121
Long v Lloyd [1958] 1 W.L.R. 753; [1958] 2 All E.R. 402 CA
Long v Millar (1878–79) L.R. 4 C.P.D. 450 CA
Longden v British Coal Corp [1998] A.C. 653; [1997] 3 W.L.R.
1336; [1998] 1 All E.R. 289; [1998] I.C.R. 26; [1998]
I.R.L.R. 29; [1998] P.I.Q.R. Q11; [1998] O.P.L.R. 223;
[1998] Pens. L.R. 71; (1998) 95(1) L.S.G. 25; (1997) 147
N.L.J. 1774; (1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 28 HL
Longlands Farm, Re; sub nom Alford v Superior Developments
Ltd [1968] 3 All E.R. 552; (1969) 20 P. & C.R. 25 Ch D
Longman v Blount (1896) 12 T.L.R. 520
Longstaff v Birtles [2001] EWCA Civ 1219; [2002] 1 W.L.R.
470
Lonrho Plc v Al-Fayed (No.2) [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1; [1991] 4 All
E.R. 961 Ch D
Lonsdale & Thompson Ltd v Black Arrow Group Plc; sub nom
Lonsdale & Thompson Ltd v Black Arrow Group Plc and
11–003, 11–019
2–030
19–058
2–085, 2–089, 2–100
20–116
9–096, 9–146
14–138
12–073, 12–075
20–060
11–007, 22–013
9–036
9–167
14–017, 14–061, 14–118
9–154
8–044
8–060
21–024, 21–026
9–098, 9–107, 9–116
5–025
20–120
18–105
9–052
10–023
9–020, 9–090
14–127
American International Underwriters UK Ltd [1993] Ch.
361; [1993] 2 W.L.R. 815 Ch D
Lonsdale (t/a Lonsdale Agencies) v Howard & Hallam Ltd
[2006] EWCA Civ 63; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1281
Looker v Law Union & Rock Insurance Co Ltd [1928] 1 K.B.
554 KBD
Looney v Trafigura Beheer BV [2011] EWHC 125 (Ch)
Lord Strathcona Steamship Co Ltd v Dominion Coal Co Ltd
[1926] A.C. 108; (1925) 23 Ll. L. Rep. 145, PC
Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] Q.B. 752;
[1996] 3 W.L.R. 688 QBD
Lorna I, The. See Compania Naviera General SA v Kerametal
(The Lorna I)
Losinjska Plovidba v Transco Overseas Ltd (The Orjula) [1995]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395; [1995] C.L.C. 1325 QBD (Comm)
Lotus Cars Ltd v Southampton Cargo Handling Plc (The
Rigoletto); sub nom Southampton Cargo Handling Plc v
Lotus Cars Ltd (The Rigoletto); Southampton Cargo
Handling Plc v Associated British Ports [2000] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 705; [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 532
Louinder v Leis, 149 C.L.R. 509
Louis Dreyfus & Co v Atlantic Shipping & Trading Co Ltd.
SeeAtlantic Shipping & Trading Co Ltd v Louis Dreyfus &
Co (The Quantock)
Louis Dreyfus Trading Ltd v Reliance Trading Ltd [2004]
EWHC 525; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243 QBD (Comm)
Lound v Grimwade (1888) L.R. 39 Ch. D. 605 Ch D
Love & Stewart Ltd v S Instone & Co Ltd (1917) 33 T.L.R. 457
Lovell and Christmas v Beauchamp; sub nom Beauchamp Bros,
Re [1894] A.C. 607 HL
Lovell and Christmas v Wall (1911) 104 L.T. 84
Lovelock (EJR) v Exportles [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163 CA (Civ
Div)
Lovelock v Franklyn (1846) 8 Q.B. 371
Low v Bouverie [1891] 3 Ch. 82 CA
Low v Fry (1935) 152 L.T. 585
Lowe v Hope [1970] Ch. 94; [1969] 3 W.L.R. 582 Ch D
Lowe v Lombank [1960] 1 W.L.R. 196
Lowe v Peers (1768) 2 Burr. 2225
Lowe & Sons v Dixon & Sons (1885–86) L.R. 16 Q.B.D. 455
QBD
Lowlands Orchid, The. See Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v
Swissmarine Services SA (The Lowlands Orchid)
Lowther v Lowther (1806) 3 Ves. 95
Lucas v Beale (1851) 10 C.B. 739
Lucas v Dixon (1889) L.R. 22 Q.B.D. 357 CA
Lucas v Moncrieff (1905) 21 T.L.R. 683
Lucas v Ogden [1988] 32 E.G. 45; [1988] E.G. 72 (C.S.); [1988]
2 E.G.L.R. 176 CA (Civ Div)
Lucille, The. See C-Trade of Geneva SA v Uni-Ocean Lines Pte
of Singapore (The Lucille)
Lucy, The. See Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co Inc v Hallam
16–109
2–066
18–069
14–138, 14–140, 14–141
20–130, 20–137, 20–138
14–046, 14–049
3–054, 14–060, 14–066, 14–067
18–107
20–050
11–046, 11–154, 11–158
2–079
12–020, 13–011
6–011, 8–067
2–083
17–057
3–081, 3–088, 9–167, 9–168
5–026
20–154
9–126
11–041
13–019
21–024
16–068
5–024
15–074
20–006
Ltd (The Lucy)
Ludditt v Ginger Coote Airways [1947] A.C. 233; [1947] 1 All
7–044
E.R. 328 PC (Can)
Luganda v Services Hotels [1969] 2 Ch. 209; [1969] 2 W.L.R.
21–041
1056 CA (Civ Div)
Lukoil-Kalingradmorneft Plc v Tata Ltd (No.2) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s
14–073, 16–008
Rep. 129 CA (Civ Div)
Lumley v Ravenscroft [1895] 1 Q.B. 683 CA
12–028, 21–047
Lumley v Wagner (1852) 1 De G.M. & G. 604
12–013, 21–057, 21–059
Lumsden’s Case. See Blakely Ordnance Co, Re
Luna, The [1920] P. 22; (1919) 1 Ll. L. Rep. 475 PDAD
7–004
Lunn Poly Ltd v Liverpool & Lancashire Properties Ltd (2006)
20–014, 20–015
25 E.G. 210
Lusograin Comercio Internacional de Cereas Limitada v Bunge
18–005, 20–071, 20–143
AG [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 654 QBD (Comm)
Lusty Architects v Finsbury Securities, 58 B.L.R. 66CA (Civ
22–022
Div)
Lutetian, The. See Tradax Export SA v Dorada Compania
Naviera SA of Panama (The Lutetian)
Luxe Holding Ltd v Midland Resources Holding Ltd [2010]
20–013, 20–017
EWHC 1908 (Ch)
Luxmoore-May v Messenger May Baverstock [1990] 1 W.L.R.
8–020, 20–047
1009; [1990] 1 All E.R. 1067 CA (Civ Div)
Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] A.C. 108; [1941] 1 All
2–056, 2–107, 6–033, 6–035, 6–036, 6–
E.R. 33 HL
040, 6–041, 16–088, 16–091
Lycaon, The. See Elder Dempster Lines v Zaki Ishag (The
Lycaon)
Lymington Marina Ltd v Macnamara [2007] EWCA Civ 151
2–096, 6–037, 6–041, 15–050
Lyne-Pirkis v Jones [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1293; [1969] 3 All E.R.
11–075, 11–078
738 CA (Civ Div)
Lyth v Ault (1852) 7 Ex. 669
3–165
Lyus v Prowsa Developments Ltd [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1044; [1982] 14–083, 14–133, 14–134, 14–140, 21–048
2 All E.R. 953; (1982) 44 P. & C.R. 213; (1982) 126 S.J. 102
Ch D
M Vatan, The. See CT Bowring Reinsurance Ltd v Baxter (The
M Vatan and M Ceyhan)
M&J Polymers Ltd v Imerys Minerals Ltd [2008] EWHC 344;
20–143
[2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 541
M&S Drapers (A Firm) v Reynolds [1957] 1 W.L.R. 9; [1956] 3
11–076
All E.R. 814 CA
M’Iver v Richardson (1813) 1 M. & S. 557
2–024
M’Kinnell v Robinson (1838) 3 M. & W. 434
11–167
Maas (UK) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd. See Frans
Maas (UK) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd
MacAndrew v Chapple (1865–66) L.R. 1 C.P. 643 CCP
18–050
MacDonald Dickens & Macklin v Costello; sub nom Costello v
22–001
MacDonald [2011] EWCA Civ 930; [2012] Q.B. 244; [2011]
3 W.L.R. 1341; [2012] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 357; [2011]
B.L.R. 544; 137 Con. L.R. 55; [2011] 3 E.G.L.R. 87; [2011]
47 E.G. 106; [2011] C.I.L.L. 3081
Macdonald v Longbottom (1859) 1 E. & E. 977
6–028
Macedo v Stroud [1922] 2 A.C. 330 PC (Trin)
3–170, 15–029
MacFisheries Ltd v Harrison (1924) 93 L.J.K.B. 811
16–031
MacJordan Construction Ltd v Brookmount Erostin Ltd [1992]
14–137
B.C.L.C. 350; [1994] C.L.C. 581 CA (Civ Div)
Mack Trucks (Britain) Ltd, Re [1967] 1 W.L.R. 780; [1967] 1
15–052
All E.R. 977 Ch D
Mackay v Dick (1880–81) L.R. 6 App. Cas. 251 HL
2–107, 2–110, 6–041, 21–009
Mackender v Feldia AG; sub nom Mackenda v Feldia [1967] 2
11–111
Q.B. 590; [1967] 2 W.L.R. 119; [1966] 3 All E.R. 847;
[1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449; (1966) 110 S.J. 811 CA
Mackenzie v Coulson (1869) L.R. 8 Eq. 368, Ct of Chancery
8–059, 8–064
MacKenzie v Royal Bank of Canada [1934] A.C. 468 PC (Can)
9–017, 9–109, 9–154, 10–023
Mackie v European Assurance Society (1869) 21 L.T. 102
8–045
Macklin v Dowsett [2004] EWCA Civ 904; [2004] 2 E.G.L.R.
10–014, 10–020
75
Maclean v Dunn (1828) 4 Bing. 722
16–051, 18–103
MacLeod v MacLeod [2008] UKPC 64; [2010] 1 A.C. 298;
11–049
[2009] 3 W.L.R. 437; [2009] 1 All E.R. 851; [2009] 1 F.L.R.
641; [2009] 1 F.C.R. 523; (2008–09) 11 I.T.E.L.R. 819;
[2009] Fam. Law 178
Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No.3)
16–017
[1996] 1 W.L.R. 387; [1996] 1 All E.R. 585 CA (Civ Div)
Macpherson v Lambeth LBC [1988] I.R.L.R. 470
17–045
Macquarie International Investments Ltd v Glencore UK Ltd
7–076
[2008] EWHC 2716 (Comm); [2008] 2 B.C.L.C. 565
MacRobertson Miller Airline Service v Commr of State
2–012
Taxation (1975) 8 A.L.R. 131
Maddison v Alderson; sub nom Alderson v Maddison (1882–83)
3–090, 5–024
L.R. 8 App. Cas. 467 HL
Madeleine, The. See Cheikh Boutros Selim El-Khoury v Ceylon
Shipping Lines (The Madeleine)
Maden v Clifford Coppock & Carter [2004] EWCA Civ 1037;
20–059
[2005] 2 All E.R. 43
Maersk Colombo, The. See Southampton Container Terminals
Ltd v Hansa Schiffahrts GmbH (The Maersk Colombo)
Maestro Bulk Ltd v Cosco Bulk Carrier Co Ltd; sub nom The
20–111
Great Creation [2014] EWHC 3978 (Comm); [2015] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 315
Mafo v Adams [1970] 1 Q.B. 548; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 72 CA (Civ
20–019, 20–086
Div)
Magee v Pennine Insurance Co [1969] 2 Q.B. 507; [1969] 2
8–018, 8–028
W.L.R. 1278 CA (Civ Div)
Maharaj v Chand [1986] A.C. 898; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 440 PC
3–078, 3–085, 3–087
(Fiji)
Mahkutai, The [1996] A.C. 650; [1996] 3 W.L.R. 1; [1996] 3 All 3–054, 14–016, 14–059, 14–060, 14–063,
E.R. 502; [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [1996] C.L.C. 799;
14–065, 14–066, 14–073, 14–091
(1996) 146 N.L.J. 677; (1996) 140 S.J.L.B. 107 PC (HK)
Mahmoud and Ispahani, Re; sub nom Mahmoud v Ispahani;
11–020, 11–120, 11–125, 11–138
Arbitration between Mahmoud and Ispahani, Re [1921] 2
K.B. 716; (1921) 6 Ll. L. Rep. 344 CA
Mahmud v BCCI. See Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce
International SA (In Liquidation)
Mahon v Ainscough [1952] 1 All E.R. 337; [1952] W.N. 68 CA
9–052
Mahoney v Purnell [1996] 3 All E.R. 61; [1997] 1 F.L.R. 612
10–024, 10–027, 10–035, 20–071
QBD
Mahonia Ltd v JP Morgan Chase Bank (No.1) [2003] EWHC
11–060
1927; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 911 QBD (Comm)
Mahony v East Holyford Mining Co Ltd (1874–75) L.R. 7 H.L.
16–027
869 HL (UK-Irl)
Mahony v Kekulé (1854) 14 C.B. 390
16–069
Maine Spinning Co v Sutcliffe & Co (1918) 87 L.J.K.B. 382
19–030
Maira (No.2), The. See Glafki Shipping Co SA v Pinios
Shipping Co No.1 (The Maira)
Maira (No.3), The. See National Bank of Greece SA v Pinios
Shipping Co (The Maira)
Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV [2013] EWCA Civ 20–131, 20–136, 20–137, 20–138, 20–143,
1539; [2014] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 125; [2013] 2 C.L.C. 968;
20–145
[2014] B.L.R. 246
Maktoum v South Lodge Flats Ltd, Times, 21 April 1980
20–150
Malcolm v Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University
2–092, 21–038
of Oxford (t/a Oxford University Press) [1994] E.M.L.R. 17
CA (Civ Div)
Malcolm-Ellis (Liverpool) v American Electronic Laboratories
18–018
(1984) 134 N.L.J. 500 DC
Malhotra v Choudhury [1980] Ch. 52; [1978] 3 W.L.R. 825 CA
21–063
(Civ Div)
Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In
6–043, 6–044, 6–045, 8–024, 20–083, 20–
Liquidation); sub nom Mahmud v Bank of Credit and
091, 20–092, 20–101
Commerce International SA (In Liquidation); BCCI SA, Re
[1998] A.C. 20; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 95; [1997] 3 All E.R. 1;
[1997] I.C.R. 606; [1997] I.R.L.R. 462; (1997) 94(25)
L.S.G. 33; (1997) 147 N.L.J. 917 HL
Malins v Freeman (1837) 2 Keen 25
8–056, 21–031
Malla v Gurung Unreported 16 December 2014 CA
21–002
Mallalieu v Hodgson (1851) 16 Q.B. 689
11–015
Malloch v Aberdeen Corp (No.1) [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1578; [1971]
21–037
2 All E.R. 1278; 1971 S.C. (H.L.) 85; 1971 S.L.T. 245;
(1971) 115 S.J. 756 HL
Mallozzi v Carapelli SpA [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 407 CA (Civ
2–099
Div)
Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd; Smith v Littlewoods
14–046
Organisation Ltd [1987] A.C. 241; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 480 HL
Malone v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1225; [2011]
6–049
I.C.R. 125; [2011] I.R.L.R. 32
Malone v Commr of Police of the Metropolis (No.2) [1979] Ch.
11–069
344; [1979] 2 W.L.R. 700 Ch D
Malpass (Deceased), Re; sub nom Lloyds Bank Plc v Malpass
2–096
[1985] Ch. 42; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 372 Ch D
Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Co SA v Okta Crude Oil
2–087, 2–092, 2–093, 2–095, 2–099, 4–
Refinery AD (No.1) [2001] EWCA Civ 406; [2001] 2 All
003
E.R. (Comm) 193; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76
Mamola Challenger, The. See Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola
Challenger Shipping Co Ltd (The Mamola Challenger)
Man Nutzfahrzeuge AG v Freightliner Ltd; sub nom Man
9–036, 9–071, 9–074
Nutzfahrzeuge AG v Ernst & Young [2005] EWHC 2347
QBD (Comm)
Manatee Towing Co Ltd v Oceanbulk Maritime SA (The Bay
Ridge); Oceanbulk Maritime SA v Manatee Towing Co Ltd;
Manatee Towing Co Ltd v McQuilling Brokerage Partners
Inc [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 306; [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
227 QBD (Comm)
Manbré Saccharine Co Ltd v Corn Products Co Ltd [1919] 1
K.B. 198 KBD
Manches LLP v Freer [2006] EWHC 991; (2007) 151 S.J.L.B.
24 QBD
Manches v Trimborn (1946) 115 L.J. K.B. 305
Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton [2000] Q.B. 133; [1999] 3
W.L.R. 524; [1999] 2 All E.R. 675; (2000) 79 P. & C.R. 541;
[1999] 1 E.G.L.R. 147; [1999] E.G. 31 (C.S.); (1999) 96(11)
L.S.G. 69; (1999) 96(9) L.S.G. 34; (1999) 149 N.L.J. 333;
(1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 89; [1999] Env. L.R. D19 CA (Civ Div)
Manchester Brewery Co v Coombs [1901] 2 Ch. 608 Ch D
Manchester Diocesan Council of Education v Commercial &
General Investments, Ltd [1970] 1 W.L.R. 241; [1969] 3 All
E.R. 1593 Ch D
Manchester Ship Canal Co v Manchester Racecourse Co [1901]
2 Ch. 37 CA
Mander v Evans [2001] 1 W.L.R. 2378; [2001] 3 All E.R. 811
Ch D
Mangistaumunaigaz Oil Production Association v United World
Trading Inc [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 617 QBD (Comm)
Mangles v Dixon (1852) 3 H.L.C. 702
Manifest Lipkowy, The. See Marcan Shipping (London) v Polish
Steamship Co (The Manifest Lipkowy)
Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd (The
Star Sea); sub nom Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris
Shipping Co Ltd (The Star Sea) [2001] UKHL 1; [2003] 1
A.C. 469; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 170; [2001] 1 All E.R. 743;
[2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 193; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 389;
[2001] C.L.C. 608; [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 247
Manila, The. See Procter & Gamble Phillipine Manufacturing
Corp v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co (The Manila (No.2))
Mann v Edinburgh Northern Tramways Co [1893] A.C. 69 HL
Mann v Forrester (1814) 4 Camp. 60
Mann v Nunn (1874) 30 L.T. 526
Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd
[1997] A.C. 749; [1997] 2 W.L.R. 945; [1997] 3 All E.R.
352; [1997] C.L.C. 1124; [1997] 1 E.G.L.R. 57; [1997] 25
E.G. 138; [1997] 24 E.G. 122; (1997) 16 Tr. L.R. 432;
[1997] E.G. 82 (C.S.); (1997) 94(30) L.S.G. 30; (1997) 147
N.L.J. 846; (1997) 141 S.J.L.B. 130; [1997] N.P.C. 81 HL
Manser v Back (1848) 6 Hare 433
Mansouri v Singh [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1393; [1986] 2 All E.R. 619
CA (Civ Div)
Manton Hire and Sales Ltd v Ash Manor Cheese Co Ltd [2013]
EWCA Civ 548
Mantovani v Carapelli SpA [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 375; (1979)
2–017, 4–023
19–014
6–020, 7–100
12–053, 12–055
14–141
15–015
2–041, 2–042, 2–065
21–058
9–048
8–061
15–037
9–087, 9–096, 9–140, 9–148, 9–150, 9–
162, 9–164, 9–165
16–047
16–061
6–030
6–008, 6–011, 6–022, 15–020
8–056
11–167
20–117
18–037
123 S.J. 568 CA (Civ Div)
Manubens v Leon [1919] 1 K.B. 208 KBD
20–059
Maple Flock Co Ltd v Universal Furniture Products (Wembley)
18–034, 18–035
Ltd [1934] 1 K.B. 148 CA
Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v Rouvroy [2009]
2–002, 2–003, 2–017, 2–019, 2–084, 2–
EWCA Civ 1334; [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 788
089, 4–002, 7–101, 7–103, 7–106
Maran Road Saw Mill v Austin Taylor & Co Ltd. See Ng Chee
Chong, Ng Weng Chong, Ng Cheng and Ng Yew (A Firm t/a
Maran Road Saw Mill) v Austin Taylor & Co
Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd (The
14–047, 14–050
Nicholas H) [1996] A.C. 211; [1995] 3 W.L.R. 227; [1995] 3
All E.R. 307; [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 299; [1995] C.L.C. 934;
[1996] E.C.C. 120; (1995) 145 N.L.J. 1033; (1995) 139
S.J.L.B. 165 HL
Marcan Shipping (London) v Polish Steamship Co (The
6–037, 6–041, 14–081, 16–089
Manifest Lipkowy) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 CA (Civ Div)
March Cabaret Club & Casino v London Assurance; March
9–154
Cabaret Club & Casino v Thompson & Bryan [1975] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 169 QBD
March v Culpepper (1628) Cro.Car. 70
3–031
Marchington v Vernon (1786) 1 B. & P. 101
14–016
Marco Productions Ltd v Pagola [1945] K.B. 111 KBD
21–052
Mardorf Peach & Co Ltd v Attica Sea Carriers Corp of Liberia
3–066, 3–081, 9–095, 18–063, 18–063,
(The Laconia) [1977] A.C. 850; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 286; [1977]
18–064, 18–066, 18–080, 18–085, 18–
1 All E.R. 545; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 315; (1977) 121 S.J.
109, 21–024
134 HL
Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel GmbH
9–015, 17–029, 17–074, 18–044, 18–064,
(The Mihalis Angelos) [1971] 1 Q.B. 164; [1970] 3 W.L.R.
18–072, 18–103, 20–078, 20–079, 20–
601; [1970] 3 All E.R. 125; [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43;
080, 20–081
(1970) 114 S.J. 548 CA (Civ Div)
Marex Financial Ltd v Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd, [2010] EWHC
7–038
2690 (Comm)
Margarine Union GmbH v Cambay Prince Steamship Co (The
14–050
Wear Breeze) [1969] 1 Q.B. 219; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1569
QBD (Comm)
Margaronis Navigation Agency Ltd v Henry W Peabody & Co
7–047
of London Ltd [1965] 2 Q.B. 430; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 873 CA
Maria D, The. See Elpis Maritime Co v Marti Chartering Co
Marielle Bolten, The. See Whitesea Shipping & Trading Corp v
El Paso Rio Clara Ltda (The Marielle Bolten)
Marina Shipping v Laughton (The Antama) [1982] Q.B. 1127;
14–009
[1982] 2 W.L.R. 569; [1982] 1 All E.R. 481; [1982] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 112; [1982] Com. L.R. 36; [1982] I.C.R. 215;
[1982] I.R.L.R. 20; (1982) 126 S.J. 207 CA (Civ Div)
Marine Blast Ltd v Targe Towing Ltd; sub nom Targe Towing
16–018
Ltd v Marine Blast Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 346; [2004] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 721
Marine Star, The. See Coastal (Bermuda) Petroleum Ltd v VTT
Vulcan Petroleum SA (The Marine Star)
Marine Star, The (No.2), The. See Coastal (Bermuda) Petroleum
Ltd v VTT Vulcan Petroleum SA (No.2) (The Marine Star
(No.2))
Marinor, The. See Noranda Inc v Barton (Time Charter) Ltd
(The Marinor)
Mariola Marine Corp v Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (The
9–024, 9–039, 19–036
Morning Watch) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 547; [1991] E.C.C.
103 QBD (Comm)
Marion White Ltd v Francis [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1423; [1972] 3 All
11–071
E.R. 857 CA (Civ Div)
Maritime & Aviation Services Ltd v Sveriges Angfartygs
14–092, 14–093
Assurans Forening [2009] EWHC 716 (Comm)
Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd; sub nom
19–029, 19–042, 19–048, 19–087, 19–088
Ocean Trawlers Ltd v Maritime National Fish Ltd [1935]
A.C. 524; (1935) 51 Ll. L. Rep. 299 PC (Can)
Maritime Transport Overseas GmbH v Unitramp SA (The
20–118
Antaios); Salen Rederierna AB v Antaios Compania Naviera
SA; Salen Dry Cargo AB v Unitramp; Salen Dry Cargo AB
v Salen Rederierna AB; Salen Rederierna AB v Salen Dry
Cargo AB; Unitramp v Salen Dry Cargo AB; Unitramp SA
Maritime Transport Overseas GmbH [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
284; [1981] Com. L.R. 160 QBD (Comm)
Maritime Winner, The. See Thai-Europe Tapioca Service Ltd v
Seine Navigation Co Inc (The Maritime Winner)
Mark Rowlands Ltd v Berni Inns Ltd [1986] Q.B. 211; [1985] 3
W.L.R. 964; [1985] 3 All E.R. 473; [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
437; [1985] 2 E.G.L.R. 92; (1985) 276 E.G. 191 CA (Civ
Div)
Markel International Insurance Co Ltd v Surety Guarantee
Consultants Ltd [2008] EWHC 1135 (Comm)
Markham v Paget [1908] 1 Ch. 697 Ch D
Marks & Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust
Co (Jersey) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1279 (Ch); [2013] L. & T.R.
31; [2013] 22 E.G. 92 (C.S.)
Marleasing SAv La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion
SA (C–106/89) [1990] E.C.R. I-4135; [1993] B.C.C. 421;
[1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 305 (C-106/89)
Marles v Philip Trant & Sons Ltd (No.2) [1954] 1 Q.B. 29;
[1953] 2 W.L.R. 564 CA (Civ Div)
Marley Tile Co v Johnson [1982] I.R.L.R. 75 CA (Civ Div)
Marlow v Pitfeild (1719) 1 P.Wms. 558
Marplace (Number 512) Ltd v Chaffe Street (A Firm) [2006]
EWHC 1919 Ch D
Marriott v Oxford and District Cooperative Society (No.2)
[1970] 1 Q.B. 186; [1969] 3 W.L.R. 984 CA (Civ Div)
Marrison v Bell [1939] 2 K.B. 187 CA
Marsden v Guide Dogs for the Blind Association; sub nom
Burton Marsden Douglas, Re [2004] EWHC 593; [2004] 3
All E.R. 222 Ch D
Marseille Fret SA v D Oltmann Schiffahrts GmbH & Co KG
(The Trado) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 157; [1981] Com. L.R.
277 QBD (Comm)
Marsh v Glanvill [1917] 2 K.B. 87
Marsh v National Autistic Society [1993] I.C.R. 453 EAT
14–127, 20–121
16–099, 20–116
5–008
6–036, 22–004
23–065
11–025
11–075
12–010
7–079
17–072
19–023
3–164, 3–165
3–057
19–046
16–104, 18–006, 21–036
Marshall, Re; sub nom Marshall v Whateley [1920] 1 Ch. 284
Ch D
Marshall v Berridge (1881–82) L.R. 19 Ch. D. 233 CA
Marshall v Harland & Wolff Ltd [1972] 1 W.L.R. 899; [1972] 2
All E.R. 715, NIRC
Marshall v NM Financial Management Ltd; sub nom NM
Financial Management Ltd v Marshall [1997] 1 W.L.R.
1527; [1997] I.C.R. 1065; [1997] I.R.L.R. 449 CA (Civ Div)
Marshall v Rubypoint Ltd (1997) 29 H.L.R. 850; [1997] 1
E.G.L.R. 69; [1997] E.G. 12 (C.S.) CA (Civ Div)
Marshall (Cambridge) v Hamblin [1994] I.C.R. 362; [1994]
I.R.L.R. 260 EAT
Marston Construction Co Ltd v Kigass Ltd, 46 B.L.R. 109;
(1990) 15 Con. L.R. 116 QBD
Martell v Consett Iron Co Ltd [1955] Ch. 363; [1955] 2 W.L.R.
463 CA
Martin v Gale (1876–77) L.R. 4 Ch. D. 428 Ch D
Martin v Pycroft (1852) 2 De G.M. & G. 785
Martin v Triggs Turner Bartons [2009] EWHC 1920 (Ch);
[2010] P.N.L.R. 3
Martin-Baker Aircraft Co v Canadian Flight Equipment; sub
nom Martin-Baker Aircraft Co v Murison [1955] 2 Q.B. 556;
[1955] 3 W.L.R. 212 QBD
Martindale v Smith (1841) 1 Q.B. 389
Martyn v Hind (1776) Cowp. 437
Mary Nour, The. See CTI Group Inc v Transclear SA (The Mary
Nour)
Mascall v Mascall (1985) 50 P. & C.R. 119; (1984) 81 L.S.G.
2218 CA (Civ Div)
Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 K.B. 106 CA
Maskell v Ivory [1970] Ch. 502; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 844 Ch D
Mason v Burningham [1949] 2 K.B. 545; [1949] 2 All E.R. 134
CA
Mason v Provident Clothing & Supply Co. See Provident
Clothing & Supply Co Ltd v Mason
Mason v Uxbridge Boat Centre and Wright [1980] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 592 QBD
Mass Glory, The. See Glencore Grain Ltd v Goldbeam Shipping
Inc (The Mass Glory)
Massai Aviation Services v Att Gen of the Bahamas [2007]
UKPC 12
Massalia, The. See Société Franco-Tunisienne d’ArmementTunis v Sidermar SpA (The Massalia)
Massey v Midland Bank Plc [1995] 1 All E.R. 929; [1994] 2
F.L.R. 342; [1995] 1 F.C.R. 380; (1995) 27 H.L.R. 227;
[1994] Fam. Law 562; [1994] N.P.C. 44 CA (Civ Div)
Master Stelios, The. See Monvia Motorship Corp v Keppel
Shipyard (Private) Ltd (The Master Stelios)
Mata K, The. See Agrosin Pty Ltd v Highway Shipping Co Ltd
(The Mata K)
Mathew v Bobbins (1981) 41 P. & C.R. 1; (1980) 256 E.G. 603
CA (Civ Div)
12–056
5–022
19–023
3–158, 11–075, 11–083, 11–154, 11–155,
16–086
20–097
17–054
22–021
15–064
12–010
5–022, 6–021, 21–033
14–052
16–104
18–103, 22–011
14–016
15–030
3–039, 10–004, 10–005, 10–008
21–019
20–106, 22–012
14–061
15–065
10–041
10–023
Mathew v TM Sutton Ltd [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1455; [1994] 4 All
E.R. 793 Ch D
Matija Gubec, The. See Gulf Shipping Lines Ltd v Jadranska
Slobodna Plovidba (The Matija Gubec)
Matrix Europe Ltd v Uniserve Holdings Ltd [2009] EWHC 919
(Comm)
Matthews v Baxter (1873) L.R. 8 Ex. 132
Matthews v Kuwait Bechtel Corp [1959] 2 Q.B. 57; [1959] 2
W.L.R. 702 CA
Matthey v Curling; sub nom Curling v Matthey [1922] 2 A.C.
180 HL
Mavro Vetranic, The. See Greenwich Marine Inc v Federal
Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd (The Mavro Vetranic)
Maxine Footwear Co v Canadian Government Merchant Marine
[1959] A.C. 589; [1959] 3 W.L.R. 232 PC (Can)
May v Lane (1894) 64 L.J. Q.B. 236
May v Platt [1900] 1 Ch. 616 Ch D
May & Butcher Ltd v King, The [1934] 2 K.B. 17; [1929] All
E.R. Rep. 679 HL
Mayfield Holdings v Moana Reef [1973] 1 N.Z.L.R. 309 Sup Ct
(NZ)
Mayhew v King; sub nom Folgate London Market Ltd v
Chaucer Insurance Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 328; [2011] Bus.
L.R. 1327; [2011] B.C.C. 675; [2012] 1 B.C.L.C. 550;
[2011] B.P.I.R. 1001; [2011] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 623
Mayson v Clouet [1924] A.C. 980; [1924] 3 W.W.R. 211 PC
(Sing)
McAlpine Humberoak Ltd v McDermott International Inc
(No.1), 58 B.L.R. 1; 28 Con. L.R. 76 CA (Civ Div)
McArdle, Re [1951] Ch. 669; [1951] 1 All E.R. 905 CA
McAuley v Bristol City Council [1992] Q.B. 134; [1991] 3
W.L.R. 968; [1992] 1 All E.R. 749; (1991) 23 H.L.R. 586;
89 L.G.R. 931; [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 64; [1991] 45 E.G. 155;
[1991] E.G. 70 (C.S.); [1991] N.P.C. 81 CA (Civ Div)
McCall v Abelesz [1976] Q.B. 585; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 151 CA
(Civ Div)
McCall v Australian Meat Co Ltd (1870) 19 W.R. 188
McCamley v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd [1990] 1 W.L.R.
963; [1990] 1 All E.R. 854 CA (Civ Div)
McCausland v Duncan Lawrie Ltd [1997] 1 W.L.R. 38; [1996] 4
All E.R. 995 CA (Civ Div)
McClaren v Home Office; sub nom McLaren v Secretary of
State for the Home Department [1990] I.C.R. 824; [1990]
I.R.L.R. 338 CA (Civ Div)
McConnel v Wright; sub nom McConnell v Wright [1903] 1 Ch.
546 CA
McCullagh v Lane Fox & Partners Ltd 49 Con. L.R. 124; [1996]
P.N.L.R. 205; [1996] 1 E.G.L.R. 35 CA (Civ Div)
McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 W.L.R. 125;
[1964] 1 All E.R. 430 HL
McDonald v Denys Lascelles Ltd (1933) 48 C.L.R. 457
McDougall v Aeromarine of Emsworth [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1126;
20–010
7–013
12–062
6–043, 15–063, 20–123
19–058
7–032
15–063
8–059, 8–071
2–086, 2–092, 2–093
21–043
11–035
20–147
19–122
3–018, 15–036
6–037, 6–039, 6–044, 6–046
14–023, 20–019, 20–086
16–108
14–082
5–030, 5–032, 5–033, 5–035, 6–026
4–025
9–073
7–081, 9–040, 9–042, 16–084
6–035, 7–004, 7–011
18–016, 18–018, 19–093, 20–154
18–054
[1958] 3 All E.R. 431 QBD (Comm)
McDowell v Fraser (1779) 1 Dougl. 247
McEllistrim v Ballymacelligott Cooperative Agricultural &
Dairy Society Ltd [1919] A.C. 548 HL (UK-Irl)
McEvoy v Belfast Banking Co Ltd [1935] A.C. 24 HL
McFarlane v Daniell (1938) S.R. (N.S.W.) 337
McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd (No.2) [1995] 1 W.L.R. 366;
[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 535 QBD
McGeown v Direct Travel Insurance; sub nom Direct Travel
Insurance v McGeown [2003] EWCA Civ 1606; [2004] 1
All E.R. (Comm) 609
McGregor v McGregor (1888) L.R. 21 Q.B.D. 424 CA
McGuane v Welch [2008] EWCA Civ 785, [2008] 2 P. & C. R.
24
MCI WorldCom International Inc v Primus Telecommunications
Inc; sub nom Primus Telecommunications Inc v MCI
Worldcom International Inc [2004] EWCA Civ 957; [2004] 2
All E.R. (Comm) 833
McInerny v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 246 CA
(Civ Div)
McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd. See Coroin Ltd,
Re
9–020
11–032, 11–080, 11–087, 11–088
13–036, 14–091, 16–053
11–155
11–012, 15–065
7–015
11–046
3–139, 5–011
9–006, 9–023
9–010, 9–027, 9–042
McKillop v McMullan [1979] N.I. 85
2–111
McLaren v Secretary of State for the Home Department. See
McClaren v Home Office
McLaughlin v Duffill [2008] EWCA Civ 1627; [2010] Ch. 1
5–008, 16–016
McLaughlin v Gentles (1919) 51 D.L.R. 383
16–004
McLeish v Amoo-Guttfried & Co, Times, 13 October 1993 QBD
20–092
McManus v Bark (1870) L.R. 5 Ex. 65
3–100
McManus v Fortescue [1907] 2 K.B. 1 CA
2–008, 16–082
McMaster v Byrne [1952] 1 All E.R. 1362; [1952] W.N. 239 PC
10–023
(Can)
McNealy v Pennine Insurance Co Ltd [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 18;
16–011
[1978] R.T.R. 285 CA (Civ Div)
McPherson v Watt (1877–78) L.R. 3 App. Cas. 254 HL
16–097
McQuillan v McCormick [2010] EWHC 1112 (QB); [2011]
16–109
E.C.C. 18
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84
8–004, 8–005, 8–006, 8–009, 8–010, 20–
C.L.R. 377
026, 20–028, 20–031, 20–035
McWilliam v Norton Finance (UK) Ltd (t/a Norton Finance (In
16–097
Liquidation)) [2015] EWCA Civ 186; [2015] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 1026; [2015] P.N.L.R. 22; [2015] C.T.L.C. 60
Mears v IRC; Mears v Safecar Security [1983] Q.B. 54; [1982] 3
6–045, 19–023
W.L.R. 366 CA (Civ Div)
Mears Ltd v Shoreline Housing Partnership Ltd [2013] EWCA
3–097, 9–126
Civ 639; [2013] C.P. Rep. 39; [2013] B.L.R. 393; 148 Con.
L.R. 221; [2013] C.I.L.L. 3388
Medicaments Reference, Re [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1339; [1971] 1 All
1–008
E.R. 12 Ch D (RPC)
Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading &
6–036
Commerce Inc (The Reborn) [2009] EWCA Civ 531; [2010]
1 All E.R. (Comm) 1; [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 639
Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Trafigura Beheer BV [2007]
EWCA Civ 794; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 622
Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 C.L.R. 571
Meek v Kettlewell (1843) 1 Ph. 342
Mehboob Travel Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corp
[2013] EWHC 2120 (QB)
Melachrino v Nickoll [1920] 1 K.B. 693; (1919) 1 Ll. L. Rep.
595 KBD (Comm Ct)
Melhado v Porto Alegre, New Hamburgh and Brazilian Ry Co
(1873–74) L.R. 9 C.P. 503 CCP
Meling v Minos Shipping Co (The Oliva) [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
458 QBD (Comm)
Mendelssohn v Normand [1970] 1 Q.B. 177; [1969] 3 W.L.R.
139 CA (Civ Div)
Meng Leong Development Pte v Jip Hong Trading Co Pte
[1985] A.C. 511; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 1263 PC (Sing)
Mentmore International Ltd v Abbey Healthcare (Festival) Ltd
[2010] EWCA Civ 761
MEPC Ltd v Christian-Edwards [1981] A.C. 205; [1979] 3
W.L.R. 713 HL
Merak, The. See Varverakis v Compagnia de Navegacion Artico
SA (The Merak)
Mercandian Continent, The. See K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v
Lloyd’s Underwriters (The Mercandian Continent)
Mercantile Bank of London Ltd v Evans [1899] 2 Q.B. 613 CA
Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Hamblin [1965] 2 Q.B. 242; [1964]
3 W.L.R. 798 CA
Mercantile Group (Europe) AG v Aiyela [1994] Q.B. 366;
[1993] 3 W.L.R. 1116 CA (Civ Div)
Mercantile International Group Plc v Chuan Soon Huat
Industrial Group Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 288; [2002] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 788
Mercantile Union Guarantee Corp Ltd v Ball [1937] 2 K.B. 498
CA
Mercedes Envoy, The. See Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd v Zenith
Chartering Corp (The Mercedes Envoy)
Merchant Shipping Co Ltd v Armitage (1873–74) L.R. 9 Q.B.
99 Ex Chamber
Mercini Lady, The. See KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft fur
Mineraloele mbH & Co KG v Petroplus Marketing AG (The
Mercini Lady)
Meretz Investments NV v ACP Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1303;
[2008] Ch. 244
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities
Commission [1995] 2 A.C. 500; [1995] 3 W.L.R. 413 PC
(NZ)
Merkur Island Shipping Corp v Laughton (The Hoegh Anapa)
[1983] 2 A.C. 570; [1983] 2 W.L.R. 778 HL
Merrett v Babb [2001] EWCA Civ 214; [2001] Q.B. 1174;
[2001] 3 W.L.R. 1; [2001] B.L.R. 483; (2001) 3 T.C.L.R. 15;
80 Con. L.R. 43; [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 468; [2001]
P.N.L.R. 29; [2001] 1 E.G.L.R. 145; [2001] 8 E.G. 167
7–025
2–106
15–025
2–082, 2–098
20–077, 20–119
16–048
19–109
7–001, 7–011, 7–029, 7–041
3–084, 3–114, 18–026, 20–074, 21–019
14–093
21–018
15–012
8–082, 8–084, 16–006
21–062
16–005
12–014, 12–015, 12–025
17–037
14–135, 14–140
16–073
14–135
9–040, 14–047
(C.S.); (2001) 98(13) L.S.G. 41; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 75
Merrett v Capitol Indemnity Corp [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 169
QBD (Comm)
Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1211; [1970] 2 All E.R. 760
CA (Civ Div)
Mersey Shipping & Transport Co Ltd v Rea Ltd (1925) 21 Ll. L.
Rep. 375 KBD
Mersey Steel & Iron Co Ltd v Naylor Benzon & Co (1883–84)
L.R. 9 App. Cas. 434 HL
Mertens v Home Freeholds Co [1921] 2 K.B. 526 CA
Messiniaki Bergen, The. See Westfal-Larsen & Co A/S v Ikerigi
Compania Naviers SA (The Messiniaki Bergen)
Messiniaki Tolmi, The. See Astro Exito Navegacion SA v
Southland Enterprise Co (The Messiniaki Tolmi (No.2))
Metcalfe v Britannia Ironworks Co (1876–77) L.R. 2 Q.B.D.
423 CA
Methwold v Walbank (1750) 2 Ves.Sen. 238
Metrolands Investments Ltd v JH Dewhurst Ltd [1986] 3 All
E.R. 659; (1986) 52 P. & C.R. 232 CA (Civ Div)
Metropolitan Asylums Board Managers v Kingham & Sons
(1890) 6 T.L.R. 217
Metropolitan Electric Supply Co Ltd v Ginder [1901] 2 Ch. 799
Ch D
Metropolitan Fire Insurance Co, Re; sub nom Wallace’s Case
[1900] 2 Ch. 671 Ch D
Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr & Co Ltd [1918] A.C.
119 HL
Metula, The. See Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v
Seabridge Shipping (The Metula)
Meyer v Sullivan, 181 P. 847 (1919)
Meyerstein v Eastern Agency (1885) 1 T.L.R. 595
MH Smith Ltd (Plant Hire) v DL Mainwaring (t/a Inshore)
[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 244; (1986) 2 B.C.C. 99262 CA (Civ
Div)
Michael v Hart & Co [1902] 1 K.B. 482 CA
Michael Elliott & Partners v UK Land [1991] 08 E.G. 123;
[1990] E.G. 98 (C.S.); [1991] 1 E.G.L.R. 39 QBD
Michael Gerson (Leasing) Ltd v Wilkinson [2001] Q.B. 514;
[2000] 3 W.L.R. 1645 CA (Civ Div)
Michael Richards Properties Ltd v Corp of Wardens of St
Saviour’s Parish (Southwark) [1975] 3 All E.R. 416 Ch D
Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Ltd; sub nom Michaels
v Frogmore Estates Plc [2000] Ch. 104; [1999] 3 W.L.R. 229
CA (Civ Div)
Micklefield v SAC Technology Ltd [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1002;
[1991] 1 All E.R. 275 Ch D
Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass Group UK
and Ireland Ltd. SeeCompass Group UK and Ireland Ltd (t/a
Medirest) v Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
Midgley Estates v Hand [1952] 2 Q.B. 432; [1952] 1 All E.R.
1394 CA
Midgulf International Ltd v Group Chimique Tunisien [2010]
20–121
3–033
14–059
9–086, 18–035, 18–038
19–083, 20–041
17–040, 17–041
15–067
18–100
16–049
3–030, 11–092, 21–058
2–014
19–020, 19–035, 19–073, 19–091
19–030
16–099
15–007
17–078
16–043
2–006, 2–016
4–013, 8–064, 11–020, 17–017, 20–150
17–017
2–108, 7–087, 18–006
16–088
2–019
EWCA Civ 66; [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 543
Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd [2008] EWCA 1227;
20–150
[2009] 1 W.L.R. 246
Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green (No.1) [1981] A.C. 513;
3–004, 3–013, 3–015
[1981] 2 W.L.R. 28 HL
Mihalios Xilas, The. See China National Foreign Trade
Transportation Corp v Evlogia Shipping Co SA of Panama
(The Mihalios Xilas)
Mihalis Angelos, The. See Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v
Bergbau-Handel GmbH (The Mihalis Angelos)
Mikeover Ltd v Brady [1989] 3 All E.R. 618; (1989) 21 H.L.R.
13–002
513; (1990) 59 P. & C.R. 218; [1989] 39 E.G. 92; [1989]
E.G. 82 (C.S.); (1989) 139 N.L.J. 1194 CA (Civ Div)
Mikhail Lermontov, The. See Dillon v Baltic Shipping Co (The
Mikhail Lermontov)
Milan Tramways Co Ex p. Theys, Re (1884) L.R. 25 Ch. D. 587
15–043
CA
Mileform Ltd v Interserve Security Ltd [2013] EWHC 3386
4–006
(QB)
Miles v New Zealand Alford Estate Co (1886) L.R. 32 Ch. D.
3–041, 9–156
266 CA
Miles v Wakefield MDC [1987] A.C. 539; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 795; 17–015, 17–036, 17–045, 17–047, 17–073,
[1987] 1 All E.R. 1089; [1987] I.C.R. 368; [1987] I.R.L.R.
18–006, 18–024, 18–037, 22–001, 22–
012, 22–023
193; [1987] 1 F.T.L.R. 533; 85 L.G.R. 649; (1987) 84 L.S.G.
1239; (1987) 137 N.L.J. 266; (1987) 131 S.J. 408 HL
Miles v Williams (1714) 1 P.Wms. 249
15–002
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (No.1) [1976] A.C.
21–016, 21–019
443; [1975] 3 W.L.R. 758; [1975] 3 All E.R. 801; [1976] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 201; [1975] 2 C.M.L.R. 585; (1975) 119 S.J.
774 HL
Millar v Radford (1903) 19 T.L.R. 575
16–086
Millar’s Karri & Jarrah Co (1902) v Weddell, Turner & Co
18–037
(1909) 100 L.T. 128
Millar’s Machinery Co v David Way & Son (1934) 40 Com.
7–017, 18–021, 18–042, 20–034
Cas. 204 CA
Miller International Schallplatten GmbH v Commission of the
11–107
European Communities (C–19/17) [1978] E.C.R. 131;
[1978] 2 C.M.L.R. 334 ECJ
Miller v Bassey [1994] E.M.L.R. 44
14–135
Miller v Blankley (1878) 38 L.T. 527
12–043
Miller v FA Sadd & Son [1981] 3 All E.R. 265 DC
2–022, 2–095
Miller v Karlinski (1946) 62 T.L.R. 85 CA
11–019, 11–056, 11–161
Miller v Lakefield Estates Ltd (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 104; [1989]
2–094
19 E.G. 67 CA (Civ Div)
Miller’s Agreement, Re; sub nom Uniacke v Att Gen [1947] Ch.
14–133
615; [1947] 2 All E.R. 78 Ch D
Miller’s Case. See European Assurance Society, Re
Miller Gibb & Co v Smith & Tyrer Ltd [1917] 2 K.B. 141 CA
16–069
Millichamp v Jones [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1422; [1983] 1 All E.R.
17–017, 18–021, 18–076, 18–103, 20–151,
267 Ch D
20–154
Millington v Duffy (1985) 17 H.L.R. 232 CA (Civ Div)
20–019
Mills v Fox (1888) L.R. 37 Ch. D. 153 Ch D
8–078
Mills v IRC. See IRC v Mills (Hayley)
Milner v Carnival Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 389; [2010] 3 All E.R.
701
Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De G.F. & J. 264
Mineral Park Land Co v Howard, 156 P. 458 (1916)
Mineral Transporter, The. See Candlewood Navigation Corp v
Mitsui Osk Lines (The Mineral Transporter and The Ibaraki
Maru)
Mineral Water Bottle Exchange and Trade Protection Society v
Booth (1887) L.R. 36 Ch. D. 465 CA
Mineralimportexport v Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd
(The Golden Leader) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 573 QBD
(Comm)
Ministry of Sound (Ireland) Ltd v World Online Ltd [2003]
EWHC 2178; [2003] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 823 Ch D
Minnevitch v Café de Paris (Londres) Ltd [1936] 1 All E.R. 884
Minories Finance v Afribank Nigeria Ltd [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
134 QBD (Comm)
Minton v Minton [1979] A.C. 593; [1979] 2 W.L.R. 31 HL
MIOM 1 Ltd v Sea Echo ENE [2011] EWHC 2715 (Admlty);
[2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 140; [2011] 2 C.L.C. 877
Mir Steel UK Ltd v Morris. See Lictor Anstalt v Mir Steel UK
Ltd
20–046, 20–087, 20–089
3–014, 15–029, 15–030, 15–035
19–041
11–089
7–034
21–010, 21–014
17–059
2–027, 2–044
11–048
3–082
Mirams, Re [1891] 1 Q.B. 594 QBD
15–067
Mirant Asia-Pacific (Hong Kong) Ltd v Ove Arup and Partners
14–027, 14–031
International Ltd [2007] EWHC 918 (TCC); [2007] C.I.L.L.
2840
Mirimskaya v Evans [2007] EWHC 2073 (TCC); (2007) 114
18–018
Con. L.R. 131
Miss Gray Ltd v Cathcart (1922) 38 T.L.R. 562
16–018
Mitas v Hyams [1951] 2 T.L.R. 1215 CA
5–035
Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) 1 P.Wms. 18
11–062
Mitchell v BJ Marine [2005] N.I.Q.B. 72
7–055, 18–090
Mitchell v Ealing LBC [1979] Q.B. 1; [1978] 2 W.L.R. 999
3–167
QBD
Mitchell v Ede (1840) 11 Ad. & El. 888
14–040
Mitchell v Homfray (1881–82) L.R. 8 Q.B.D. 587 CA
10–032
Mitsubishi Corp v Castletown Navigation (The Castle Alpha)
3–011
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 QBD (Comm)
Mitsubishi Corp v Eastwind Transport Ltd (The Irbenskiy
7–030
Proliv) [2004] EWHC 2924; [2005] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 328
QBD (Comm)
Mitsui & Co Ltd v Flota Mercante Grancolombiana SA (The
14–050
Ciudad de Pasto and The Ciudad de Neiva) [1988] 1 W.L.R.
1145; [1989] 1 All E.R. 951 CA (Civ Div)
Mitsui & Co Ltd v Novorossiysk Shipping Co (The Gudermes) 4–003, 4–024, 6–035, 7–020, 14–050, 14–
[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311 CA (Civ Div)
073
Mitsui & Co v Marpro Industrial and Goukeket & Co NV [1974]
16–082
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 386 QBD (Comm)
Mitton v Farrow (1980) 255 E.G. 449 CA (Civ Div)
3–166
Mmecen SA v Inter Ro-Ro SA and Gulf Ro-Ro Services SA
2–092
(The Samah and The Lina V) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 40 QBD
(Comm)
Moat Financial Services Ltd v Wilkinson [2005] EWCA Civ
5–025
1253
Mobil North Sea Ltd v PJ Pipe & Valve Co Ltd (t/a PJ Valves or
20–120
PJ Valve Ltd) [2001] EWCA Civ 741; [2001] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 289
Modahl v British Athletic Federation Ltd (No.2) [2001] EWCA
3–004,4–003
Civ 1447; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 1192
Modern Exhibition Services v Cardiff Corp, 63 L.G.R. 316;
11–104
(1965) 109 S.J. 470
Modern Transport Co Ltd v Duneric Steamship Co [1917] 1
18–080, 19–020
K.B. 370 CA
Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor Gow & Co [1892] A.C.
11–032, 11–090
25; [1891–4] All E.R. Rep. 263 HL
Mohamed v Alaga & Co; sub nom Mohammed v Alaga & Co
11–011, 11–019, 11–117, 11–126, 11–152,
[2000] 1 W.L.R. 1815; [1999] 3 All E.R. 699; [2000] C.P.
11–158
Rep. 87; [1999] 2 Costs L.R. 169 CA (Civ Div).
Molton v Camroux (1849) 4 Ex. 17
12–055
Molyneux v Hawtrey [1903] 2 K.B. 487 CA
9–138
Monarch Airlines Ltd v London Luton Airport Ltd [1998] 1
7–033, 7–077, 7–078
Lloyd’s Rep. 403; [1997] C.L.C. 698 QBD (Comm)
Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v A/B Karlshamns Oljefabriker; sub 19–083, 20–094, 20–095, 20–097, 20–102,
nom A/B Karlshamns Oljefabriker v Monarch Steamship Co
20–110, 20–113
Ltd [1949] A.C. 196; [1949] 1 All E.R. 1; (1948–49) 82 Ll.
L. Rep. 137; 1949 S.C. (H.L.) 1; 1949 S.L.T. 51; 1949 S.L.T.
(Notes) 1; 65 T.L.R. 217; [1949] L.J.R. 772; (1949) 93 S.J.
117 HL
Monk Construction v Norwich Union Life Insurance Society, 62
B.L.R. 107 CA (Civ Div)
Monk v Cann Hall Primary School [2013] EWCA Civ 826;
[2013] I.R.L.R. 732; [2014] P.I.Q.R. P3
Monkland v Jack Barclay Ltd [1951] 2 K.B. 252; [1951] 1 All
E.R. 714 CA
Montagu v Forwood [1893] 2 Q.B. 350 CA
Monte Video Gas Co v Clan Line Steamers Ltd (1921) 37 T.L.R.
866
Montedison SpA v Icroma SpA (The Caspian Sea) [1980] 1
W.L.R. 48; [1979] 3 All E.R. 378 QBD (Comm)
Montreal Gas Co v Vasey [1900] A.C. 595 PC (Can)
Monvia Motorship Corp v Keppel Shipyard (Private) Ltd (The
Master Stelios) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 356 PC (Sing)
Moody v Condor Insurance Ltd [2006] EWHC 100; [2006] 1
W.L.R. 1847 Ch D
Moon v Towers (1860) 8 C.B.(N.S.) 611
Moorcock, The (1889) L.R. 14 P.D. 64; [1886–90] All E.R. Rep.
530 CA
Moore v Khan-Ghauri [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 9; [1991] 32 E.G. 63
CA (Civ Div)
Moore v President of the Methodist Conference; sub nom
President of the Methodist Conference v Preston [2013]
UKSC 29; [2013] 2 A.C. 163; [2013] 2 W.L.R. 1350; [2013]
4 All E.R. 477; [2013] I.C.R. 833; [2013] I.R.L.R. 646;
4–021
20–083
11–035, 11–092
16–061
20–102
17–037
4–021
2–019
14–006, 14–109, 14–117, 14–131
16–043
6–036
9–053
4–025
(2013) 157(20) S.J.L.B. 35
Moore & Co Ltd and Landauer Co, Re. See FW Moore & Co
Ltd v Landauer & Co
Mora Shipping Inc v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA
[2005] EWCA Civ 1069; [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 769
Moran v University College Salford (No.2), Times, 23
November 1993; Independent, 26 November 1993 CA (Civ
Div)
More OG Romsdal Fylkesbatar AS v Demise Charterers of the
Jotunheim [2004] EWHC 671; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 181
QBD (Comm)
Morel Bros & Co Ltd v Earl of Westmorland [1904] A.C. 11 HL
Morgan v Fry [1968] 2 Q.B. 710; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 506 CA (Civ
Div)
Morgan v Manser [1948] 1 K.B. 184; [1947] 2 All E.R. 666
KBD
Morgan v Palmer (1825) 2 B. & C. 729
Morgan v Pooley [2010] EWHC 2447 (QB)
Morgan Crucible Co Plc v Hill Samuel Bank & Co Ltd; sub nom
Morgan Crucible Co Plc v Hill Samuel & Co Ltd [1991] Ch.
295; [1991] 2 W.L.R. 655; [1991] 1 All E.R. 148 CA (Civ
Div)
Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd v Welwyn Hatfield DC [1995] 1 All
E.R. 1 QBD
Morgan Walker Solicitors LLP v Zurich Professional and
Financial Lines [2010] EWHC 1532 (Ch)
Morgans v Launchbury. See Launchbury v Morgans
Moria v Bednash [2011] EWHC 839 (Ch)
Moriarty v Regent’s Garage & Engineering Co Ltd [1921] 2
K.B. 766 CA
Morley v Elmaleh [2009] EWHC 1196 (Ch)
Morning Watch, The. See Mariola Marine Corp v Lloyd’s
Register of Shipping (The Morning Watch)
Morris v Baron & Co [1918] A.C. 1 HL
Morris v Burdett (1808) 1 Camp. 218
Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd; sub nom Morris v Martin
[1966] 1 Q.B. 716; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 276; [1965] 2 All E.R.
725; [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 63; (1965) 109 S.J. 451 CA
Morris v Ford Motor Co [1973] Q.B. 792; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 843
CA (Civ Div)
Morris v McCullock (1763) Amb. 432
Morris v Molesworth. See Morris v Wentworth-Stanley
Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd. See Redland Bricks v Morris
Morris v Tarrant [1971] 2 Q.B. 143; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 630 QBD
Morris v Wentworth-Stanley; sub nom Morris v Molesworth
[1999] Q.B. 1004; [1999] 2 W.L.R. 470; (1998) 148 N.L.J.
1551 CA (Civ Div)
Morris Angel & Son v Hollande [1993] 3 All E.R. 569; [1993]
I.C.R. 71 CA (Civ Div)
Morrison v Thoelke, 155 So. 2d 889 (1963)
Mortgage Agency Services Number Two Ltd v Chater. See
17–006
2–002, 3–009
18–066
16–018
17–073
19–006, 19–017, 19–022, 19–090
3–044
9–126
9–039
12–082, 22–018
4–011
4–009
17–047
10–024
3–057, 3–060, 5–030, 5–032, 5–032, 5–
034, 5–035, 6–019
3–044
3–167, 14–060, 14–073
6–046
11–132
3–078
13–007, 13–013
11–075, 15–052
2–038
Chater v Mortgage Agency Services Number Two Ltd
Mortgage Express Ltd v Bowerman & Partners (No.1) [1996] 2
All E.R. 836; [1996] E.C.C. 228 CA (Civ Div)
Mortgage Express v McDonnell; sub nom Mortgage Express v
Robson [2001] EWCA Civ 887; [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
886
Mortimer v Bailey [2004] EWCA Civ 1514; [2005] B.L.R. 85;
[2005] 02 E.G. 102
Mortimer v Beckett [1920] 1 Ch. 571 Ch D
Mortimore v Wright (1840) 6 M. & W. 482
Mortlock v Buller (1804) 10 Ves. 292
Morton v Burn (1837) 7 A. & E. 19
Morton v Lamb (1797) 7 T.R. 125
Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd; sub nom Moschi v Rolloswin
Investments Ltd; Lep Air Services v Rolloswin Investments
[1973] A.C. 331; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 1175; [1972] 2 All E.R.
393; (1972) 116 S.J. 372 HL
Mossop v Mossop [1989] Fam. 77; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 1255 CA
(Civ Div)
Mostcash Plc (formerly UK Paper Plc) v Fluor Ltd (No.1)
[2002] EWCA Civ 975; [2002] B.L.R. 41
Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S (No.1);
sub nom Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S v Motis Exports
Ltd [2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 91; [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
211 CA (Civ Div)
Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corp of
India (The Kanchenjunga) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 391 HL
Mouat (JN) v Betts Motors [1959] A.C. 71; [1958] 3 W.L.R. 598
PC (NZ)
Moukataff v British Overseas Airways Corp [1967] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 396 QBD
Moulin Global Eyecare Trading Ltd v CIR [2014] HKCFA 22;
(2014) 17 HKCFAR 218
Moulsdale v Birchall (1772) 2 W.Bl. 820
Moundreas & Co SA v Navimpex Centrala Navala [1985] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 515 QBD (Comm)
Mount v Oldham Corp [1973] Q.B. 309; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 22 CA
(Civ Div)
Mount Eden Land Ltd v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd; sub nom
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Mount Eden Land Ltd (1997)
74 P. & C.R. 377; [1997] 1 E.G.L.R. 37 CA (Civ Div)
Mount I, The. See Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Five
Star General Trading LLC (The Mount I)
Mountford v Scott [1975] Ch. 258; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 114 CA
(Civ Div)
Mountstephen v Lakeman(1874–75) L.R. 7 H.L. 17 HL
Mousaka Inc v Golden Seagull Maritime Inc (Application for
Summary Judgment) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 797 QBD
(Comm)
Mowbray Robinson & Co v Rosser (1922) 91 L.J.K.B. 524
9–162
11–147
21–053
21–038, 21–058
12–003, 16–018
21–032, 21–048
3–055
17–015, 17–018
5–015, 17–081, 17–082, 18–017, 18–018,
18–020
11–038
13–034
7–028, 7–030
3–066, 3–069, 3–072, 3–086, 3–090, 9–
087, 9–165, 14–068, 18–079, 18–080,
18–081,18–085, 18–087, 18–088, 18–
090
20–047
14–045
11–024
15–002
2–110, 16–091
19–023, 21–005
2–088
21–030, 21–046
5–015
3–038
6–027
Moxon v Payne (1872–73) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 881 CA in Chancery
MP Kemp Ltd v Bullen Developments Ltd [2014] EWHC 2009
(Ch)
MP Services Ltd v Lawyer (1996) 72 P. & C.R. D49 CA (Civ
Div)
MRI Trading AG v Erdenet Mining Corp LLC [2013] EWCA
Civ 156; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 638; [2013] 1 C.L.C. 423
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v BRE-Metro [1985] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 239 QBD (Comm)
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Cottonex Anstalt [2015]
EWHC 283 (Comm); [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 359
MSM Consulting Ltd v Tanzania [2009] EWHC 121 (QB); 123
Con L.R. 154
Muhammed Issa el Sheik Ahmed v Ali [1947] A.C. 414 PC
(Pal)
Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd; Muirhead v ITT
(UK) Ltd; Muirhead v Leroy Somer Electric Motors Ltd
[1986] Q.B. 507; [1985] 3 W.L.R. 993 CA (Civ Div)
Mulcaire v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 3469
(Ch); [2012] Ch. 435; [2012] 2 W.L.R. 831; (2012) 109(3)
L.S.G. 14
Mullett v Mason (1865–66) L.R. 1 C.P. 559 CCP
Multi Veste 226 BV v NI Summer Row Unitholder BV [2011]
EWHC 2026 (Ch); 139 Con. L.R. 23; [2011] 33 E.G. 63
(C.S.)
10–032
5–008, 5–032
5–022
2–093
2–005, 17–027
18–078, 20–134, 21–012
2–042, 22–021
20–113
2–020, 14–048, 20–103
2–040, 2–062, 11–025
9–071
18–107
Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v North Lanarkshire
6–010
Council [2010] UKSC 47; [2011] 1 All E.R. 175; 2011 S.C.
(U.K.S.C.) 53; 2011 S.L.T. 184; [2011] 1 E.G.L.R. 67;
[2011] 4 E.G. 102; [2010] 47 E.G. 141 (C.S.); (2010)
154(44) S.J.L.B. 30
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd
2–101, 18–038
[2007] EWCA Civ 443
Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd v Marden [1979] Ch. 84; [1978] 11–032, 11–034, 19–005, 19–033, 19–040
2 W.L.R. 535 Ch D
Multitank Holsatia, The. See Tankreederei Ahrenkeil GmbH v
Frahuil SA (The Multitank Holsatia)
Mulvenna v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2003] EWCA Civ
20–069, 20–107, 20–110
1112; [2004] C.P. Rep. 8
Munkenbeck & Marshall v Harold [2005] EWHC 356 QBD
7–103, 7–113, 20–146
(TCC)
Munro v Butt (1858) 8 E. & B. 738
17–032
Munro v Willmott [1949] 1 K.B. 295; [1948] 2 All E.R. 983
16–037, 16–039
KBD
Munt v Beasley [2006] EWCA Civ 370
3–143, 8–065
Munt v Stokes (1792) 4 T.R. 561
11–132
Munton v Greater London Council; sub nom Munton v Newham
1–008, 4–013
LBC [1976] 1 W.L.R. 649; [1976] 2 All E.R. 815 CA (Civ
Div)
Murad v Al-Saraj [2005] EWCA Civ 959; [2005] W.T.L.R. 1573
9–033
Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 A.C. 398; [1990] 3 W.L.R.
9–038, 14–047, 14–049
414; [1990] 2 All E.R. 908; [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 467; 50
B.L.R. 1; 21 Con. L.R. 1; (1990) 22 H.L.R. 502; 89 L.G.R.
24; (1991) 3 Admin. L.R. 37; (1990) 6 Const. L.J. 304;
(1990) 154 L.G. Rev. 1010; [1990] E.G. 105 (C.S.); (1990)
87(30) L.S.G. 15; (1990) 134 S.J. 1076 HL
Murray (Inspector of Taxes) v Goodhews [1978] 1 W.L.R. 499;
3–017
[1978] 2 All E.R. 40 CA (Civ Div)
Murray v Leisureplay Plc [2005] EWCA Civ 963; [2005]
20–129, 20–130, 20–131, 20–134, 20–137,
I.R.L.R. 946
20–138
Murray v Lloyd [1989] 1 W.L.R. 1060; [1990] 2 All E.R. 92 Ch
20–048
D
Murray v Parker (1854) 19 Beav 305
8–059, 8–071
Murray v Yorkshire Fund Managers Ltd [1998] 1 W.L.R. 951;
11–069
[1998] 2 All E.R. 1015 CA (Civ Div)
Museprime Properties, Ltd v Adhill Properties, Ltd (1991) 61 P.
9–023, 9–127
& C.R. 111; [1990] 36 E.G. 114 Ch D
Muskham Finance v Howard [1963] 1 Q.B. 904; [1963] 2
8–082
W.L.R. 87 CA
Mussen v Van Diemen’s Land Co [1938] Ch. 253 Ch D
20–151, 20–152
Mutual Finance Ltd v John Wetton & Sons Ltd [1937] 2 K.B.
10–016
389 KBD
Mutual Life & Citizens Assurance Co v Evatt [1971] A.C. 793;
9–038, 9–041
[1971] 2 W.L.R. 23 PC (Aus)
Mutual Life Assurance Society v Langley (1886) L.R. 32 Ch. D.
15–023
460 CA
Mylcrist Builders Ltd v Buck [2008] EWHC 2172 (TCC)
7–112
Myrto, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 11 CA (Civ Div)
14–140
Myton Ltd v Schwab-Morris [1974] 1 W.L.R. 331; [1974] 1 All
17–017, 18–035
E.R. 326 Ch D
N&J Vlassopulos Ltd v Ney Shipping Ltd (The Santa Carina)
16–068, 16–071
[1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 478; (1976) 121 S.J. 10 CA (Civ Div)
Nagle v Fielden; sub nom Nagle v Feilden [1966] 2 Q.B. 633;
11–090, 21–037
[1966] 2 W.L.R. 1027 CA
Nai Genova, The. See Agip SpA v Navigazione Alta Italia SpA
(The Nai Genova and The Nai Superba)
Naidoo v Naidu, Times, 1 November 2000 Ch D
10–038
Nanney v Morgan (1888) L.R. 37 Ch. D. 346 CA
15–028, 15–030
Napier v National Business Agency Ltd [1951] 2 All E.R. 264;
11–019, 11–161
44 R. & I.T. 413 CA
Napier v Williams [1911] 1 Ch. 361 Ch D
8–077
Napier (Lord) and Ettrick v RF Kershaw Ltd (No.1); Lord
21–020
Napier and Ettrick v Hunter [1993] A.C. 713; [1993] 2
W.L.R. 42; [1993] 1 All E.R. 385; [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
197; (1993) 137 S.J.L.B. 44 HL
Napier Park European Credit Opportunities Fund Ltd v
6–012
Harbourmaster Pro-rata CLO 2 BV Co[2014] EWCA Civ
984
Nash v Dix (1898) 78 L.T. 445
16–060
Nash v Halifax Building Society [1979] Ch. 584; [1979] 2
11–123, 11–133
W.L.R. 184 Ch D
Nash v Inman [1908] 2 K.B. 1 CA
12–006, 12–008, 12–038
Nash v Stevenson Transport Ltd [1936] 2 K.B. 128 CA
11–117
Nata Lee Ltd v Abid [2014] EWCA Civ 1652; [2015] 2 P. &
5–008
C.R. 3
National Bank of Greece SA v Pinios Shipping Co No.1; sub
6–040, 6–048, 20–123
nom Pinios Shipping Co No. 1 v National Bank of Greece
SA (The Maira) [1990] 1 A.C. 637; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 1330;
[1990] 1 All E.R. 78; [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225; [1988] 2
F.T.L.R. 9; [1988] Fin. L.R. 249; [1990] C.C.L.R. 18; (1990)
87(4) L.S.G. 33; (1989) 139 N.L.J. 1711; (1990) 134 S.J.
261 HL
National Bank of Sharjah v Dellborg [1997] EWCA Civ 2070
6–023
National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] A.C. 19–005, 19–039, 19–043, 19–051, 19–057,
675; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 45; [1981] 1 All E.R. 161; (1982) 43 P.
19–058, 19–060, 19–114, 19–116, 19–
& C.R. 72; (1981) 125 S.J. 46 HL
118, 19–119, 19–120
National Coal Board v Galley [1958] 1 W.L.R. 16; [1958] 1 All
6–049
E.R. 91 CA
National Commercial Bank of Jamaica v Hew [2003] UKPC 51
10–014
National Guardian Mortgage Corp v Wilks [1993] C.C.L.R. 1
5–007
National Home Loans Corp Plc v Giffen Couch & Archer [1998]
9–162
1 W.L.R. 207; [1997] 3 All E.R. 808 CA (Civ Div)
National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside Board of
20–063
Trustees v AEW Architects and Designers Ltd [2013]
EWHC 3025 (TCC); [2014] 1 Costs L.O. 39
National Oilwell (UK) Ltd v Davy Offshore Ltd [1993] 2
16–049
Lloyd’s Rep. 582 QBD (Comm)
National Panasonic (UK) Ltd v Commission of the European
11–104
Communities (C–136/79); sub nom National Panasonic
(UK) Ltd, Re (C–136/79) [1981] 2 All E.R. 1; [1980] E.C.R.
2033; [1981] I.C.R. 51 ECJ
National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth; sub nom National
2–053
Provincial Bank Ltd v Hastings Car Mart Ltd [1965] A.C.
1175; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1 HL
National Provincial Bank of England Ltd v Glanusk [1913] 3
9–154
K.B. 335 KBD
National Provincial Bank of England Ltd v Jackson (1886) L.R.
8–084
33 Ch. D. 1 CA
National Provincial Building Society v British Waterways Board
21–048
[1992] E.G. 149 (C.S.) CA (Civ Div)
National Savings Bank Association, Re; sub nom Hebb’s Case
2–024
(1867) L.R. 4 Eq. 9, Ct of Chancery
National Westminster Bank Plc v Amin [2002] UKHL 9; [2002]
10–042
1 F.L.R. 735; [2002] N.P.C. 33; [2002] 2 P. & C.R. DG3
National Westminster Bank Plc v Binney [2011] EWHC 694
6–015
(QB)
National Westminster Bank Plc v Breeds [2001] Lloyd’s Rep.
10–042
Bank. 98; (2001) 151 N.L.J. 170 Ch D
National Westminster Bank Plc v IRC; Barclays Bank Plc v IRC
2–014
[1995] 1 A.C. 119; [1994] 3 W.L.R. 159; [1994] 3 All E.R.
1; [1994] S.T.C. 580; [1994] 2 B.C.L.C. 239; 67 T.C. 38;
[1994] S.T.I. 756; (1994) 91(32) L.S.G. 44; (1994) 138
S.J.L.B. 139 HL
National Westminster Bank Plc v Kapoor [2011] EWCA Civ
15–007
1083; [2012] 1 All E.R. 1201; [2011] B.P.I.R. 1680; [2011]
N.P.C. 97; [2012] Bus. L.R. D25
National Westminster Bank Plc v Morgan [1985] A.C. 686;
10–020, 10–023, 10–024, 10–051
[1985] 2 W.L.R. 588; [1985] 1 All E.R. 821; [1985] F.L.R.
266; (1985) 17 H.L.R. 360; (1985) 82 L.S.G. 1485; (1985)
135 N.L.J. 254; (1985) 129 S.J. 205 HL
National Westminster Bank Plc v Utrecht-America Finance Co
[2001] EWCA Civ 658; [2001] 3 All E.R. 733
Nationwide Anglia Building Society v Lewis [1998] Ch. 482;
[1998] 2 W.L.R. 915 CA (Civ Div)
Nationwide Building Society v Registry of Friendly Societies
[1983] 1 W.L.R. 1226; [1983] 3 All E.R. 296 Ch D
Naughton v O’Callaghan [1990] 3 All E.R. 191 QBD
Naviera Mogor SA v Société Metallurgique de Normandie (The
Nogar Marin) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412; [1988] 1 F.T.L.R.
349
Naxos, The. See Cie Commerciale Sucres et Denrees v C
Czarnikow Ltd (The Naxos)
Nayyar v Denton Wilde Sapte [2009] EWHC 3218 (QB); [2010]
P.N.L.R. 15
Nea Agrex SA v Baltic Shipping Co Ltd (The Agios Lazarus)
[1976] Q.B. 933; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 925 CA (Civ Div)
Neary v Dean of Westminster [1999] I.R.L.R. 288, Visitor
(Westminster)
Needler Financial Services Ltd v Taber [2002] 3 All E.R. 501;
[2002] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 32 Ch D
Nelson v Nelson [1997] 1 W.L.R. 233; [1997] 1 All E.R. 970
CA (Civ Div)
Nelson v Stewart (1991) S.L.R. 523
Nelson Pine Industries Ltd v Seatrans New Zealand Ltd (The
Pembroke) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 290 HC (NZ)
Nema, The. See Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (The
Nema)
Neptune Maritime Co of Monrovia v Koninklijke Bunge BV
(The Argonaut) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 214; [1982] Com.
L.R. 160 CA (Civ Div)
Neptune Orient Lines Ltd v JVC (UK) Ltd (The Chevalier Roze)
[1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 438 QBD (Comm)
Nerarno, The. See Daval Aciers D’Usinor et de Sacilor v Armare
Srl (The Nerarno)
Nerot v Wallace (1789) 3 T.R. 17
Netherlands v Youell; Netherlands v Hayward [1998] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 236; [1998] C.L.C. 44 CA (Civ Div)
Neville v Dominion of Canada News Co Ltd [1915] 3 K.B. 556
CA
Neville v Kelly (1862) 12 C.B.(N.S) 740
Neville v London Express Newspaper Ltd; sub nom Neville v
London Express Newspapers Ltd [1919] A.C. 368 HL
Neville v Wilkinson (1782) 1 Bro.C.C. 547
Neville v Wilson [1997] Ch. 144; [1996] 3 W.L.R. 460 CA (Civ
Div)
New Brunswick & Canada Ry v Muggeridge (1860) 1 Dr. & Sm.
363
New England Reinsurance Corp and First State Insurance Co v
Messoghios Insurance Co SA [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 251 CA
9–134, 9–166
16–027
11–034, 19–039
8–018, 9–071, 9–075, 20–034
11–026
11–167, 11–171
2–079
16–098
20–121
16–078
2–093
7–032
19–083
7–058, 7–084, 14–038, 14–069
3–154
13–028, 16–005
11–035
3–045
15–002
11–132
15–016
9–143
2–089
(Civ Div)
New Hart Builders Ltd v Brindley [1975] Ch. 342; [1975] 2
2–033
W.L.R. 595 CA (Civ Div)
New India Assurance Co Ltd v Yeo Beng Chow [1972] 1 W.L.R.
18–042
786; [1972] 3 All E.R. 293 PC (Mal)
New Prosper, The. See Richco International Ltd v Bunge & Co
Ltd (The New Prosper)
New York Star, The. See Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty v
Salmond & Spraggon (Australia) Pty (The New York Star)
New Zealand and Australian Land Co v Watson; sub nom New
16–099
Zealand and Australian Land Co v Ruston (1880–81) L.R. 7
Q.B.D. 374 CA
New Zealand Guardian Trust Co Ltd v Brooks [1995] 1 W.L.R.
13–013
96; [1995] B.C.C. 407 PC (NZ)
New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd
2–051, 2–075, 3–054, 3–055, 4–024, 14–
(The Eurymedon); sub nom AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd v
016, 14–062, 14–063, 14–064, 14–065,
New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd [1975] A.C. 154; [1974] 2
14–068, 14–069, 14–072, 14–087
W.L.R. 865; [1974] 1 All E.R. 1015; [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
534; (1974) 118 S.J. 387 PC (NZ)
New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Société des Ateliers et
18–005
Chantiers de France; sub nom Arbitration between New
Zealand Shipping Co Ltd and Société des Ateliers et
Chantiers de France, Re [1919] A.C. 1; [1918–19] All E.R.
Rep. 552 HL
Newbigging v Adam. See Adam v Newbigging
Newborne v Sensolid (Great Britain) Ltd [1954] 1 Q.B. 45
16–073
Newell v Radford (1867–68) L.R. 3 C.P. 52 CCP
5–020, 6–020
Newell v Tarrant [2004] EWHC 772 (Ch); (2004) 148 S.J.L.B.
5–008
509
Newland v Simons & Willer (Hairdressers) [1981] I.C.R. 521;
11–056, 11–119
[1981] I.R.L.R. 359 EAT
Newland Shipping and Forwarding Ltd v Toba Trading FZC
18–073
[2014] EWHC 661 (Comm)
Newman v Rogers (1793) 4 Bro.C.C. 391
18–103
Newns v British Airways Plc [1992] I.R.L.R. 575 CA (Civ Div)
15–052, 15–085
Newport Association Football Club Ltd v Football Association
11–090, 11–111
of Wales Ltd [1995] 2 All E.R. 87; (1994) 144 N.L.J. 1351
Ch D
Newport CC v Charles [2008] EWCA 1541; [2009] 1 W.L.R.
3–128
1884
Newry and Enniskillen Ry v Combe (1849) 3 Ex. 565
12–023
Newsholme Bros v Road Transport & General Insurance Co Ltd
9–026, 16–011
[1929] 2 K.B. 356; (1929) 34 Ll. L. Rep. 247 CA
Newsome v Graham (1829) 10 B. & C. 234
22–011
Newton Abbott Cooperative Society Ltd v Williamson &
11–100
Treadgold Ltd [1952] Ch. 286; [1952] 1 All E.R. 279 Ch D
Newtons ofWembley Ltd vWilliams [1965] 1 Q.B. 560; [1964] 3
9–095
W.L.R. 888 CA
Ng Chee Chong, Ng Weng Chong, Ng Cheng and Ng Yew (A
17–005
Firm t/a Maran Road Saw Mill) v Austin Taylor & Co
[1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 156 QBD (Comm)
Nichimen Corp v Gatoil Overseas Inc [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 46
3–073, 18–054, 18–106
CA (Civ Div)
Nicholas H, The. See Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock
Marine Co Ltd
Nicholas Prestige Homes v Neal [2010] EWCA Civ 1552
Nicholl v Cutts, 1985 P.C.C. 311
Nichols Advance Vehicle Systems Inc v De Angelis Unreported,
1979
Nicholson v Chapman (1793) 2 H.Bl. 254
Nicholson v Revill (1836) 4 A. & E. 675
Nicholson & Venn v Smith-Marriott (1947) 177 L.T. 189
Nickoll & Knight v Ashton Edridge & Co [1901] 2 K.B. 126 CA
Nicolene Ltd v Simmonds [1953] 1 Q.B. 543; [1953] 2 W.L.R.
717 CA
Niersmans v Pesticcio. See Pesticcio v Huet
Nigel Fryer Joinery Services Ltd v Ian Firth Hardware Ltd
[2008] EWHC 767 (Ch); [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108
Nile Co for the Export ofAgricultural Crops v H&JM Bennett
(Commodities) Ltd [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 555 QBD (Comm)
Nile Rhapsody, The. See Hamed el Chiaty & Co (t/a Travco Nile
Cruise Lines) v Thomas Cook Group Ltd (The Nile
Rhapsody)
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v International Import and Export Co (The
Elbe Maru) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 206 QBD (Comm)
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Pacifica Navegacion SA (The Ion)
[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 245 QBD (Comm)
Niru Battery Manufacturing Co v Milestone Trading Ltd (No.1)
[2003] EWCA Civ 1446; [2004] Q.B. 985; [2004] 2 W.L.R.
1415; [2004] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 193; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
344; [2004] 1 C.L.C. 647; [2004] W.T.L.R. 377; (2003)
100(44) L.S.G. 33
Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC
2602; [2004] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 481; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
38 QBD (Comm)
Nitedals Taendstikfabrik v Bruster [1906] 2 Ch. 671 Ch D
Nitrigin Eireann Teoranta v Inco Alloys Ltd [1992] 1 W.L.R.
498; [1992] 1 All E.R. 854 QBD
Nittan (UK) v Solent Steel Fabrications [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
633 CA (Civ Div)
Nizuru, The. See Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Karander
Maritime Inc (The Nizuru)
Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] A.C. 932; [1914–15] All E.R.
Rep. 45 HL
Noel Bay, The. See SIB International Srl v Metallgesellschaft
Corp (The Noel Bay)
Nogar Marin, The. See Naviera Mogor SA v Société
Metallurgique de Normandie (The Nogar Marin)
Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd; Donoghue v
Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd [1940] A.C. 1014
HL
Noranda Inc v Barton (Time Charter) Ltd (The Marinor) [1996]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301; [1996] C.L.C. 337 QBD (Comm)
Norbury Natzio & Co Ltd v Griffiths [1918] 2 K.B. 369 CA
20–059
15–052
21–057
16–038
13–013, 13–014
8–018, 8–019
19–030, 19–091
2–083
16–109
19–032, 19–048, 19–049, 19–079
14–038, 14–069
3–067, 3–087, 3–089, 3–091
14–045
14–093, 14–098, 14–116, 14–118
16–098
14–049
8–061
9–037, 12–044
15–052
6–003
13–005
Norden Steamship Co v Dempsey (1875–76) L.R. 1 C.P.D. 654,
6–027
CPD
Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd;
11–033, 11–063, 11–068, 11–075, 11–081
sub nom Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co v
Nordenfelt [1894] A.C. 535 HL
Nordman v Rayner & Sturgess (1916) 33 T.L.R. 87
19–022
Norfolk Southern Ry Co v James N Kirby Ltd, 543 U.S. 14
14–059, 14–071, 14–072, 14–073
(2004)
Norglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd;
15–059, 15–070
Mayhew-Lewis v Westminster Scaffolding Group Plc; Levy
v ABN AMRO Bank NV; Circuit Systems Ltd (In
Liquidation) v Zuken-Redac (UK) Ltd [1999] 2 A.C. 1;
[1997] 3 W.L.R. 1177 HL
Norman v Federal Commr of Taxation (1963) 109 C.L.R. 9
15–025
Normans Bay v Coudert Bros [2003] EWCA Civ 215
20–059
Norris v Southampton City Council [1982] I.C.R. 177; [1982]
19–084
I.R.L.R. 141 EAT
North v Brown [2012] EWCA Civ 223
17–010, 17–012
North v Loomes [1919] 1 Ch. 378 Ch D
5–022
North & South Trust Co v Berkeley; sub nom Berkeley v North
16–097
& South Trust Co [1971] 1 W.L.R. 470; [1971] 1 All E.R.
980 QBD (Comm)
North Eastern Properties Ltd v Coleman [2010] EWCA Civ 277;
5–009, 18–107
[2010] 1 W.L.R. 2715
North General Wagon and Finance Co Ltd v Graham [1950] 2
11–143
K.B. 7; [1950] 1 All E.R. 780 CA
North Ocean Shipping Co v Hyundai Construction Co (The
3–048, 3–051, 3–052, 10–002, 10–004,
Atlantic Baron) [1979] Q.B. 705; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 419 QBD
10–005, 10–009, 10–012
North Sea Energy Holdings NV v Petroleum Authority of
2–106, 2–107, 17–027, 20–078, 20–079,
Thailand [1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 173; [1999] 1 Lloyd’s
20–100, 20–103, 20–104
Rep. 483 CA (Civ Div)
North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc [2011] EWCA 3–037, 9–154, 19–043, 19–085, 20–137
Civ 230; [2012] Ch. 31; [2011] 3 W.L.R. 628; [2011] 2 All
E.R. (Comm) 1024; [2011] Bus. L.R. 1036; [2011] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 45; [2011] B.L.R. 757
North West Leicestershire DC v East Midlands Housing
2–019
Association [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1396; [1981] 3 All E.R. 364
CA (Civ Div)
North Western Ry v M’Michael (1850) 5 Ex. 114
12–019, 12–023, 12–024
North Western Salt Co Ltd v Electrolytic Alkali Co Ltd [1914]
11–079, 11–088
A.C. 461 HL
Northern Europe-USA Freight Liners Agreement, Re
11–106
(CIV/33168) [1990] 4 C.M.L.R. 518, CEC
Northgate, The. See Ocean Pride Maritime Ltd Partnership v
Qingdao Ocean Shipping Co (The Northgate)
Northgran Finance v Ashley [1963] 1 Q.B. 476; [1962] 3 W.L.R.
16–006
1360 CA
Northwest Regional Metropolitan Hospital Board v TA
6–004
Bickerton & Sons Ltd [1970] 1 W.L.R. 607
Norwegian American Cruises A/S v Paul Mundy Ltd (The
3–094, 3–095, 3–096, 3–097, 3–098
Vistafjord) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 343CA (Civ Div)
Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed (No.2)
[1993] Ch. 116; [1992] 3 W.L.R. 669; [1993] 1 All E.R. 330;
[1992] N.P.C. 33 CA (Civ Div)
Norwich City Council v Harvey (Paul Clarke) [1989] 1 W.L.R.
828; [1989] 1 All E.R. 1180 CA (Civ Div)
Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd v WMH Price Ltd;
sub nom Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd v
William Price Ltd [1934] A.C. 455; (1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 55
PC (Aus)
Norwich Union Life Insurance Co Ltd v Qureshi; Aldrich v
Norwich Union Life Insurance Co Ltd [1999] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 707; [1999] C.L.C. 1963 CA (Civ Div)
Notara v Henderson (1871–72) L.R. 7 Q.B. 225, Ex Chamber
Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co (London) [1986] 1 W.L.R.
641; [1986] 3 All E.R. 582 CA (Civ Div)
Nottingham Patent Brick & Tile Co v Butler (1885–86) L.R. 16
Q.B.D. 778 CA
Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society v Thurstan; sub
nom Thurstan v Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building
Society; Thurston v Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building
Society [1903] A.C. 6 HL
Nova Petroleum International Establishment v Tricon Trading
[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 312 QBD (Comm)
Novasen SA v Alimenta SA [2013] EWHC 345 (Comm); [2013]
2 All E.R. (Comm) 162; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648; [2013] 1
C.L.C. 405; [2013] Bus. L.R. D79
NOW v DOL. See National Oilwell (UK) Ltd v Davy Offshore
Ltd
Nutbrown v Thornton (1804) 10 Ves. 159
Nutt v Read (2000) 32 H.L.R. 761; (1999) 96(42) L.S.G. 44 CA
(Civ Div)
Nutting v Baldwin [1995] 1 W.L.R. 201; [1995] 2 All E.R. 321
Ch D
NW Salt Co v Electrolytic Alkali Co Ltd. See North Western
Salt Co Ltd v Electrolytic Alkali Co Ltd
Nweze v Nwoko [2004] EWCA Civ 379; [2004] 2 P. & C.R. 33
Nykredit Mortgage Bank Plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd
(Interest on Damages) [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1627; [1998] 1 All
E.R. 305; [1998] Lloyd’s Rep. Bank. 39; [1998] C.L.C. 116;
[1998] 1 Costs L.R. 108; [1998] P.N.L.R. 197; [1998] 1
E.G.L.R. 99; [1998] 05 E.G. 150; (1998) 95(1) L.S.G. 24;
(1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 29; [1997] N.P.C. 165; (1998) 75 P. &
C.R. D28 HL
O’Brien v Associated Fire Alarms [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1916; [1969]
1 All E.R. 93 CA (Civ Div)
O’Brien (Inspector of Taxes) v Benson’s Hosiery (Holdings) Ltd
[1980] A.C. 562; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 572 HL
O’Brien v MGN Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1279; [2002] C.L.C. 33;
[2001] L.L.R. 671
O’Connor v BDB Kirby & Co; sub nom O’Connor v DBD
Kirby & Co [1972] 1 Q.B. 90; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1233 CA
(Civ Div)
8–080, 8–084
14–070
1–002, 8–013
9–136, 11–143
16–034
19–023, 19–052, 19–073
9–143
12–022
18–085
20–080
21–024
8–018
6–035, 7–047, 14–010, 18–065, 20–145
5–008
20–022, 20–061
6–044
15–052
7–008, 7–009
17–069, 20–126
O’Grady v M Saper Ltd [1940] 2 K.B. 469 CA
19–023
O’Grady v Westminster Scaffolding [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 238
20–118
QBD
O’Hanlan v GW Ry (1865) 6 B. & S. 484
20–055
O’Kelly v Davies [2014] EWCA Civ 1606; [2015] 1 W.L.R.
11–147
2725; [2015] 1 P. & C.R. 17; [2015] Fam. Law 383
O’Neil v Armstrong Mitchell & Co [1895] 2 Q.B. 418 CA
3–052
O’Rorke v Bolingbroke (1876–77) L.R. 2 App. Cas. 814 HL
10–044
(UK-Irl)
O’Sullivan v Management Agency & Music Ltd [1985] Q.B.
3–005, 10–024, 10–031, 10–037, 11–032,
428; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 448; [1985] 3 All E.R. 351 CA (Civ
11–094
Div)
O’Sullivan v Thomas [1895] 1 Q.B. 698 QBD
11–145
O’Sullivan v Williams [1992] 3 All E.R. 385; [1992] R.T.R. 402
14–043
CA (Civ Div)
Oades v Spafford [1948] 2 K.B. 74; [1948] 1 All E.R. 607 CA
9–167
Oakacre Ltd v Claire Cleaners (Holdings) Ltd [1982] Ch. 197;
21–062, 21–064
[1981] 3 W.L.R. 761 Ch D
Oakes v Turquand; sub nom Overend Gurney & Co Ex p. Oakes
9–143
and Peek, Re; Overend Gurney & Co, Re; Peek v Turquand
(1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 325 HL
Oakworth, The. See Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers
Ltd v Teigland Shipping A/S (The Oakworth)
Oates v Hooper [2010] EWCA Civ 1346; (2010) 48 E.G. 85
18–038
Obestain Inc v National Mineral Development Corp Ltd (The
14–024
Sanix Ace) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 QBD (Comm)
OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21; [2008] 1 A.C. 1; [2007] 2
14–055, 14–135, 14–140
W.L.R. 920; [2007] 4 All E.R. 545; [2008] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 1; [2007] Bus. L.R. 1600; [2007] I.R.L.R. 608;
[2007] E.M.L.R. 12; [2007] B.P.I.R. 746; (2007) 30(6) I.P.D.
30037; [2007] 19 E.G. 165 (C.S.); (2007) 151 S.J.L.B. 674;
[2007] N.P.C. 54
Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Att Gen for Gibraltar [2014] EWHC
18–064
1028 (TCC); [2014] B.L.R. 484; [2014] C.I.L.L. 3536
Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp v Skibs A/S Avanti (The 3–036, 9–010, 9–025, 9–036, 9–105, 10–
Siboen and The Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 QBD
002, 10–005, 10–006, 10–009, 17–061,
(Comm)
19–042, 19–118, 20–004
Ocean Chemical Transport Inc v Exnor Craggs Ltd [2000] 1 All
7–004, 7–090
E.R. (Comm) 519; [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 446 CA (Civ Div)
Ocean Dynamic, The. See Jack L Israel Ltd v Ocean Dynamic
Lines SA and Ocean Victory Ltd (The Ocean Dynamic)
Ocean Frost, The. See Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (The Ocean
Frost)
Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V/O Sovfracht (The Eugenia)
19–006, 19–031, 19–080, 19–081, 19–083,
[1964] 2 Q.B. 226; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 114; [1964] 1 All E.R.
19–118, 22–025
161; [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 381; (1963) 107 S.J. 931 CA
Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010]
6–023
UKSC 44; [2011] 1 A.C. 662; [2010] 3 W.L.R. 1424; [2010]
4 All E.R. 1011; [2011] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1; [2011] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 96; [2010] 2 C.L.C. 686; [2011] B.L.R. 1; 133
Con. L.R. 62; [2011] 1 Costs L.R. 122; [2010] C.I.L.L. 2943
Oceanic Amity, The. See Seven Seas Transportation Ltd v
Pacifico Union Marina Corp (The Oceanic Amity)
Oceanic Freighters Corp v Reederei und Schiffahrts GmbH (The
Libyaville) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 QBD (Comm)
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co v Fay (1988) 165 C.L.R.
97 HC (Aus)
Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Quintero (C-240/98) [2000]
E.C.R. I-4941; [2002] 1 C.M.L.R. 43 ECJ
Oceanografia SA de CV v DSND Subsea AS (The Botnica)
[2006] EWHC 1360; [2007] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 28 QBD
(Comm)
Ockerby & Co Ltd v Murdock (1916) 22 C.L.R. 420
Odenfeld, The. See Gator Shipping Corp v Trans-Asiatic Oil SA
(The Odenfeld)
Odessa Tramways Co v Mendel (1878) L.R. 8 Ch. D. 235 CA
Offer-Hoar v Larkstore Ltd; sub nom Technotrade Ltd v
Larkstore Ltd; Larkstore Ltd v Technotrade Ltd [2006]
EWCA Civ 1079; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 2926
Office Angels v Rainer-Thomas [1991] I.R.L.R. 214 CA (Civ
Div)
Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc [2009] UKSC 6;
[2010] 1 A.C. 696; [2009] 3 W.L.R. 1215; [2010] 1 All E.R.
667; [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 945; [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
281; [2010] 1 C.M.L.R. 44; [2010] Eu. L.R. 309; (2009) 159
N.L.J. 1702; (2009) 153(45) S.J.L.B. 2
Office of Fair Trading v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd
[2011] EWHC 1237 (Ch); [2011] E.C.C. 31; [2011] C.T.L.C.
237; [2012] L.L.R. 182
Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd [2009] EWHC 1681 (Ch);
[2009] 29 E.G. 98
Offord v Davies (1862) 12 C.B.(N.S.) 748
Ogden v Fossick (1862) D. F. & J. 426
Ogdens Ltd v Nelson; Ogdens Ltd v Telford [1905] A.C. 109
HL
Ogilvie v Foljambe (1817) 3 Mer. 53
Ogilvy v Hope Davies [1976] 1 All E.R. 683; (1976) 31 P. &
C.R. 268 Ch D
Ogilvy & Mather Ltd v Silverado Blue Ltd [2007] EWHC 1285
(QB)
Ogle v Earl Vane (1867–68) L.R. 3 Q.B. 272, Ex Chamber
Okura & Co v Navara Shipping Corp SA [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
537 CA (Civ Div)
Oldershaw v King (1857) 2 H. & N. 517
Olearia Tirrena SpA v NV Algemeene Oliehandel (The
Osterbek) [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 86 CA (Civ Div)
Oleificio Zucchi SpA v Northern Sales [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
496 QBD (Comm)
Olib, The. See Enimont Overseas AG v RO Jugotanker Zadar
(The Olib)
Oliphant v Wadling. See Wadling v Oliphant
Oliva, The. See Meling v Minos Shipping Co (The Oliva)
Oliver v Bank of England. See Starkey v Bank of England
Olley v Fisher (1887) L.R. 34 Ch. D. 367 Ch D
18–063, 18–080
2–012, 7–010
23–069
2–042
19–027
21–018, 21–044
14–027, 14–028, 14–032, 15–045
11–075
7–109, 7–115, 20–143, 20–146, 23–076
7–109, 7–125, 20–135
7–109, 7–125
2–054, 2–058, 3–009
21–047
6–041
5–023
3–087
3–057
3–071
2–089
3–034
18–103
9–042
8–059
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 K.B. 532; [1949] 1 All
E.R. 127; 65 T.L.R. 95; 9 A.L.R.2d 806; [1949] L.J.R. 360;
(1949) 93 S.J. 40 CA
Olsen v Corry and Gravesend Aviation Ltd [1936] 3 All E.R.
241
Olsson v Dyson (1969) 120 C.L.R. 365 HC (Aus)
Olympia Sauna Shipping Co SA v Shinwa Kaiun Kaisha Ltd
(The Ypatia Halloussi) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 364 QBD
(Comm)
Olympic Brilliance, The. See Lakeport Navigation Co Panama
SA v Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA (The Olympic Brilliance)
Olympic Fire & General Reinsurance Co Ltd, Re [1920] 2 Ch.
341
Olympic Pride, The. See Etablissements Levy (Georges et Paul)
v Adderley Navigation Co Panama SA (The Olympic Pride)
Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd; sub
nom The Mamola Challenger [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm);
[2011] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 155; [2011] Bus. L.R. 212; [2011]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 47; [2010] 2 C.L.C. 194; 132 Con. L.R. 196
Omar v El-Wakil; sub nom Omar v Wakil [2001] EWCA Civ
1090; [2002] 2 P. & C.R. 3
Omnium d’Enterprises v Sutherland [1919] 1 K.B. 618 CA
Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation SA v Hilmarton Ltd
[1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 146; [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 222
QBD (Comm)
OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG [2015] EWHC
666 (Comm)
OMV Supply and Trading AG v Kazmunaygaz Trading AG
(formerly Vector Energy AG) [2014] EWHC 1372 (Comm)
On Demand Information Plc (In Administrative Receivership) v
Michael Gerson (Finance) Plc [2002] UKHL 13; [2003] 1
A.C. 368; [2002] 2 W.L.R. 919; [2002] 2 All E.R. 949;
[2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 641; [2002] B.C.C. 673; [2002]
C.L.C. 1140; (2002) 99(21) L.S.G. 31; (2002) 146 S.J.L.B.
110
One Life Ltd (In Liquidation) v Roy [1996] 2 B.C.L.C. 608 Ch
D
One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner [2014] EWHC 2213
(QB); [2015] I.R.L.R. 215
Onego Shipping & Chartering BV v JSC Arcadia Shipping (The
Socol 3) [2010] EWHC 777 (Comm); [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
221; [2010] 1 C.L.C. 601
OOCL Bravery, The [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 394, US Ct
Oom v Bruce (1810) 12 East 225
Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] A.C. 95; [1977] 3
W.L.R. 229; [1977] 3 All E.R. 1; (1978) 35 P. & C.R. 1;
(1977) 121 S.J. 632 HL
Orchard Developments (Holdings) Ltd v Reuter Ltd [2009]
EWCA Civ 6; [2009] 16 E.G. 140
Ord v Upton [2000] Ch. 352; [2000] 2 W.L.R. 755 CA (Civ Div)
Ord v White (1840) 3 Beav 357
Oresundsvarvet AB v Lemos (The Angelic Star) [1988] 1
7–010, 7–037
12–011
15–035
8–068, 8–069
16–112
20–028, 20–033
20–147, 20–150
17–057
11–053
9–029
8–060
18–066
11–133
20–016
7–034
7–032
11–138
12–018
18–097
15–074
15–037
20–132, 20–132
Lloyd’s Rep. 122; [1988] 1 F.T.L.R. 94 CA (Civ Div)
Orient Overseas Management and Finance Ltd v File Shipping
Co Ltd (The Energy Progress) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 355
QBD (Comm)
Orion Insurance Co Plc v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc [1992] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 239 CA (Civ Div)
Orjula, The. See Losinjska Plovidba v Transco Overseas Ltd
(The Orjula)
Orman v Saville Sportswear [1960] 1 W.L.R. 1055; [1960] 3 All
E.R. 105 QBD
Ormrod v Crosville Motor Services Ltd [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1120;
[1953] 2 All E.R. 753 CA
Oro Chef, The. See Eximenco Handels AG v Partredereit Oro
Chief and Levantes Maritime Corp (The Oro Chief)
Orton v Collins [2007] EWHC 803 (Ch); [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2953
Osborne v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (No.1)
[1910] A.C. 87 HL
Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 W.L.R. 370; [1957] 1 All E.R.
325; (1957) 101 S.J. 186 CA
Osman v Moss (J Ralph) [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 313 CA (Civ
Div)
Osterbek, The. See Olearia Tirrena SpA v NV Algemeene
Oliehandel (The Osterbek)
Oswald Hickson Collier & Co v Carter-Ruck [1984] A.C. 720;
[1984] 2 W.L.R. 847 CA (Civ Div)
OT Africa Line Ltd v Vickers Plc [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 700;
[1996] C.L.C. 722 QBD (Comm)
Otis Vehicle Rentals Ltd (formerly Brandrick Hire
(Birmingham) Ltd) v Ciceley Commercials Ltd (Damages);
sub nom Otis Vehicle Rentals Ltd v Ciceley Commercials
Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1064; [2002] All ER (D) 203 (Jul)
Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd v Urumov
[2012] EWHC 890 (Comm)
OTM v Hydranautics [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 211 QBD (Comm)
Otter v Church, Adams, Tatham & Co [1953] Ch. 280; [1953] 1
W.L.R. 156 Ch D
Otto v Bolton; Otto v Norris [1936] 2 K.B. 46 KBD
OTV Birwelco Ltd v Technical & General Guarantee Co Ltd
[2002] EWHC 2240; [2002] 4 All E.R. 668 QBD (TCC)
Oughtred v IRC [1960] A.C. 206; [1959] 3 W.L.R. 898; [1959] 3
All E.R. 623; (1959) 38 A.T.C. 317; [1959] T.R. 319; (1959)
103 S.J. 896 HL
Ounv Ahmad [2008] EWHC 545 (Ch); [2008] 13 E.G. 149
(C.S.); (2008) 152(14) S.J.L.B. 32; [2008] N.P.C. 39; [2008]
2 P. & C.R. DG3
Outram v Academy Plastics Ltd [2001] I.C.R. 367
Oval (717) Ltd v Aegon Insurance (UK) Ltd (1997) 54 Con L.R.
74
Ove Arup & Partners International Ltd v Mirant Asia-Pacific
(Hong Kong) Construction Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1729;
[2004] B.L.R. 75
Overbrooke Estates Ltd v Glencombe Properties Ltd [1974] 1
17–027
2–092, 3–099, 4–003, 4–023, 6–014
19–023
16–004
3–034, 5–008
11–057
3–093, 8–018, 9–046, 9–053, 9–054
11–022
11–080
2–002, 2–003, 8–042, 8–047, 8–050
21–007
13–007
2–016, 2–019, 2–020
15–071
9–053
3–170, 8–059, 14–133
15–016
5–009
3–169
7–065
6–016
9–127, 16–027
W.L.R. 1335; [1974] 3 All E.R. 511 Ch D
Overland Shoes Ltd v Schenkers Ltd; Overland Shoes Ltd v
Schenkers International Deutschland GmbH [1998] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 498; (1998) 95(11) L.S.G. 36; (1998) 142
S.J.L.B. 84 CA (Civ Div)
Overmark Smith Warden Ltd, Re [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1195; [1982]
3 All E.R. 513 Ch D
Overseas Buyers v Granadex SA [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 608
QBD (Comm)
Overseas Medical Supplies Ltd v Orient Transport Services Ltd
[1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 981; [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 273
CA (Civ Div)
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co
(The Wagon Mound); sub nom Morts Dock & Engineering
Co v Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd [1961] A.C. 388; [1961] 2
W.L.R. 126; [1961] 1 All E.R. 404; [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1;
100 A.L.R.2d 928; 1961 A.M.C. 962; (1961) 105 S.J. 85 PC
(Aus)
Overseas Union Insurance v AA Mutual International Insurance
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 63; [1988] F.T.L.R. 421 QBD
(Comm)
7–055, 7–080, 7–082
3–022
2–109
7–078, 7–080, 7–081
9–072, 20–023
11–051
Overstone v Shipway [1962] 1 W.L.R. 117; [1962] 1 All E.R. 52
20–062, 21–002
CA
Overy v PayPal (Europe) Ltd [2012] EWHC 2659 (QB); [2013]
7–101
Bus. L.R. D1
Owners of Cargo Laden on Board the Albacruz v Owners of the 14–023, 14–024, 14–027, 14–029, 14–033,
Albazero; sub nom Concord Petroleum Corp v Gosford
14–036, 14–043
Marine Panama SA [1977] A.C. 774; [1976] 3 W.L.R. 419
HL
Owners of SS Ballyalton v Preston Corp (The Ballyalton) [1961]
7–037
1 W.L.R. 929; [1961] 1 All E.R. 459 PDAD
Owners of SS Matheos v Louis Dreyfus & Co [1925] A.C. 654
19–036
HL
Owners of SS Raphael v Brandy; sub nom Brandy v Owners of
1–007
SS Raphael [1911] A.C. 413 HL
Owners of the Borvigilant v Owners of the Romina G; sub nom
14–065, 16–052, 16–053
Borkan General Trading Ltd v Monsoon Shipping Ltd
[2003] EWCA Civ 935; [2003] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 736;
[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 520
Owners of the Cap Palos v Alder; sub nom Cap Palos, The v
7–028, 7–030
Alder [1921] P. 458; (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 309 CA
Oxendale v Wetherell (1829) 9 B. & C. 386
17–033
Oxley v Hiscock; sub nom Hiscock v Oxley [2004] EWCA Civ
3–123
546; [2005] Fam. 211; [2004] 3 All E.R. 703; [2004] 2
F.L.R. 669; [2004] 2 F.C.R. 295; [2004] W.T.L.R. 709;
(2003–04) 6 I.T.E.L.R. 1091; [2004] Fam. Law 569; [2004]
20 E.G. 166 (C.S.); (2004) 101(21) L.S.G. 35; (2004) 148
S.J.L.B. 571; [2004] N.P.C. 70; [2004] 2 P. & C.R. DG14
Oxus Gold Plc v Templeton Insurance Ltd [2007] EWHC 770
20–048
(Comm)
Ozalid Group (Export) Ltd v African Continental Bank Ltd
20–062, 20–075
[1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 231 QBD (Comm)
P, The; sub nom Motor Vessel P, The [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 470
QBD (Comm)
P Samuel & Co Ltd v Dumas; sub nom P Samuel & Co Ltd v
Motor Union Insurance Co Ltd [1924] A.C. 431; (1924) 18
Ll. L. Rep. 211 HL
P&B (Run-Off) Ltd v Woolley [2002] EWCA Civ 65; [2002] 1
All E.R. (Comm) 577
P&O Steam Navigation Co v Youell [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 136
CA (Civ Div)
P1 International Ltd v Llewellyn [2005] EWHC 407; [2005]
U.K.C.L.R. 530 QBD
Paal Wilson & Co A/S v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal
(The Hannah Blumenthal) [1983] 1 A.C. 854; [1982] 3
W.L.R. 1149; [1983] 1 All E.R. 34; [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
103; [1983] Com. L.R. 20; (1982) 126 S.J. 835 HL
Pacific & General Insurance Co Ltd v Hazell; Pacific & General
Insurance Co Ltd v Home & Overseas Insurance Co Ltd
[1997] L.R.L.R. 65; [1997] B.C.C. 400 QBD (Comm)
Pacific Associates v Baxter [1990] 1 Q.B. 993; [1989] 3 W.L.R.
1150 CA (Civ Div)
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 C.L.R. 451
Pacific Champ, MV. See Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v
Americas Bulk Transport Ltd (The Pacific Champ)
Pacific Colocotronis, The. See Shell Tankers (UK) Ltd v Astro
Comino Armadora SA (The Pacific Colocotronis)
Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 50
Pacol Ltd v Trade Lines Ltd (The Henrik Sif) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 456; [1982] Com. L.R. 92 QBD (Comm)
Page v Combined Shipping & Trading Co Ltd [1997] 3 All E.R.
656; [1996] C.L.C. 1952 CA (Civ Div)
Page v Cox (1852) 10 Hare 163
Page One Records, Ltd v Britton [1968] 1 W.L.R. 157; [1967] 3
All E.R. 822 Ch D
Paget v Marshall (1885) L.R. 28 Ch. D. 255 Ch D
Pagnan & Fratelli v Coprosol SA [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 283 CA
(Civ Div)
Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601 CA
(Civ Div)
Pagnan SpA v Tradax Ocean Transportation SA; sub nom
Tradax Ocean Transportation SA v Pagnan [1987] 3 All E.R.
565; [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 342 CA (Civ Div)
Pain, Re; sub nom Gustavon v Haviland [1919] 1 Ch. 38 Ch D
Paine v Meller (1801) 6 Ves. 349
Palace Shipping Co Ltd v Caine; sub nom Caine v Palace Steam
Shipping Co Ltd [1907] A.C. 386 HL
Palaniappa Chettiar v Arunasalam Chettiar. See Chettiar (ARPL
Palaniappa) v Chettiar (PLAR Arunasalam)
Palgrave Brown & Son Ltd v Owners of SS Turid; sub nom
Turid, The v Palgrave, Brown & Son Ltd; Turid, The [1922]
1 A.C. 397; (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 375 HL
Palmco Shipping Inc v Continental Ore Corp (The Captain
George K) [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 21 QBD (Comm)
17–077
13–027, 14–009
11–019
20–029, 20–035, 22–004, 22–012
21–054
1–002, 2–003, 2–005, 18–095, 19–076,
19–083
16–051
14–070, 17–008
16–025
20–143
3–079, 3–088, 3–089, 9–161
16–091
14–084, 14–088
21–047, 21–057
8–029
20–130
2–017, 2–044, 2–077, 2–082, 2–084, 2–
086, 2–093
6–004, 19–048
15–015
19–062
3–052
6–027
18–052, 19–031, 19–067, 19–079
Palmer v Carey [1926] A.C. 703 PC (Aus)
15–017
Palmer v Mallet (1887) L.R. 36 Ch. D. 411 CA
13–021, 13–022, 13–024
Palmer v Temple (1839) 9 A. & E. 508
20–147
Palmolive Co (England) Ltd v Freedman [1928] Ch. 264 CA
11–102
Pamela, The. See Schelde Delta Shipping BV v Astarte Shipping
BV (The Pamela)
Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd
9–020, 9–024, 9–140, 9–146
[1995] 1 A.C. 501; [1994] 3 W.L.R. 677; [1994] 3 All E.R.
581; [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 427; [1994] C.L.C. 868; (1994)
91(36) L.S.G. 36; (1994) 144 N.L.J. 1203; (1994) 138
S.J.L.B. 182 HL
Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Creditcorp Ltd (The Trident
15–040, 15–079, 18–018, 22–001, 22–004
Beauty) [1994] 1 W.L.R. 161; [1994] 1 All E.R. 470 HL
Panalpina International Transport v Densil Underwear [1981] 1
20–102, 20–107
Lloyd’s Rep. 187 QBD
Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd [1994]
11–046, 11–098
E.C.C. 395; [1994] E.M.L.R. 229 Ch D
Panchaud Frères SA v Etablissements General Grain Co [1970]
17–063
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 53 CA (Civ Div)
Panchaud Frères SA v Pagnan (R) & Fratelli [1974] 1 Lloyd’s
20–061
Rep. 394 CA (Civ Div)
Pancommerce SA v Veecheema BV [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 304;
[1983] Com. L.R. 230 CA (Civ Div)
Pankhania v Hackney LBC [2002] EWHC 2441; [2002] N.P.C.
123 Ch D
Pannon GSM Zrt v Sustikne Gyorfi (C–243/08) [2010] All E.R.
(EC) 480; [2010] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 640; [2009] E.C.R. I4713 ECJ
Panorama Developments (Guildford) Ltd v Fidelis Furnishing
Fabrics Ltd [1971] 2 Q.B. 711; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 440 CA (Civ
Div)
Panoutsos v Raymond Hadley Corp of New York [1917] 2 K.B.
473 CA
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] A.C. 614; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 435
PC (HK)
Pappadakis v Pappadakis [2000] W.T.L.R. 719 Ch D
Parabola Investments Ltd v Browallia Cal Ltd [2010] EWCA
Civ 486; [2010] 3 W.L.R. 1266; [2011] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
210; [2010] Bus. L.R. 1446; [2011] 1 B.C.L.C. 26;
[2010] 19 E.G. 108 (C.S.); (2010) 107(20) L.S.G. 20
Paradine v Jane (1647) Aleyn 26
Paradise Motor Co, Re [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1125; [1968] 2 All E.R.
625 CA (Civ Div)
Paragon Finance Plc (formerly National Home Loans Corp) v
Nash; sub nom Nash v Paragon Finance Plc; Staunton v
Paragon Finance Plc; Paragon Finance Plc v Staunton [2001]
EWCA Civ 1466; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 685; [2001] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 1025
Paragon Finance Plc (formerly National Home Loans Corp) v
Pender [2005] EWCA Civ 760; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3412;
[2005] N.P.C. 84; [2005] 2 P. & C.R. DG18
7–012, 19–029
9–017, 9–061, 9–075, 9–076
7–119, 23–069
6–005, 16–022
3–072
3–019, 3–048, 3–055, 3–117, 3–174, 6–
022, 6–031, 10–002, 10–005, 10–008,
10–010, 10–051
15–029
9–024, 9–068, 9–074, 20–059
19–002
15–030
2–096, 7–066, 7–069, 10–047
10–047
Paragon, The. See Lansat Shipping Co Ltd v Glencore Grain BV
(The Paragon)
Parbulk A/S v Kristen Marine SA [2010] EWHC 900 (Comm);
[2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 220
Parbulk II A/S v Heritage Maritime Ltd SA [2011] EWHC 2917
(Comm); [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 418; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 87; (2011) 161 N.L.J. 1668
Park Air Services Plc, Re; sub nom Christopher Moran Holdings
Ltd v Bairstow [2000] 2 A.C. 172; [1999] 2 W.L.R. 396;
[1999] 1 All E.R. 673 HL
Parker v Arthur Murray Inc, 295 N.E. 2d 487 (1973)
Parker v Clark [1960] 1 W.L.R. 286; [1960] 1 All E.R. 93
Assizes (Exeter)
Parker v National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd
[2012] EWHC 2156 (Comm); [2013] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 253
Parker v SJ Berwin & Co [2008] EWHC 3017 (Comm); [2009]
P.N.L.R. 1
Parker v South Eastern Ry Co; Gabell v South Eastern Ry Co
(1876–77) L.R. 2 C.P.D. 416 CA
Parker v Winlow (1857) 7 E. & B. 942
Parkin v Thorold (1852) 16 Beav 59
Parkin, Re; sub nom Hill v Schwarz [1892] 3 Ch. 510 Ch D
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402; [2015] R.T.R.
27; [2015] C.T.L.C. 82
ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ
1338; [2013] Q.B. 840; [2013] 2 W.L.R. 939; [2012] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 679
Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] 2 K.B. 1 KBD
Parks v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd; sub nom Parkes v Esso
Petroleum Co Ltd [2000] E.C.C. 45; [2000] Eu. L.R. 25 CA
(Civ Div) Ch D
Parsons v BNM Laboratories Ltd [1964] 1 Q.B. 95; [1963] 2
W.L.R. 1273 CA
Parsons v Thompson (1790) 1 H.B. 322
Parsons Bros Ltd v Shea (1966) 53 D.L.R. 2d 36
Parsons Corp v CV Scheepvaartonderneming Happy Ranger
[2002] EWCA Civ 694; [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 24;
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 357
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1204; [1968] 2 All E.R.
421 DC
Pascoe v Turner [1979] 1 W.L.R. 431; [1979] 2 All E.R. 945 CA
(Civ Div)
Passmore v Morland Plc [1999] 3 All E.R. 1005; [1999] 1
C.M.L.R. 1129 CA (Civ Div)
Patel v Ali [1984] Ch. 283; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 960 Ch D
Patel v Hooper & Jackson [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1792; [1999] 1 All
E.R. 992; [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 1; [1998] E.G. 160
(C.S.); (1998) 148 N.L.J. 1751; [1998] N.P.C. 149 CA (Civ
Div)
Patel v Mirza [2014] EWCA Civ 1047; [2015] Ch. 271; [2015] 2
W.L.R. 405; [2015] 1 All E.R. 326; [2015] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 1; [2015] 1 B.C.L.C. 256; [2014] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C.
21–004
18–073, 18–080, 18–084
15–084, 17–081, 21–001
19–016
4–019, 5–024
7–105
20–028, 20–033
7–006, 7–007, 7–048
16–069
18–100
21–046
7–105,20–138,20–143
11–001, 11–021, 11–117, 11–172
11–057
11–119, 11–146
20–066
11–057
19–103
7–032
2–011
3–130, 3–136, 3–144, 3–145
11–107
19–033, 21–030
20–086
11–141, 11–172
561; [2014] W.T.L.R. 1567; [2015] L.L.R. 133
Pateman v Pay (1974) 232 E.G. 457
Patent Floor Cloth Co, Re (1872) 26 L.T. 467
Paterson v Murphy (1853) 11 Hare 88
Paterson Zochonis & Co Ltd v Elder Dempster & Co Ltd; sub
nom Elder, Dempster & Co v Paterson Zochonis & Co[1924]
A.C. 522; (1924) 18 Ll. L. Rep. 319 HL
Patrick, Re; sub nom Bills v Tatham [1891] 1 Ch. 82 CA
Patrick v Milner (1876–77) L.R. 2 C.P.D. 342 CPD
Patrick & Co Ltd v Russo-British Grain Export Co Ltd [1927] 2
K.B. 535; (1927) 28 Ll. L. Rep. 358KBD
Paul Smith Ltd v H&S International Holding Inc [1991] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 127 QBD (Comm)
Paul v Constance [1977] 1 W.L.R. 527; [1977] 1 All E.R. 195
CA (Civ Div)
Paula Lee Ltd v Zehil & Co Ltd [1983] 2 All E.R. 390 QBD
Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No.1), Re; sub nom Younghusband
v Coutts & Co (No.1) [1964] Ch. 303; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 742
CA
Pavey & Matthews Ltd v Paul (1987) 69 A.L.J.R. 577
Pawle’s Case. See Estates Investment Co, Re
Payne v Wilson (1827) 7 B. & C. 423
Paynter v James (1866–67) L.R. 2 C.P. 348 CCP
Paynter v Williams (1833) 1 C. & M. 810
Payzu Ltd v Saunders [1919] 2 K.B. 581 CA
PCW Syndicates v PCW Reinsurers [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1136;
[1996] 1 All E.R. 774; [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 241; [1995]
C.L.C. 1517; [1995] 4 Re. L.R. 373 CA (Civ Div)
Peabody Trust Governors v Reeve [2008] EWHC 1432 (Ch)
Pearce v Brain [1929] 2 K.B. 310 KBD
Pearce v Brooks (1865–66) L.R. 1 Ex. 213, Ex Ct
Pearce v Merriman [1904] 1 K.B. 80 KBD
Pearce v University of Aston in Birmingham (No.1) [1991] 2 All
E.R. 461 CA (Civ Div)
Pearl Carriers Inc v Japan Line Ltd (The Chemical Venture)
[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 508 QBD (Comm)
Pearless de Rougemont & Co v Pilbrow [1999] 3 All E.R. 355;
[1999] 2 Costs L.R. 109 CA (Civ Div)
Pearson v Scott (1878) L.R. 9 Ch. D. 198 Ch D
PEC Ltd v Asia Golden Rice Co Ltd [2014] EWHC 1583
(Comm)
Peco Arts Inc v Hazlitt Gallery Ltd [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1315;
[1983] 3 All E.R. 193 QBD
Peek v Derry. See Derry v Peek
Peek v Gurney (1873) L.R. 6. H.L. 377
Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia & New Zealand Banking
Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
511; [2006] 1 C.L.C. 582
Peevyhouse v Garland Coal Co, 382 P. 2d 109 (1962)
Pegase, The. See Satef-Huttenes Alberns SpA v Paloma Tercera
Shipping Co SA (The Pegase)
Pegasus Management Holdings SCA v Ernst & Young [2012]
4–002, 8–056
16–091
15–028, 15–029
14–059, 14–060
15–028, 15–030
18–103
20–057
6–040
11–045, 14–086, 15–029
7–047, 20–069
10–023
22–026
3–034
17–018
22–020
18–038, 20–117
9–147
7–098
12–030
11–044
4–017
21–037
3–024, 3–091
17–044, 17–056, 22–006
16–056
16–022, 16–025, 16–027
8–020
9–029
7–040, 9–028, 9–126
20–039
15–045
EWHC 738 (Ch); [2012] 2 B.C.L.C. 734; [2012] P.N.L.R.
24; [2012] S.T.I. 1387
Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd (No.1) [2000] B.L.R. 218; 70 Con.
L.R. 68 QBD (TCC)
Pell Frischmann Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Iran Ltd [2009]
UKPC 45; [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2370; [2010] B.L.R. 73; [2011]
Bus. L.R. D1
Pellatt’s Case. See Richmond Hill Hotel Co (No.2), Re
Pembroke, The. See Nelson Pine Industries Ltd v Seatrans New
Zealand Ltd (The Pembroke)
Pena v Dale [2003] EWHC 1065; [2004] 2 B.C.L.C. 508 Ch D
Pendrecht, The. See Stoomv Maats De Maas NV v Nippon
Yusen Kaisha (The Pendrecht)
Penelope, The. See Cleeves Western Valleys Anthracite
Collieries Ltd v Owners of The Penelope
Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Sweeney [2004] I.R.L.R. 49
Peninsular & Orient SN Co v Youell. See P&O Steam
Navigation Co v Youell
Penn v Bristol and West Building Society; sub nom Brill & Co v
Penn [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1356; [1997] 3 All E.R. 470 CA (Civ
Div)
Pennington v Waine (No.1); sub nom Pennington v Crampton
(No.1) [2002] EWCA Civ 227; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2075
Peonia, The. See Hyundai Merchant Marine Co v Gesuri
Chartering Co (The Peonia)
Pepper & Hope v Daish [1980] I.R.L.R. 13 EAT
Pera Shipping Corp v Petroship SA (The Pera) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 103 CA (Civ Div)
Percival v London County Council Asylum, etc. Committee
(1918) 87 L.J.K.B. 677
Peregrine Systems Ltd v Steria Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 239;
[2005] Info. T.L.R. 294
Pereira Fernandes SA v Mehta. See J Pereira Fernandes SA v
Mehta
Perera v Vandiyar [1953] 1 W.L.R. 672; [1953] 1 All E.R. 1109
CA
Performing Right Society Ltd v London Theatre of Varieties Ltd
[1924] A.C. 1 HL
Performing Right Society Ltd v Rowland; Rowland v Turp
[1997] 3 All E.R. 336; [1998] B.P.I.R. 128 Ch D
Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd
[2009] EWCA Civ 1160; [2010] Ch 347; [2010] 3 W.L.R.
87; [2010] Bus. L.R. 632; [2010] B.C.C. 59; [2010] 1
B.C.L.C. 747; [2010] B.P.I.R. 174;
Perry v Sidney Phillips & Son [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1297; [1982] 3
All E.R. 705 CA (Civ Div)
Perry v Suffields Ltd [1916] 2 Ch. 187 CA
Perrylease Ltd v Imecar AG [1988] 1 W.L.R. 463; [1987] 2 All
E.R. 373 QBD
Pershore Produce (Fruit & Vegetables) Ltd v Reed [2010]
EWCA Civ 795
Persson v London Country Buses [1974] 1 W.L.R. 569; [1974] 1
7–022
20–010, 20–015, 20–016, 20–018
21–018, 21–038
7–066
14–007, 16–078
15–030, 21–046
3–052
7–015
2–022
18–097, 18–100, 18–104
20–019
14–086
15–021, 15–025, 15–074
8–007
17–069, 20–006, 20–086, 20–113
2–017, 2–086
6–028
16–071
11–050
All E.R. 1251 CA (Civ Div)
Peruvian Guano Co Ltd v Dreyfus Bros & Co Ltd; sub nom
16–039
Dreyfus v Peruvian Guano Co [1892] A.C. 166 HL
Peskin v Anderson [2001] B.C.C. 874; [2001] 1 B.C.L.C. 372
14–010
CA (Civ Div)
Pesticcio v Huet; sub nom Niersmans v Pesticcio [2004] EWCA
10–014, 10–028
Civ 372; [2004] W.T.L.R. 699
Peter Cassidy Seed Co v Osuustukkukauppa IL [1957] 1 W.L.R.
2–109, 11–020, 19–048
273; [1957] 1 All E.R. 484 QBD (Comm)
Peter Cremer GmbH & Co v Granaria BV; Granaria BV v C
3–081
Schwarze [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583 QBD (Comm)
Peter Lind & Co Ltd v Mersey Docks and Harbour Board [1972]
2–016, 2–017, 2–021, 22–021
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 234 QBD (Comm)
Peter Long & Partners v Burns [1956] 1 W.L.R. 1083; [1956] 3
16–088
All E.R. 207 CA
Peter Pan Manufacturing Corp v Corsets Silhouette Ltd [1964] 1
20–010
W.L.R. 96; [1963] 3 All E.R. 402 Ch D
Peters v Fleming (1840) 6 M. & W. 42
12–004
Peters v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp Ltd
15–053
[1937] 4 All E.R. 628
Petr Schmidt, The. See Galaxy Energy International Ltd v
Novorossiysk Shipping Co (The Petr Schmidt)
Petrofina (Great Britain) Ltd v Martin [1966] Ch. 146; [1966] 2
11–101, 11–102
W.L.R. 318 CA
Petrofina (UK) Ltd v Magnaload Ltd [1984] Q.B. 127; [1983] 3
14–128
W.L.R. 805 QBD (Comm)
Petrograde Inc v Stinnes Handel GmbH [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
3–082, 18–055
142 QBD (Comm)
Petroleum Oil & Gas Corp of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v FR8
6–004
Singapore PTE Ltd (The Eternity) [2008] EWHC 2480
(Comm); [2009] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 556; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 107
Petroleum Shipping Ltd v Vatis (t/a Kronos Management) (The
6–015, 6–020, 6–029
Riza); Liner Shipping Ltd v Vatis (t/a Kronos Management)
(The Sun) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 314 QBD (Comm)
Petrologic Capital SA v Banque Cantonale de Geneve [2012]
14–092
EWHC 453 (Comm); [2012] I.L.Pr. 20
Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras (No.3) [2005]
2–089, 2–098, 2–100, 2–101, 6–011
EWCA Civ 891; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 121
Petrotrade Inc v Smith (Vicarious Liability) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s
16–098
Rep. 486; [2000] C.L.C. 916 QBD (Comm)
Pettitt v Pettitt; sub nom P v P [1970] A.C. 777; [1969] 2 W.L.R.
4–017
966 HL
Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Ch. 457; [1985] 2 W.L.R. 154 CA (Civ 9–138, 18–084, 18–085, 18–087, 18–088
Div)
Peyton v Mindham [1972] 1 W.L.R. 8; [1971] 3 All E.R. 1215
11–078
Ch D
Pfeiffer Weinkellerei-Weineinkauf GmbH & Co v Arbuthnot
Factors. See E Pfeiffer Weinkellerei-Weineinkauf GmbH &
Co v Arbuthnot Factors Ltd
Pfizer Corp v Ministry of Health [1965] A.C. 512; [1965] 2
1–008
W.L.R. 387 HL
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists
2–009
(Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 Q.B. 401; [1953] 2 W.L.R. 427;
[1953] 1 All E.R. 482; (1953) 117 J.P. 132; (1953) 97 S.J.
149 CA
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Dickson; sub nom
11–103, 12–064
Dickson v Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain [1970]
A.C. 403; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 286 HL
Phelps v Hillingdon LBC; sub nom G (A Child), Re; Anderton v
14–047
Clwyd CC; G (A Child) v Bromley LBC; Jarvis v Hampshire
CC [2001] 2 A.C. 619; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 776; [2000] 4 All
E.R. 504; [2000] 3 F.C.R. 102; (2001) 3 L.G.L.R. 5; [2000]
B.L.G.R. 651; [2000] Ed. C.R. 700; [2000] E.L.R. 499;
(2000) 3 C.C.L. Rep. 156; (2000) 56 B.M.L.R. 1; (2000) 150
N.L.J. 1198; (2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 241 HL
Phibro Energy AG v Nissho Iwai Corp (The Honam Jade)
18–054, 20–048
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 CA (Civ Div)
Phibro Energy Inc v Coastal (Bermuda) Ltd (The Aragon)
18–054
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 61 (Note) CA (Civ Div)
Philip Collins Ltd v Davis [2000] 3 All E.R. 808; [2001]
3–097
E.C.D.R. 17 Ch D
Philips v Ward [1956] 1 W.L.R. 471; [1956] 1 All E.R. 874 CA
20–006, 20–007, 20–071
Philips Electronique Grand Public SA v British Sky
6–034
Broadcasting Ltd [1995] 1 E.M.L.R. 472
Philips Hong Kong Ltd v Att Gen of Hong Kong 61 B.L.R. 41;
20–130, 20–131, 20–137, 20–141
(1993) 9 Const. L.J. 202 PC (HK)
Phillips v Alhambra Palace Co [1901] 1 Q.B. 59 QBD
17–009
Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 K.B. 243 KBD
8–038, 8–039, 8–040
Phillips v Foxall (1871–72) L.R. 7 Q.B. 666 QB
9–140
Phillips v Homfray (No.1); Fothergill v Phillips (1870–71) L.R.
9–138
6 Ch. App. 770 Lord Chancellor
Phillips v Lamdin [1949] 2 K.B. 33; [1949] 1 All E.R. 770 KBD
21–024
Phillips v Syndicate 992 Gunner [2003] EWHC 1084; [2003] 2
6–027, 6–048
C.L.C. 152; [2004] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 426 QBD (Comm)
Phillips & Co v Bath Housing Co-operative Ltd [2012] EWCA
3–022
Civ 1591; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 1479; [2013] 2 All E.R. 475;
[2013] C.P. Rep. 12; [2013] 1 Costs L.R. 163; [2013]
B.P.I.R. 102; [2013] 1 E.G. 48 (C.S.)
Phillips Petroleum Co (UK) Ltd v Enron (Europe) Ltd [1997]
2–100
C.L.C. 329 CA (Civ Div)
Phillips Products v Hyland [1987] 1 W.L.R. 659; [1987] 2 All
7–055, 7–058, 7–071, 7–082
E.R. 620 CA (Civ Div)
Phillipson v Hayter (1870–71) L.R. 6 C.P. 38 CCP
16–018
Phillipson v Kerry (1863) 32 Beav 628
8–078
Philpot v Gruninger (1872) 14 Wall 570
3–009
Phipps v Orthodox Unit Trusts [1958] 1 Q.B. 314; [1957] 3
20–066
W.L.R. 856 CA
Phoebus D Kypriamou Co v Wm H Pim Jr & Co [1977] 2
20–070
Lloyd’s Rep. 570 QBD (Comm)
Phoenix General Insurance Co of Greece SA v Halvanon
11–020, 11–111, 11–115, 11–119, 11–122,
Insurance Co Ltd; sub nom Phoenix General Insurance Co of
21–003
Greece SA v Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat [1988] Q.B.
216; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 512 CA (Civ Div)
Phonogram Ltd v Lane [1982] Q.B. 938; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 736;
[1981] 3 All E.R. 182; [1981] Com. L.R. 228; [1982] 3
C.M.L.R. 615; (1981) 125 S.J. 527 CA (Civ Div)
Phonographic Equipment (1958) v Muslu [1961] 1 W.L.R. 1379;
[1961] 3 All E.R. 626 CA
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] A.C.
827; [1980] 2 W.L.R. 283; [1980] 1 All E.R. 556; [1980] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 545; (1980) 124 S.J. 147 HL
16–073
20–130
7–001, 7–016, 7–023, 7–025, 7–026, 7–
028, 7–031, 7–032, 7–076, 17–084,
18–001, 18–005, 18–015, 18–017, 18–
018, 18–020, 18–045
2–006
Photolibrary Group Ltd v Burda Senator Verlag GmbH [2008]
EWHC 1343 (QB), [2008] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
Picardi (t/a Picardi Architects) v Cuniberti [2002] EWHC 2923;
7–112
[2003] B.L.R. 487 QBD (TCC)
Pickfords Ltd v Celestica Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1741
2–058, 2–061
Picton Jones & Co v Arcadia Developments [1989] 1 E.G.L.R.
11–013
43; [1989] 03 E.G. 85 DC
Pigott v Stratton (1859) 1 D.F. & J. 33
3–090
Pilbrow v Pearless de Rougemont & Co. See Pearless de
Rougemont & Co v Pilbrow
Pilgram v Rice-Smith [1977] 1 W.L.R. 671; [1977] 2 All E.R.
9–090
658; (1977) 65 Cr. App. R. 142; [1977] Crim. L.R. 371 DC
Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch. 770; [1953] 3 W.L.R. 522 Ch D
20–113, 20–116
Pilkington UK Ltd v CGU Insurance Plc [2004] EWCA Civ 23;
7–015
[2005] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 283; [2004] B.L.R. 97
Pillans v Van Mierop (1765) 3 Burr. 1663
3–001
Pilmore v Hood (1838) 5 Bing.N.C. 97
9–029
Pindell Ltd v AirAsia Bhd [2010] EWHC 2516 (Comm); [2011]
20–109,20–111,21–004
2 All E.R. (Comm) 396; [2012] 2 C.L.C. 1
Pink Floyd Music Ltd v EMI Records Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ
6–023
1429; [2011] 1 W.L.R. 770
Pinnel’s Case
3–100,3–101,3–105
Pinnock Bros v Lewis & Peat Ltd [1923] 1 K.B. 690; (1923) 14
7–027, 20–106
Ll. L. Rep. 277 KBD
Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd v National Employers Mutual
17–015
General Insurance Association Ltd [1985] 2 All E.R. 395;
[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 274 QBD (Comm)
Pioneer Container, The; sub nom Owners of Cargo Lately Laden 14–016, 14–059, 14–060, 14–065, 14–073,
on Board the KH Enterprise v Owners of the Pioneer
14–076
Container [1994] 2 A.C. 324; [1994] 3 W.L.R. 1 PC (HK)
Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (The Nema (No.2));
7–020, 11–052, 19–005, 19–017, 19–021,
sub nom BTP Tioxide Ltd v Pioneer Shipping Ltd; BTP
19–052, 19–068, 19–073
Tioxide Ltd v Armada Marine SA [1982] A.C. 724; [1981] 3
W.L.R. 292; [1981] 2 All E.R. 1030; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
239; [1981] Com. L.R. 197; (1981) 125 S.J. 542 HL
Pirelli General Plc v Gaca. See Gaca v Pirelli General Plc
Pirie v Richardson [1927] 1 K.B. 448 CA
13–011
Pitt v Holt [2013] UKSC 26; [2013] 2 A.C. 108; [2013] 2
8–030
W.L.R. 1200; [2013] 3 All E.R. 429; [2013] S.T.C. 1148;
[2013] Pens. L.R. 195; 81 T.C. 912; [2013] B.T.C. 126;
[2013] W.T.L.R. 977; 15 I.T.E.L.R. 976; [2013] S.T.I. 1805;
[2013] 2 P. & C.R. DG14
Pitt v PHH Asset Management Ltd [1994] 1 W.L.R. 327; [1993]
2–099, 3–038, 3–160, 4–014, 5–008
4 All E.R. 961 CA (Civ Div)
Pitts v Hunt [1991] 1 Q.B. 24; [1990] 3 W.L.R. 542 CA (Civ
Div)
Pitts v Jones [2007] EWCA Civ 1301; [2008] Q.B. 76
PJ Spillings Ltd v Bonus Flooring Ltd [2008] EWHC 1516 (QB)
PJ Van der Zijden Wildhandel NV v Tucker & Cross Ltd (No.1)
[1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 240 QBD (Comm)
Planché v Colburn (1831) 8 Bing. 14
Plasticmoda Societa Per Azioni v Davidsons (Manchester)
[1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 527 CA
Platform Home Loans Ltd v Oyston Shipways Ltd [2000] 2 A.C.
190; [1999] 2 W.L.R. 518; [1999] 1 All E.R. 833; [1999]
C.L.C. 867; (1999) 1 T.C.L.R. 18; [1999] P.N.L.R. 469;
[1999] 1 E.G.L.R. 77; [1999] 13 E.G. 119; [1999] E.G. 26
(C.S.); (1999) 96(10) L.S.G. 31; (1999) 149 N.L.J. 283;
(1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 65; [1999] N.P.C. 21 HL
Platt v London Underground Ltd [2001] 2 E.G.L.R. 121; [2001]
20 E.G. 227 (C.S.) Ch D
Playa Larga, The. See Empresa Exportadora De Azucar
(CUBAZUCAR) v Industria Azucarera Nacional SA
(IANSA) (The Playa Larga and Marble Islands)
PlayUp Interactive Entertainment (UK) Pty Ltd v
Givemefootball Ltd [2011] EWHC 1980 (Comm); [2011]
Info. T.L.R. 289; (2011) 108(32) L.S.G. 16
Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd [2014] UKSC 61; [2014]
1 W.L.R. 4222; [2015] 1 All E.R. 625; [2015] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 1007; [2014] Bus. L.R. 1257; [2015] E.C.C. 2;
[2015] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 247
Plevins v Downing (1875–76) L.R. 1 C.P.D. 220, CPD
Plimmer v Wellington Corp; sub nom Plimmer v Mayor,
Councillors, and Citizens of the City of Wellington (1883–
84) L.R. 9 App. Cas. 699 PC (NZ)
Plowman & Son Ltd v Ash. See GW Plowman & Son Ltd v Ash
Plumptres Marriage Settlement, Re; sub nom Underhill v
Plumptre [1910] 1 Ch. 609 Ch D
Plymouth Corp v Harvey [1971] 1 W.L.R. 549; [1971] 1 All
E.R. 623 Ch D
Pole v Leask (1862) 33 L.J.Ch. 155
Polemis and Furness Withy & Co Ltd, Re; sub nom Polemis v
Furness Withy & Co [1921] 3 K.B. 560; (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep.
351 CA
Polhill v Walter (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 114
Policy of the Equitable Life Assurance of the United States and
Mitchell, Re (1911) 27 T.L.R. 213
Pollard v Clayton (1885) 1 K. & J. 462
Pollock v Stables (1848) 12 Q.B. 765
Pollway v Abdullah [1974] 1 W.L.R. 493; [1974] 2 All E.R. 381
CA (Civ Div)
Poly Lina Ltd v Finch [1995] F.S.R. 751 QBD
Polypearl Ltd v E.ON Energy Solutions Ltd [2014] EWHC 3045
(QB)
Pontypridd Union v Drew. See Guardians of Pontypridd Union v
11–014, 11–025, 11–113, 11–114
3–009, 5–016
20–028
17–065, 19–036
17–046, 20–038
3–072
20–022, 20–023, 20–126
20–120
20–046
9–160, 10–047
3–072, 3–076
3–123, 3–131, 3–145
14–089
5–035
16–021
7–037
9–035, 9–096, 16–078
14–084
21–026
16–020
3–009
11–069, 11–075
7–017
Drew
Pope & Pearson v Buenos Ayres New Gas Co (1892) 8 T.L.R.
758
Pople v Evans [1969] 2 Ch. 255; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 97 Ch D
Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty v Salmond & Spraggon (Australia)
Pty (The New York Star); Salmond & Spraggon (Australia)
Pty v Joint Cargo Services Pty [1981] 1 W.L.R. 138; [1980]
3 All E.R. 257 PC (Aus)
Port Line v Ben Line Steamers [1958] 2 Q.B. 146; [1958] 2
W.L.R. 551 QBD
Port of Tilbury (London) Ltd v Stora Enso Transport &
Distribution Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 16; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 391
Port Swettenham Authority v TW Wu & Co Sdn Bhd [1979]
A.C. 580; [1978] 3 W.L.R. 530 PC (Mal)
Portaria Shipping Co v Gulf Pacific Navigation Co Ltd (The
Selene G) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 180; [1981] Com. L.R. 111
QBD (Comm)
Portavon Cinema Co Ltd v Price and Century Insurance Co
(1939) 65 Ll. L. Rep. 161; [1939] 4 All E.R. 601 KBD
Porter v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police. See Webb v
Chief Constable of Merseyside
Porter v Freudenberg; sub nom Merten’s Patents, Re; Kreglinger
v S Samuel & Rosenfeld [1915] 1 K.B. 857 CA
Porter v Harris (1663) 1 Lev 63
Portman Building Society v Hamlyn Taylor Neck [1998] 4 All
E.R. 202; [1998] P.N.L.R. 664 CA (Civ Div)
Portuguese Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd Ex p. Badman, Re;
sub nom Portuguese Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd Ex p.
Bosanquet, Re (1890) L.R. 45 Ch. D. 16 CA
Poseidon Freight Forwarding Co Ltd v Davies Turner Southern
Ltd [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 388; [1996] C.L.C. 1264 CA (Civ
Div)
Posidon, The. See China Offshore Oil (Singapore) International
Pte Ltd v Giant Shipping Ltd (The Posidon)
Posner v Scott-Lewis [1987] Ch. 25; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 531 Ch D
Possfund Custodian Trustee Ltd v Diamond; Parr v Diamond
[1996] 1 W.L.R. 1351; [1996] 2 B.C.L.C. 665, Ch
Post Chaser, The. See Société Italo-Belge Pour le Commerce et
L’Industrie SA(Antwerp) v Palm and Vegetable Oils
(Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (The Post Chaser)
Postlethwaite v Freeland (1879–80) L.R. 5 App. Cas. 599 HL
Poteliakhoff v Teakle [1938] 2 K.B. 816 CA
Potter v Sanders (1846) 6 Hare 1
Potts v Miller, 64 C.L.R. 282
Poussard v Speirs & Pond (1875–76) L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 410 QBD
Pow v Davies (1861) 1 B. & S. 220
Powdrill v Watson; sub nom Paramount Airways Ltd (No.3), Re;
Talbot v Cadge; Talbot v Grundy; Leyland DAF Ltd (No.2),
Re; Ferranti International Plc, Re [1995] 2 A.C. 394; [1995]
2 W.L.R. 312; [1995] 2 All E.R. 65; [1995] B.C.C. 319;
[1994] 1 B.C.L.C. 386; [1995] I.C.R. 1100; [1995] I.R.L.R.
8–016
16–057
3–054, 7–028, 14–016, 14–065, 14–066
14–138, 14–141, 19–021, 19–091
6–040
3–167, 14–073
20–147
14–127
11–059
13–011
20–029
16–049, 16–053
7–008, 16–008
21–038, 21–040, 21–044
9–029, 9–039
18–097
11–036
2–035
9–075
17–059, 18–001, 18–035
20–118
2–018, 15–084, 16–075
269; (1995) 92(17) L.S.G. 47; (1995) 145 N.L.J. 449; (1995)
139 S.J.L.B. 110 HL
Powell v Brent LBC [1988] I.C.R. 176; [1987] I.R.L.R. 446 CA
(Civ Div)
Powell v Brodhurst [1901] 2 Ch. 160 Ch D
Powell v Evan Jones & Co [1905] 1 K.B. 11 CA
Powell v Owners of the Proceeds of Sale of the Halcyon Skies
(No.1) [1977] Q.B. 14; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 514 QBD (Admlty)
Powell v Powell [1900] 1 Ch. 243 Ch D
Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Co v Taff Vale Ry Co (1873–74)
L.R. 9 Ch. App. 331 CA in Chancery
Power Packing Casemakers Ltd v Faust [1983] Q.B. 471; [1983]
2 W.L.R. 439 CA (Civ Div)
Power v Barham (1836) 4 A. & E. 473
Power v Wells (1778) 2 Cowp. 818
Prager v Blatspiel Stamp & Heacock Ltd [1924] 1 K.B. 566
KBD
Prater v Cornwall CC. See Cornwall CC v Prater
Pratt v Willey (1826) 2 C. & P. 350
Precis (521) Plc v William M Mercer Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ
114; [2005] P.N.L.R. 28
Preece (P) & Co v Lewis (1963) 186 E.G. 113
Prehn v Royal Bank of Liverpool (1870) L.R. 5 Ex. 92
Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1381; [1971] 3 All E.R.
237; (1971) 115 S.J. 654 HL
Prentis Donegan & Partners Ltd v Leeds & Leeds Co Inc [1998]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 326; [1998] C.L.C. 1132 QBD (Comm)
Prescott v Dunwoody Sports Marketing [2007] EWCA Civ 461;
[2007] 1 W.L.R. 2343
Presentaciones Musicales SA v Secunda [1994] Ch. 271; [1994]
2 W.L.R. 660 CA (Civ Div)
President of India v La Pintada Compania Navigacion SA (The
La Pintada) [1985] A.C. 104; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 10; [1984] 2
All E.R. 773; [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 9; [1984] C.I.L.L. 110;
(1984) 81 L.S.G. 1999; (1984) 128 S.J. 414 HL
President of India v Lips Maritime Corp (The Lips); sub nom
Lips Maritime Corp v President of India [1988] A.C. 395;
[1987] 3 W.L.R. 572; [1987] 3 All E.R. 110; [1987] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 311; [1987] 2 F.T.L.R. 477; [1987] Fin. L.R.
313; (1987) 84 L.S.G. 2765; (1987) 137 N.L.J. 734; (1987)
131 S.J. 1085 HL
President of the Methodist Conference v Preston. See Moore v
President of the Methodist Conference
Preston v Luck (1884) L.R. 27 Ch. D. 497 CA
Price v Barker (1855) 4 E. & B. 760
Price v Dyer (1810) 17 Ves. 356
Price v Easton (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 433
Price v Jenkins (1877) L.R. 5 Ch. D. 619 CA
Price v Strange [1978] Ch. 337; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 943 CA (Civ
Div)
Price Waterhouse v University of Keele. See University of Keele
21–037
13–032
16–099
21–002
10–027
21–039
17–055, 17–073
9–055
12–038
16–039
16–056
9–040, 14–061, 14–070, 14–102
5–009
20–062
6–007, 6–010, 6–011, 6–023
16–099
15–045
16–049, 16–051, 16–052
20–060
20–060, 20–062, 20–143
8–056
13–014
3–067
14–014, 14–016
3–033
21–048
v Price Waterhouse
Pridean Ltd v Forest Taverns Ltd (1998) 75 P. & C.R. 447 CA
(Civ Div)
Primavera v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc [2002] EWCA Civ
1327; [2003] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 14
Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello [2013] UKPC 22; [2014] A.C. 436;
[2014] 2 W.L.R. 84; [2013] 4 All E.R. 659; (2014) 158(2)
S.J.L.B. 37
Primorje, The. See Jugoslavenska Linijska Plovidba v Holsman
(t/a Brusse & Sippel Import-Export) (The Primorje)
Primus Telecommunications Plc v MCI Worldcom International
Inc. See MCI WorldCom International Inc v Primus
Telecommunications Inc
Prince Jefri Bolkiah v Brunei Darussalam [2007] UKPC 63
Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG. See Bolkiah v KPMG
Printers & Finishers Ltd v Holloway (No.2) [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1;
[1964] 3 All E.R. 731 Ch D
Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson (1874–75)
L.R. 19 Eq. 462, Ct of Chancery
Priory Caring Services Ltd v Capita Property Services Ltd
[2010] EWCA Civ 226; 129 Con L.R. 81
Prison Officers Association v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS
Trust; sub nom Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v
Prison Officers Association [2003] I.C.R. 1192 EAT
3–127
20–121
3–090
6–015
11–069, 20–010
11–034
3–034
16–052
Pritchard v Briggs [1980] Ch. 338; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 868 CA
2–094, 6–023
(Civ Div)
Proactive Sports Management Ltd v Rooney [2011] EWCA Civ 11–064, 11–094, 11–095, 11–099, 11–111,
1444; [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 815; [2012] I.R.L.R. 241;
22–026
[2012] F.S.R. 16
Procter & Gamble Phillipine Manufacturing Corp v Becher
9–024, 20–052
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 21; [1988] F.T.L.R. 450 CA (Civ Div)
Procter & Gamble Phillipine Manufacturing Corp v Peter
17–063
Cremer GmbH & Co (The Manila (No.2)) [1988] 3 All E.R.
843 QBD
Procter and Gamble Co v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA
6–012
[2012] EWCA Civ 1413
Prodexport State Co for Foreign Trade v ED&F Man Ltd 95377
11–112
[1973] Q.B. 389; [1972] 3 W.L.R. 845 QBD (Comm)
Produce Brokers Co Ltd v Olympia Oil & Cake Co Ltd; sub
6–048
nom Olympia Oil and Cake Co Ltd and the Produce Brokers
Co Ltd, Re [1916] 1 A.C. 314 HL
Producers Meats Ltd v Shaw Savill & Albion Co Ltd (The
5–034
Arawa) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 135 CA (Civ Div)
Product Star (No.2), The. See Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v
Product Star Shipping (The Product Star (No.2))
Production Technology Consultants v Bartlett [1986] 1 E.G.L.R.
9–049
82; [1988] 25 E.G. 121 CA (Civ Div)
Proforce Recruit Ltd v The Rugby Group Ltd. See Rugby Group
Ltd v ProForce Recruit Ltd
Proform Sports Management Ltd v Proactive Sports
12–001, 12–014
Management Ltd [2006] EWHC 2903 (Ch); [2007] Bus.
L.R. 93
Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v Tube City IMS LLC [2012] EWHC
273 (Comm); [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 855; [2012] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 501; [2012] 1 C.L.C. 365
Proodos C, The. See Syros Shipping Co SA v Elaghill Trading
Co (The Proodos C)
Property Discount Corp Ltd v Lyon Group Ltd [1981] 1 W.L.R.
300; [1981] 1 All E.R. 379 CA (Civ Div)
Prophet Plc v Huggett [2014] EWCA Civ 1013; [2014] I.R.L.R.
797
Prosper Homes Ltd v Hambros Bank Executor & Trustee Co Ltd
(1980) 39 P. & C.R. 395 Ch D
Protector Endowment Loan & Annuity Co v; sub nom Protector
Loan Co v Grice (1879–80) L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 592 CA
Proton Energy Group SA v Orlen Lietuva [2013] EWHC 2872
(Comm); [2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 972; [2014] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 100; 150 Con. L.R. 72
Proudfoot v Montefiore (1866–67) L.R. 2 Q.B. 511 QB
Provident Clothing & Supply Co Ltd v Mason; sub nom Mason
v Provident Clothing & Supply Co Ltd [1913] A.C. 724 HL
Provident Financial Group and Whitegates Estate Agency v
Hayward [1989] 3 All E.R. 298; [1989] I.C.R. 160 CA (Civ
Div)
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Ayres [2007] EWHC 775 (Ch);
[2007] 3 All ER 946
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body [1992]
2 A.C. 386; [1992] 3 W.L.R. 279; [1992] 3 All E.R. 504;
(1992) 64 P. & C.R. 193; [1992] 36 E.G. 129; [1992] E.G.
100 (C.S.); (1992) 142 N.L.J. 1087; [1992] N.P.C. 105 HL
Pryce, Re; sub nom Nevill v Pryce [1917] 1 Ch. 234 Ch D
PSG Franchising Ltd v Lydia Darby Ltd [2012] EWHC 3707
(QB); [2013] 3 E.G. 87 (C.S.)
PT Berlian Laju Tanker TBK v Nuse Shipping Ltd (The Aktor)
[2008] EWHC 1330 (Comm); [2008] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
784; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 246
Public Works Commrs v Hills. See Commr of Public Works v
Hills
Puerto Buitrago, The. See Attica Sea Carriers Corp v Ferrostaal
Poseidon Bulk Reederei GmbH (The Puerto Buitrago)
Pulbrook v Lawes (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 284
Punjab National Bank v De Boinville [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1138;
[1992] 3 All E.R. 104 CA (Civ Div)
Pusey v Pusey (1684) 1 Vern. 273
Putsman v Taylor [1927] 1 K.B. 741 CA
Pye, Ex p. (1811) Ves. 140
Pye v British Automobile Commercial Syndicate Ltd [1906] 1
K.B. 425 KBD
Pym v Campbell (1856) 6 E. & B. 370
Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2
Q.B. 402; [1954] 2 W.L.R. 1005 QBD
Pyxis Special Shipping Co Ltd v Dritsas & Kaglis Bros (The
Scaplake) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 380 QBD (Comm)
QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke [2012] EWHC
10–002, 10–007, 10–012
19–060
6–012, 11–078
3–091, 18–085
20–132
2–086, 7–017
9–139
11–070, 11–075, 11–162, 11–163
11–084, 17–054, 21–057
14–090, 14–092, 14–094
2–053, 2–080, 11–146, 11–147, 14–134,
21–019
21–046
11–073, 11–078
8–065, 8–067, 17–018, 17–084, 18–054
22–025
14–045, 16–069
21–024
11–162, 11–163, 11–164
15–028, 15–029
20–148
2–096, 2–105, 6–019
2–018, 4–024, 14–016, 14–059, 14–072
16–076
21–053
80 (QB); [2012] I.R.L.R. 458; (2012) 162 N.L.J. 180
QR Sciences Ltd v BTG International Ltd; sub nom QRS
Sciences Ltd v BTG International Ltd [2005] EWHC 670;
[2005] F.S.R. 43 Ch D
QRS Sciences Ltd v BTG International Ltd. See QR Sciences
Ltd v BTG International Ltd
Quadrangle Development and Construction Co v Jenner [1974]
1 W.L.R. 68; [1974] 1 All E.R. 729 CA (Civ Div)
Quadrant Visual Communications v Hutchison Telephone (UK)
[1993] B.C.L.C. 442; (1992) 89(3) L.S.G. 31 CA
Queensland Electricity Generating Board v New Hope Collieries
[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 205 PC (Aus)
Quenerduaine v Cole (1883) 32 W.R. 185
Quest 4 Finance Ltd v Maxfield [2007] EWHC 2313; [2007] 2
C.L.C. 706
Quest Advisors Ltd v McFeely [2011] EWCA Civ 1517; [2012]
1 E.G. 54 (C.S.)
Quinn v Burch Bros (Builders) Ltd [1966] 2 Q.B. 370; [1966] 2
W.L.R. 1017 CA
Quinn v CC Automotive Group Ltd (t/a Carcraft) [2010] EWCA
Civ 1412; [2011] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 584
Quorum A/S v Schramm (Costs) [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 179;
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 72 QBD (Comm)
R. v Ali [1993] Crim. L.R. 396 CA (Crim Div)
R. v Andrews (Edward John) [1973] Q.B. 422; [1973] 2 W.L.R.
116 CA (Civ Div)
R. v Att Gen of England and Wales [2003] UKPC 22; [2003]
E.M.L.R. 24; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 354
R. v Bullock (George Thomas) [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1; [1955] 1 All
E.R. 15 CCA
R. v Chief National Insurance Commr Ex p. Connor [1981] Q.B.
758; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 412 QBD
R. v Clarke (1927) 40 C.L.R. 227
R. v Fernhill Manor School Ex p. A; R. v Fernhill Manor School
Ex p. Brown; R. v Fernhill Manor School Ex p. B [1993] 1
F.L.R. 620; [1994] 1 F.C.R. 146 QBD
R. v General Medical Council Ex p. Colman; sub nom Colman v
General Medical Council [1990] 1 All E.R. 489; (1990) 2
Admin. L.R. 469 CA (Civ Div)
R. v Incorporated Froebel Educational Institute Ex p. L [1999]
E.L.R. 488 QBD
R. v Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd Ex p. Bowden [1996]
A.C. 261; [1995] 3 W.L.R. 289; [1995] 3 All E.R. 605 HL
R. v Jockey Club Ex p. RAM Racecourses Ltd [1993] 2 All E.R.
225; (1991) 5 Admin. L.R. 265 QBD
R. v Lambie (Shiralee Ann) [1982] A.C. 449; [1981] 3 W.L.R.
88 HL
R. v Lomas (1913) 110 L.T. 239
R. v Lord Chancellor’s Department Ex p. Nangle [1992] 1 All
E.R. 897; [1991] I.C.R. 743 QBD
R. v Lord Kylsant [1932] 1 K.B. 442 CCA
R. v Lord President of the Privy Council Ex p. Page; sub nom
8–061
18–107
21–029, 21–031
2–093, 2–096, 19–037
2–032, 2–064
9–126
18–038
20–123, 20–126
16–027
20–055
11–046
11–046
3–041, 10–005, 10–012, 10–027
11–150
11–025
2–048, 2–050
21–037
11–103
21–037
20–007, 20–089
11–090
3–024
11–149
4–007, 4–025
9–143
11–054
Page v Hull University Visitor; R. v Hull University Visitor
Ex p. Page; R. v Visitor of the University of Hull Ex p. Page
[1993] A.C. 682; [1993] 3 W.L.R. 1112 HL
R. v Modupe (1992) 11 Tr. L.R. 59; [1991] C.C.L.R. 29 CA (Civ
Div)
R. v Oldham MBC Ex p. Garlick; sub nom R. v Oldham MBC
Ex p. G; R. v Bexley LBC Ex p. B; R. v Bexley LBC Ex p.
Bentum; R. v Tower Hamlets LBC Ex p. Begum (Ferdous)
[1993] A.C. 509; [1993] 2 W.L.R. 609 HL
R. v Panayiotou (Andreas); R. v Antoniades (Agis) [1973] 1
W.L.R. 1032; [1973] 3 All E.R. 112 CA (Civ Div)
R. v Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Ex p.
Association of Pharmaceutical Importers (266/87) [1990] 1
Q.B. 534; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 445; [1989] 2 All E.R. 758 ECJ
R. v Warwickshire CC Ex p. Johnson; sub nom Warwickshire
CC Ex p. Johnson [1993] A.C. 583; [1993] 2 W.L.R. 1 HL
R. v X Ltd [2013] EWCA Crim 818; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 591;
[2013] 3 All E.R. 995; [2013] 2 Cr. App. R. 15; (2013) 177
J.P. 393; [2013] E.C.C. 32; [2013] C.T.L.C. 145; [2013]
L.L.R. 500; [2014] Crim. L.R. 73
R. (on the application of Best) v Chief Land Registrar [2015]
EWCA Civ 17; [2015] C.P. Rep. 18; [2015] H.L.R. 17;
[2015] 2 P. & C.R. 1;
5–007
12–008
11–046
11–109
2–009
9–002, 10–048
11–172
R. (on the application of factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for
Transport, Local Government and the Regions. See
Factortame Ltd v Secretary ofState for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions (Costs) (No.2)
R. (on the application of Khatun) v Newham LBC; sub nom
7–093, 7–098, 7–100, 7–117, 20–155
Newham LBC v Khatun; Khatun v Newham LBC; R. (o, the
application of Zeb) v Newham LBC; R. (on the application
of Iqbal) v Newham LBC [2004] EWCA Civ 55; [2005]
Q.B. 37
R. (on the application of Mercury Tax Group Ltd) v Revenue
3–170
and Customs Commrs [2008] EWHC 2721; [2009] S.T.C.
743
R. (on the application of Supportways Community Services Ltd)
21–045
v Hampshire CC [2006] EWCA Civ 1035; [2006] B.L.G.R.
836; (2006) 9 C.C.L. Rep. 484
R. (on the application of Verner) v Derby City Council; R. (on
19–023
the application of Sheppard) v Norfolk CC; R. (on the
application of Ridley) v St Thomas More Roman Catholic
High School [2003] EWHC 2708; [2004] I.C.R. 535 QBD
(Admin)
R&B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd
7–054,7–081
[1988] 1 W.L.R. 321; [1988] 1 All E.R. 847 CA (Civ Div)
R&H Hall Ltd v WH Pim Junr & Co Ltd; sub nom Arbitration
20–048
Between R&H Hall Ltd and WH Pim Junior & Co Ltd, Re
(1928) 30 Ll. L. Rep. 159; (1928) 139 L.T. 50 HL
R Leslie Ltd v Reliable Advertising & Addressing Agency Ltd
11–022
[1915] 1 K.B. 652 KBD
R Leslie Ltd v Sheill [1914] 3 K.B. 607 CA
12–035, 12–041, 12–046, 12–049, 12–050,
12–051
R Pagnan & Fratelli v Corbisa Industrial Agropacuaria Ltd
[1970] 1 W.L.R. 1306; [1970] 1 All E.R. 165 CA (Civ Div)
Rabin v Gerson Berger Association Ltd [1986] 1 W.L.R. 526;
[1986] 1 All E.R. 374 CA (Civ Div)
Rabiu v Marlbray Ltd [2013] EWHC 3272 (Ch)
Radford v De Froberville [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1262; [1978] 1 All
E.R. 33 Ch D
Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42; [2011] 1 A.C. 534;
[2010] 3 W.L.R. 1367; [2011] 1 All E.R. 373; [2010] 2
F.L.R. 1900; [2010] 3 F.C.R. 583; [2010] Fam. Law 1263;
(2010) 107(42) L.S.G. 18; (2010) 160 N.L.J. 1491; (2010)
154(40) S.J.L.B. 37
Radstock Cooperative & Industrial Society v Norton-Radstock
UDC; sub nom Radstock Cooperative & Industrial Society v
Radstock UDC [1968] Ch. 605; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 1214;
[1968] 2 All E.R. 59 CA (Civ Div)
Raffaele v Raffaele [1962] W.A.R. 29
Raffaella, The. See Egyptian International Foreign Trade Co v
Soplex Wholesale Supplies Ltd (The Raffaella)
Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 Hurl. & C. 906
Raflatac Ltd v Eade [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 506; [1999] B.L.R.
261 QBD (Comm)
20–121
6–014,6–015,6–029, 8–072
5–008
14–023, 20–041, 20–074, 21–063
1–007, 4–017, 11–049
15–080
3–011
8–042, 8–046, 8–049, 8–054
17–013, 20–125, 20–127
Rafsanjan Pistachio Producers Cooperative v Bank Leumi (UK)
2–043, 3–081, 9–021, 9–161
Ltd [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 513 QBD (Comm)
Rahcassi Shipping Co SA v Blue Star Line (The Bede) [1969] 1
2–079
Q.B. 173; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1382 QBD (Comm)
Raiffeisen Hauptgenossenschaft eG v Louis Dreyfus & Co Ltd;
3–083, 17–063
Louis Dreyfus & Co Ltd v Kurt A Becher [1981] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 345; [1980] Com. L.R. 13 QBD (Comm)
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v China Marine Bunker
3–159, 16–070
(Petrochina) Co Ltd [2006] EWHC 212; [2006] All E.R. (D)
37
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Five Star General
15–009, 15–013, 15–015, 15–020, 15–025
Trading LLC (The Mount I); sub nom Raffeisen Zentralbank
Osterreich AG v Five Star General Trading LLC (The Mount
I); Raiffeisen Zentral Bank Osterreich AG v An Feng Steel
Co Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 68; [2001] Q.B. 825; [2001] 2
W.L.R. 1344; [2001] 3 All E.R. 257; [2001] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 961; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 597; [2001] C.L.C. 843;
[2001] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 460; (2001) 98(9) L.S.G. 38; (2001)
145 S.J.L.B. 45
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG v Royal Bank of Scotland 9–006, 9–007, 9–020, 9–024, 9–029, 9–
Plc [2010] EWHC 1392 (Comm); [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
072, 9–126, 9–134
123; [2011] Bus. L.R. D65
Railton v Matthews (1844) 10 Cl. & F. 934
9–154
Rainbow Estates Ltd v Tokenhold Ltd; sub nom Gaynes Park
21–028, 21–030, 21–043, 21–044, 21–048
Mansion, Epping, Essex, Re [1999] Ch. 64; [1998] 3 W.L.R.
980 Ch D
Rainbow v Howkins [1904] 2 K.B. 322 KBD
16–082
Raineri v Miles [1981] A.C. 1050; [1980] 2 W.L.R. 847 HL
17–065, 18–101, 21–064
Raingold v Bromley [1931] 2 Ch. 307 Ch D
4–009
Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50; [2011] 1
6–007, 6–010, 6–012
W.L.R. 2900; [2012] 1 All E.R. 1137; [2012] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 1; [2012] Bus. L.R. 313; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 34;
[2011] 2 C.L.C. 923; [2012] B.L.R. 132; 138 Con. L.R. 1;
[2011] C.I.L.L. 3105
Rajas Commercial College v Gian Singh & Co [1977] A.C. 312;
[1976] 3 W.L.R. 58 PC (Sing)
Rajbenback v Mamon; sub nom Rajenback v Mamon [1955] 1
Q.B. 283; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 21 QBD
Ralli Bros v Compañia Naviera Sota y Aznar; sub nom
Compania Naviera Sota Y Aznar v Ralli Bros [1920] 2 K.B.
287; (1920) 2 Ll. L. Rep. 550 CA
Rama Corp Ltd v Proved Tin & General Investments Ltd [1952]
2 Q.B. 147; [1952] 1 All E.R. 554 QBD
Ramco (UK) Ltd v International Insurance Co of Hanover; sub
nom Ramco (UK) Ltd v International Insurance Co of
Hannover Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 675; [2004] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 866; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 595
Ramco Ltd v Weller Russell and Laws Insurance Brokers Ltd
[2008] EWHC 2202 (QB); [2009] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R
Ramsay v Love [2015] EWHC 65 (Ch)
Ramsden v Dyson; Ramsden v Thornton (1866) L.R. 1 H.L. 129
HL
Ramsey v Hartley [1977] 1 W.L.R. 686; [1977] 2 All E.R. 673
CA (Civ Div)
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co Ltd v Montefiore; Ramsgate
Victoria Hotel Co Ltd v Goldsmid (1865–66) L.R. 1 Ex. 109
Ex Ct
Rank Xerox Ltd v Lane (Inspector of Taxes) [1981] A.C. 629;
[1979] 3 W.L.R. 594; [1979] 3 All E.R. 657; [1979] S.T.C.
740; [1980] R.P.C. 385; 53 T.C. 185; [1979] T.R. 327;
(1979) 123 S.J. 736 HL
Rann v Hughes (1778) 7 T.R. 350n; 4 Bro. P.C. 27
Raphael, The. See Lamport & Holt Lines v Coubro & Scrutton
(M&I) Ltd (The Raphael)
Rasbora v JCL Marine; sub nom Atkinson v JCL Marine [1977]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 645 QBD
Rashdall v Ford (1866) L.R. 2 Eq. 750, Ct of Chancery
Rasnoimport V/O v Guthrie & Co Ltd [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1
QBD (Comm)
Raven, The. See Banco Central SA v Lingoss & Falce Ltd (The
Raven)
Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Director General of Fair Trading; sub
nom Ravenseft Properties Ltd’s Application [1978] Q.B. 52;
[1977] 2 W.L.R. 432 QBD (RPC)
Rawlings v Coal Consumers’ Association (1874) 43 L.J.M.C.
111
Rawlings v General Trading Co [1921] 1 K.B. 635 CA
Rayfield v Hands [1960] Ch. 1; [1958] 2 W.L.R. 851 Ch D
Raymond Burke Motors Ltd v Mersey Docks and Harbour Co
[1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 155 QBD (Comm)
Rayner v Grote (1846) 15 M. & W. 359
Rayner v Stone (1762) 2 Eden 128
20–066
3–156
11–060
16–027
14–128
14–128
5–008
3–121, 3–150, 3–151
15–012
2–064
13–022
3–001
15–003
9–017, 12–080, 16–081
16–078
11–100
11–046
11–102, 21–024
14–012, 14–016
14–060, 14–065, 14–066
16–072
21–039
Read v Anderson (1883–84) L.R. 13 Q.B.D. 779 CA
Read v Price [1909] 2 K.B. 724 CA
Reading Festival Ltd v West Yorkshire Police Authorit; sub nom
West Yorkshire Police Authority v Reading Festival Ltd
[2006] EWCA Civ 524; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 2005
Reading Trust Ltd v Spero; Spero v Reading Trust Ltd [1930] 1
K.B. 492 CA
Reading v Att Gen; sub nom Reading v King, The; Reading’s
Petition of Right, Re [1951] A.C. 507; [1951] 1 All E.R. 617
HL
Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen (The Diana
Prosperity); Hansen-Tangen v Sanko Steamship Co Ltd
[1976] 1 W.L.R. 989; [1976] 3 All E.R. 570; [1976] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 621; (1976) 120 S.J. 719 HL
Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food; Garibaldi Societa Cooperativa di Navigazione ARL v
President of India; Carlton Steamship Co Ltd v Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Cape of Good Hope
Motorship Co Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food; Miramar Compania Naviera SA v Government of the
Union of South Africa [1963] A.C. 691; [1963] 2 W.L.R.
439; [1963] 1 All E.R. 545; [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 12;
(1963) 107 S.J. 133 HL
Rebecca Elaine, The. See Hamble Fisheries Ltd v L Gardner &
Sons Ltd (The Rebecca Elaine)
Reborn, The. See Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v
Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc (The Reborn)
Record v Bell [1991] 1 W.L.R. 853; [1991] 4 All E.R. 471 Ch D
Red Sea Tankers Ltd v Papachristidis (The Hellespont Ardent)
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 547 QBD (Comm)
Redcard Ltd v Williams [2011] EWCA Civ 466; [2011] 4 All
E.R. 444; [2011] Bus. L.R. 1479; [2013] B.C.C. 689; [2011]
2 B.C.L.C. 350; [2011] 2 E.G.L.R. 67; [2011] 25 E.G. 106;
[2011] 19 E.G. 96 (C.S.); (2011) 161 N.L.J. 635; [2011] 2 P.
& C.R. DG11
Redgrave v Hurd (1881–82) L.R. 20 Ch. D. 1 CA
Redland Bricks v Morris; sub nom Morris v Redland Bricks
[1970] A.C. 652; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1437; [1969] 2 All E.R.
576; (1969) 113 S.J. 405 HL
Redler Grain Silos v BICC [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 435 CA (Civ
Div)
Redmond v Dainton [1920] 2 K.B. 256 KBD
Redmond v Smith (1844) 7 Man. & G. 457
Reed v Kilburn Cooperative Society (1874–75) L.R. 10 Q.B.
264 QBD
Reed v Madon [1989] Ch. 408; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 553 Ch D
Reeman v Department of Transport [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 648;
[1997] P.N.L.R. 618 CA (Civ Div)
Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2003] UKHL
52; [2004] 1 A.C. 309; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 1091; [2003] 4 All
E.R. 987; [2004] 1 F.L.R. 234; [2003] 3 F.C.R. 289; [2004]
16–092
13–009, 13–012
3–046
5–025
16–097, 16–098
6–007, 6–011, 6–023, 18–049, 18–052,
18–053, 18–108
19–053, 19–054
5–008, 5–009, 21–024
7–038, 9–026, 14–062
3–170
9–027, 9–028, 9–054, 9–059, 9–085, 9–
089, 9–096, 9–110
20–041, 21–030
21–026
19–058
11–166
17–006
20–019, 20–087, 21–053
14–050
14–053
P.I.Q.R. P14; [2004] Lloyd’s Rep. Med. 1; (2004) 75
B.M.L.R. 69; [2004] Fam. Law 22; (2003) 153 N.L.J. 1599
Rees v De Bernardy [1896] 2 Ch. 437 Ch D
Reese River Silver Mining Co Ltd v Smith; sub nom Reese
River Silver Mining Co, Re (1869–70) L.R. 4 H.L. 64 HL
Reeves v Commr of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 A.C. 360;
[1999] 3 W.L.R. 363; [1999] 3 All E.R. 897; (2000) 51
B.M.L.R. 155; [1999] Prison L.R. 99; (1999) 96(31) L.S.G.
41; (1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 213 HL
Regalian Properties Plc v London Docklands Development Corp
[1995] 1 W.L.R. 212; [1995] 1 All E.R. 1005; 45 Con. L.R.
37; (1995) 11 Const. L.J. 127; [1994] E.G. 176 (C.S.);
(1995) 92(4) L.S.G. 34; [1994] N.P.C. 139; (1994) 68 P. &
C.R. D29 Ch D
Regazzoni v KC Sethia (1944) Ltd; sub nom Regazzoni v Sethia
(KC) (1944) [1958] A.C. 301; [1957] 3 W.L.R. 752; [1957] 3
All E.R. 286; [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 289; (1957) 101 S.J.
848 HL
Regent OHG Aisestadt & Barig v Francesco of Jermyn Street
Ltd [1981] 3 All E.R. 327; [1981] Com. L.R. 78 QBD
Regier v Campbell Stuart [1939] Ch. 766 Ch D
Regis Property Co Ltd v Dudley [1959] A.C. 370; [1958] 3
W.L.R. 647 HL
Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 361;
[2008] All ER D 199
Reichman v Beveridge; sub nom Reichman v Gauntlett [2006]
EWCA Civ 1659; (2007) 104(4) L.S.G. 35
Reid v Rush & Tompkins Group [1990] 1 W.L.R. 212; [1989] 3
All E.R. 228 CA (Civ Div)
Reigate v Union Manufacturing Co (Ramsbottom) Ltd [1918] 1
K.B. 592 CA
Reinwood Ltd v L Brown & Sons Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1090;
121 Con L.R. 1
Reliance Industries Ltd v Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd [2002] 1
All E.R. (Comm) 59; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 645 QBD
(Comm)
Remco, The. See Gewa Chartering BV v Remco Shipping Lines
(The Remco)
Renault UK Ltd v Fleetpro Technical Services Ltd [2007]
EWHC 2541 (QB)
Rennie v Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ
1401
Repetto v Millar’s Karri and Jarrah Forests Ltd [1901] 2 K.B.
306 KBD (Comm Ct)
Resolute Maritime Inc v Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (The Skopas)
[1983] 1 W.L.R. 857; [1983] 2 All E.R. 1 QBD (Comm)
Re-Source America International Ltd v Platt Site Services Ltd
(Damages); sub nom Barkin Construction Ltd v Re-Source
America International Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 97; [2005] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 50
Reuss v Picksley (1865–66) L.R. 1 Ex. 342, Ex Chamber
Reuter Hufeland & Co v Sala & Co (1878–79) L.R. 4 C.P.D. 239
15–058
9–094
11–027
2–088, 22–019, 22–021
11–060
17–033, 18–051, 20–081, 21–007
16–008
17–019
7–074, 7–075, 20–046
21–011,21–012,21–013
3–169, 6–043, 6–046, 20–123
6–038
17–062
11–052
9–024, 9–026, 9–033, 9–036
6–008
16–068
9–044, 9–047
20–007
5–024
17–033, 17–039
CA
Reveille Independent LLC v Anotech International (UK) Ltd
[2015] EWHC 726 (Comm)
Revenue and Customs Commrs v Benchdollar [2009] EWHC
1310 (Ch); [2010] 1 All E.R. 174
Revenue and Customs Commrs v Loyalty Management UK Ltd
[2013] UKSC 15; [2013] 2 All E.R. 719; [2013] S.T.C. 784;
[2013] 2 C.M.L.R. 51; [2013] B.V.C. 67; [2013] S.T.I. 591
Reynell v Sprye, 42 E.R. 708; (1852) 1 De G.M. & G. 660
Reynolds v Atherton (1922) 127 L.T. 189
Reynolds v Smith (1893) 9 T.L.R. 494
RG Grain Trade LLP (UK) v Feed Factors International Ltd
[2011] EWHC 1889 (Comm); [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 433;
(2011) 108(32) L.S.G. 18
Rheinoel GmbH v Huron Liberian Co (The Concordia C) [1985]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 55 QBD (Comm)
Rhinegold Publishing Ltd, Re [2012] EWHC 587 (Ch)
Rhodes v Forwood (1875–76) L.R. 1 App. Cas. 256 HL
Rhodes, Re (1889) 44 Ch.D. 94
Rhodia International Holdings Ltd v Huntsman International
LLC [2007] EWHC 292 (Comm); [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325
Rhodian River, The. See Rhodian River Shipping Co SA v Halla
Maritime Corp (The Rhodian River and The Rhodian Sailor)
Rhodian River Shipping Co SA v Halla Maritime Corp (The
Rhodian River and The Rhodian Sailor) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 373 QBD (Comm)
Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 A.C. 310; [1994] 2 W.L.R. 429 HL
Rice (t/a Garden Guardian) v Great Yarmouth BC [2003]
T.C.L.R. 1; (2001) 3 L.G.L.R. 4 CA (Civ Div)
Rice v Shute (1770) 5 Burr. 2611
Richard Adler (t/a Argo Rederei) v Sutos (Hellas) Maritime
Corp (The Argo Hellas) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 296; (1984)
134 N.L.J. 203 QBD (Comm)
Richard West & Partners (Inverness) Ltd v Dick [1969] 2 Ch.
424; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1190 CA (Civ Div)
Richards v Delbridge (1874) L.R. 18 Eq. 11
Richards v Heather (1817) 1 B. & Ald. 29
Richardson v Koefod [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1812; [1969] 3 All E.R.
1264 CA (Civ Div)
Richardson v Mellish (1824) 2 Bing. 229
Richardson v Richardson (1866–67) L.R. 3 Eq. 686, Ct of
Chancery
Richardson (Inspector of Taxes) v Worrall; Westall v McDonald
(Inspector of Taxes) [1985] S.T.C. 693; 58 T.C. 642 Ch D
Richardson Spence & Co Ltd v Rowntree [1894] A.C. 217 HL
Richco International Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH
(The Bonde) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 136 QBD (Comm)
Richco International Ltd v Bunge & Co Ltd (The New Prosper);
sub nom Bunge & Co v Tradax Ocean Transportation SA
[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 93 QBD (Comm)
Richmond Gate Property Co, Re [1965] 1 W.L.R. 335; [1964] 3
All E.R. 936 Ch D
2–018
3–022, 3–097, 3–098, 3–099
14–006
9–024, 9–028, 11–136
2–069
6–046, 16–019
18–053
20–120
13–003
6–040, 16–090
12–060
2–101
8–059, 16–025, 16–030
14–016, 15–081
18–031, 18–064
13–010
13–003, 13–007
2–110
14–085, 15–029
13–005
16–103
11–033
15–028, 15–029
2–009, 14–006, 17–005
7–008
7–031, 18–005, 20–143
18–044, 18–054, 19–122
4–017, 16–084, 22–001
Richmond Hill Hotel Co (No.2), Re; sub nom Pellatt’s Case
(1866–67) L.R. 2 Ch. App. 527 CA in Chancery
Rickless v United Artists Corp [1988] Q.B. 40; [1987] 2 W.L.R.
945 CA (Civ Div)
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] A.C. 40; [1963] 2 W.L.R. 935; [1963] 2
All E.R. 66; (1963) 127 J.P. 295; (1963) 127 J.P. 251; 61
L.G.R. 369; 37 A.L.J. 140; 234 L.T. 423; 113 L.J. 716;
(1963) 107 S.J. 313 HL
Ridge Nominees, Ltd v IRC [1962] Ch. 376; [1962] 2 W.L.R. 3;
[1961] 3 All E.R. 1108; (1961) 40 A.T.C. 412; [1961] T.R.
377; (1961) 105 S.J. 967 CA
Ridgway v Hungerford Market Co (1835) 3 A. & E. 171
Rigby v Connol (1880) L.R. 14 Ch. D. 482 Ch D
Rigby v Ferodo Ltd [1988] I.C.R. 29; [1987] I.R.L.R. 516 HL
Rightside Properties Ltd v Gray [1975] Ch. 72; [1974] 3 W.L.R.
484 Ch D
Rignall Developments Ltd v Halil [1988] Ch. 190; [1987] 3
W.L.R. 394 Ch D
Rigoletto, The. See Lotus Cars Ltd v Southampton Cargo
Handling Plc (The Rigoletto)
Rijn, The. See Santa Martha Baay Scheepvaart and
Handelsmaatschappij NV v Scanbulk A/S (The Rijn)
Rind v Theodore Goddard [2008] EWHC 459 (Ch); [2008]
P.N.L.R. 24
Rio Claro, The. See Transworld Oil v North Bay Shipping Corp
(The Rio Claro)
Rio Sun, The (1982). See Italmare Shipping Co v Ocean Tanker
Co Inc (The Rio Sun)
Rio Sun, The (1985). See Gatoil International Inc v Tradax
Petroleum Ltd (The Rio Sun)
Ritchie v Atkinson (1808) 10 East 295
River Wear Commrs v Adamson (1876–77) L.R. 2 App. Cas.
743 HL
Riverlate Properties Ltd v Paul [1975] Ch. 133; [1974] 3 W.L.R.
564 CA (Civ Div)
Riyad Bank v Ahli United Bank (UK) Plc [2006] EWCA Civ
780; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292
Riza and Sun, The. See Petroleum Shipping Ltd v Vatis (t/a
Kronos Management) (The Riza); Liner Shipping Ltd v Vatis
(t/a Kronos Management) (The Sun)
RM Turton & Co Ltd (In Liquidation) v Kerslake & Partners
[2000] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 967 CA (NZ)
Roadworks (1952) Ltd v Charman [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 99
QBD (Comm)
Robb v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1991] I.C.R. 514;
[1991] I.R.L.R. 72 QBD
Robbins v Fennell (1847) 11 Q.B. 248
Robert A Munro & Co v Meyer; sub nom Robert A Munro & Co
Ltd v Meyer [1930] 2 K.B. 312 KBD
Robert Bruce & Partners v Winyard Developments [1987] 1
E.G.L.R. 20; (1987) 282 E.G. 1255
Robert C Herd & Co v Krawill Machinery Corp, 359 U.S. 297,
12–080
14–140
21–036
1–008
17–035, 17–061
21–035
18–006
17–027, 18–100
9–138
14–052
17–036, 17–037
6–011
8–028, 8–069
14–051, 14–054
14–050
9–140
21–036
14–009, 16–009
8–017, 18–037
16–085
14–060, 14–061
303 (1959)
Robert Stewart & Sons v Carapanayoti & Co [1962] 1 W.L.R.
34; [1962] 1 All E.R. 418 QBD (Comm)
Roberts, Re [1900] 1 Q.B. 122 CA
Roberts v Elwells Engineers [1972] 2 Q.B. 586; [1972] 3 W.L.R.
1 CA (Civ Div)
Roberts v Gray [1913] 1 K.B. 520 CA
Roberts v Havelock (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 404
Roberts v Hayward (1828) 3 C. & P. 432
Roberts v J Hampson & Co Ltd [1990] 1 W.L.R. 94; [1989] 2
All E.R. 504 QBD
Roberts v Plaisted [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 341 CA (Civ Div)
Robertson v British Gas Corp [1983] I.C.R. 351; [1983] I.R.L.R.
302 CA (Civ Div)
Robins v Bridge (1837) 3 M. & W. 114
Robinson v Commrs of Customs & Excise, Times, 28 April 2000
QBD
Robinson v Cook (1815) 6 Taunt. 336
Robinson v Davison (1870–71) L.R. 6 Ex. 269, Ex Ct
Robinson v Geisel [1894] 2 Q.B. 685 CA
Robinson v Harman [1843–60] All E.R. Rep. 383; (1848) 1 Ex.
850, Ex Ct
20–036
15–074
16–103, 21–010
12–007, 12–008
17–038
2–027, 2–047
9–059
9–147, 16–011
6–047
16–067
4–017
17–004
19–018
13–005
20–021, 20–039, 21–063
Robinson v Mollett; Robinson v Bull; Robinson v Unsworth
16–020
(1874–75) L.R. 7 H.L. 802 HL
Robinson v Page (1826) 3 Russ. 114
5–033
Robinson v PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 9;
7–034, 14–049, 20–123
[2012] Q.B. 44; [2011] 3 W.L.R. 815; [2011] B.L.R. 206;
134 Con. L.R. 26; [2011] 1 E.G.L.R. 111; (2011) 27 Const.
L.J. 145; [2011] C.I.L.L. 2972; [2011] 4 E.G. 100 (C.S.)
Robinson Fisher & Harding v Behar [1927] 1 K.B. 513 KBD
8–047
Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1428; [1966] 2–042, 11–036, 20–058, 20–107, 20–131,
3 All E.R. 128; (1966) 110 S.J. 544 CA
20–134
Robson v Drummond (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 303
17–010
Roche v Sherrington [1982] 1 W.L.R. 599; [1982] 2 All E.R.
10–023
426 Ch D
Rock Refrigeration Ltd v Jones [1997] 1 All E.R. 1; [1997]
11–078, 11–111, 18–019
I.C.R. 938 CA (Civ Div)
Rockeagle Ltd v Alsop Wilkinson (A Firm) [1992] Ch. 47;
6–046, 13–001
[1991] 3 W.L.R. 573 CA (Civ Div)
Rodocanachi v Milburn; sub nom Rodocanachi, Sons & Co v
20–048
Milburn Bros (1887) L.R. 18 Q.B.D. 67CA
Rodriguez v Speyer Bros [1919] A.C. 59 HL
11–033, 11–059
Roe v RA Naylor Ltd; sub nom Roe v Naylor [1917] 1 K.B. 712;
6–016
(1918) 87 L.J. K.B. 958 KBD
Roebuck v Mungovin [1994] 2 A.C. 224; [1994] 2 W.L.R. 290;
3–086, 3–090, 3–143
[1994] 1 All E.R. 568; [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 481; [1994]
P.I.Q.R. P209; (1994) 91(13) L.S.G. 36; (1994) 144 N.L.J.
197; (1994) 138 S.J.L.B. 59; [1994] J.P.I.L. 164 HL
Roger Bullivant Ltd v Ellis [1987] I.C.R. 464; [1987] I.R.L.R.
11–069
491 CA (Civ Div)
Roger v Comptoir d’Escompte de Paris (1869) L.R. 2 C.P. 393
3–020
Rogers v Challis (1859) 27 Beav 175
21–018
Rogers v Snow (1573) Dalison 94
Rolin v Steward (1854) 14 C.B. 595
Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corp [1986]
Ch. 246; [1985] 2 W.L.R. 908; [1985] 3 All E.R. 52; (1984)
1 B.C.C. 99158 CA (Civ Div)
Rolling Stock Co of Ireland, Re; sub nom Shackleford’s Case
(1865–66) L.R. 1 Ch. App. 567 CA in Chancery
Rolls Razor Ltd v Cox [1967] 1 Q.B. 552; [1967] 2 W.L.R. 241;
[1967] 1 All E.R. 397; (1966) 110 S.J. 943 CA
Rolls Royce Power Engineering Plc v Ricardo Consulting
Engineers Ltd [2003] EWHC 2871; [2004] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 129 QBD (TCC)
Rom Securities Ltd v Rogers (Holdings) Ltd (1968) 205 E.G.
427
Romer & Haslam, Re [1893] 2 Q.B. 286 CA
Ronbar Enterprises Ltd v Green [1954] 1 W.L.R. 815; [1954] 2
All E.R. 266 CA
Rondel v Worsley 23528; sub nom Rondel v [1969] 1 A.C. 191;
[1967] 1 W.L.R. 142; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1666; [1967] 3 All
E.R. 993; (1967) 111 S.J. 927 HL
Rooke v Dawson [1895] 1 Ch. 480 Ch D
Rookes v Barnard (No.1) [1964] A.C. 1129; [1964] 2 W.L.R.
269; [1964] 1 All E.R. 367; [1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 28;
(1964) 108 S.J. 93 HL
Rooks Rider v JR Steel [1994] 1 W.L.R. 818; [1993] 4 All E.R.
716; (1993) 143 N.L.J. 1063 Ch D
Rooney v CSE Bournemouth Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1364
Roper v Johnson (1872–73) L.R. 8 C.P. 167 CCP
Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 Q.B. 234
Rose, Re; sub nom Midland Bank Executor & Trustee Co Ltd v
Rose [1949] Ch. 78; [1948] 2 All E.R. 971 Ch D
Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd; sub nom Rose &
Frank & Co v Crompton & Bros Ltd & Brittains Ltd; Rose
& Frank Co v Brittains Ltd [1925] A.C. 445; (1924) 20 Ll.
L. Rep. 249HL
Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch. 297; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 605 Ch D
Ross River Ltd v Cambridge City Football Club [2007] EWHC
2115 (Ch); 117 Con L.R. 129
Ross T Smyth & Co (Liverpool) Ltd v WN Lindsay (Leith) Ltd
[1953] 1 W.L.R. 1280; [1953] 2 All E.R. 1064 QBD
Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Co Ltd [2012] EWCA
Civ 1021; [2013] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 308; [2013] Bus. L.R.
543; [2012] C.P. Rep. 45
Rossiter v Miller (1877–78) L.R. 3 App. Cas. 1124 HL
Rosso, The. See Monterosso Shipping Co v International
Transport Workers’ Federation (The Rosso)
Roth & Co v Taysen Townsend & Co (1895) 1 Com.Cas. 240
Rother v Colchester Corp; sub nom Rother v Colchester BC
[1969] 1 W.L.R. 720; [1969] 2 All E.R. 600 Ch D
Rotherham Alum & Chemical Co, Re (1884) L.R. 25 Ch. D. 103
CA
Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653
2–051
20–062, 20–092
12–074, 16–047
2–093
16–093
7–066, 14–024, 14–031, 16–058
19–060
17–005
11–162
3–019, 11–036
2–011
14–016, 14–055, 17–073, 20–019
11–166
7–008
20–077, 21–013
3–017, 3–021
15–030
4–008
14–052
9–031, 9–159
19–053
16–097
2–089
20–077
11–100
16–048
2–058, 3–160
Routledge v McKay, Nugent (Third Party), Ashgrove (Fourth
9–054
Party), Mawson (Fifth Party) [1954] 1 W.L.R. 615; [1954] 1
All E.R. 855 CA
Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1989] 1
16–073, 20–154, 21–041, 22–003, 22–013,
W.L.R. 912; [1989] 3 All E.R. 423 CA (Civ Div)
22–024
Rowe Ex p. Derenburg & Co, Re [1904] 2 K.B. 483 CA
17–008
Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 K.B. 500 CA
22–005, 22–007, 22–008, 22–009, 22–011
Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd [2001]
22–001
H.C.A. 68
Roxburghe v Cox (1881) L.R. 17 Ch. D. 520 CA
15–039, 15–042
Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family
1–007
Practitioner Committee [1992] 1 A.C. 624; [1992] 2 W.L.R.
239 HL
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc v Dornoch Ltd; sub nom
7–015
Dornoch Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc [2005]
EWCA Civ 238; [2005] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 590
Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Chandra [2011] EWCA Civ 192;
9–012
[2011] N.P.C. 26; [2011] Bus. L.R. D149; [2011] 2 P. & C.R.
DG1
Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No.2); Barclays Bank Plc 9–018, 9–154, 10–013, 10–014, 10–015,
v Coleman; Barclays Bank Plc v Harris; Midland Bank Plc v
10–018, 10–019, 10–020, 10–021, 10–
Wallace; National Westminster Bank Plc v Gill; UCB Home
022, 10–023, 10–024, 10–025, 10–026,
Loans Corp Ltd v Moore; Bank of Scotland v Bennett;
10–028, 10–038, 10–039, 10–041, 10–
042, 11–045
Kenyon-Brown v Desmond Banks & Co (Undue Influence)
(No.2) [2001] UKHL 44; [2002] 2 A.C. 773; [2001] 3
W.L.R. 1021; [2001] 4 All E.R. 449; [2001] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 1061; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 343; [2001] 2 F.L.R.
1364; [2001] 3 F.C.R. 481; [2002] H.L.R. 4; [2001] Fam.
Law 880; [2001] 43 E.G. 184 (C.S.); (2001) 151 N.L.J.
1538; [2001] N.P.C. 147; [2002] 1 P. & C.R. DG14
Royal Bank of Scotland v Chandra [2011] EWCA Civ 192
9–012
Royal Bank Trust Co (Trinidad) v Pampellone [1987] 1 Lloyd’s
9–041
Rep. 218; [1987] 1 F.T.L.R. 90 PC (Trin)
Royal Boskalis Westminster NV v Mountain [1999] Q.B. 674;
3–068, 11–060, 11–111, 11–160, 11–162,
[1998] 2 W.L.R. 538; [1997] 2 All E.R. 929; [1997]
11–164
L.R.L.R. 523; [1997] C.L.C. 816 CA (Civ Div)
Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No.1) [1999]
20–118
B.L.R. 162; (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 92; (1999) 149 N.L.J. 89
QBD (TCC)
Royal Exchange Assurance v Hope [1928] Ch. 179 CA
14–082
Royal Products v Midland Bank [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 194;
16–099
[1981] Com. L.R. 93 QBD
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Att
Gen. See RSPCA v Att Gen
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson; sub nom Royscott Trust v
9–048, 9–072, 9–076
Maidenhead Honda Centre [1991] 2 Q.B. 297; [1991] 3
W.L.R. 57 CA (Civ Div)
Royse (Deceased), Re; sub nom Royse v Royse [1985] Ch. 22;
11–025
[1984] 3 W.L.R. 784 CA (Civ Div)
Rozanes v Bowen (1928) 32 Ll. L. Rep. 98 CA
9–145
Rozel, The. See Channel Island Ferries Ltd v Cenargo
Navigation Ltd (The Rozel)
RSPCA v Att Gen; sub nom Royal Society for the Prevention of
21–037
Cruelty to Animals v Att Gen [2002] 1 W.L.R. 448; [2001] 3
All E.R. 53 Ch D
RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630
7–101
(QB); [2015] Bus. L.R. 800; [2015] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C. 357
RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller GmbH & Co 2–017, 2–084, 2–086, 2–093, 4–002, 4–
KG [2010] UKSC 14; [2010] 1 W.L.R. 753; [2010] 3 All
009, 4–011
E.R. 1; [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 97; [2010] Bus. L.R. 776;
[2010] 1 C.L.C. 388; [2010] B.L.R. 337; 129 Con. L.R. 1;
[2010] C.I.L.L. 2868; (2010) 107(12) L.S.G. 20; (2010) 160
N.L.J. 421; (2010) 154(11) S.J.L.B. 28
Rubenstein v HSBC Bank Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1184; [2013] 1
20–112
All E.R. (Comm) 915; [2012] 2 C.L.C. 747; [2013] P.N.L.R.
9; (2012) 156(35) S.J.L.B. 31
Rubicon Computer Systems Ltd v United Paints Ltd (2000) 2
22–006
T.C.L.R. 453 CA (Civ Div)
Rudd v Lascelles [1900] 1 Ch. 815 Ch D
18–033
Rugby Group Ltd v ProForce Recruit Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 69
6–023, 6–025
Rumput (Panama) SA v Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines
15–038
(The League) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 259 QBD (Comm)
Rushingdale SA v Byblos Bank SAL. See Byblos Bank SAL v
Rushingdale Ltd SA
Rushmer v Smith [2009] EWHC 94
9–024
Russell Brothers (Paddington) Ltd v John Lelliott Management
2–086
Ltd (1995) 11 Const. L.J. 377 QBD (OR)
Rust v Abbey Life Ins Co [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 335
2–014, 2–044, 2–047
Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd v South African Airways and
3–102, 3–104
Pan American World Airways Inc [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 19
CA (Civ Div)
Rutherford; Frasers Islington Ltd v Hanover Trustee Co Ltd
18–033
[2010] EWHC 1514 (Ch); [2010] 27 E.G. 85
Rutter v Palmer [1922] 2 K.B. 87 CA
7–034, 7–037
Ruttle Plant Hire Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food
20–063
and Rural Affairs [2009] EWCA Civ 97; [2009] B.L.R. 301
Ruttle Plant Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
15–059
Rural Affairs (No.3) [2008] EWHC 238 (TCC); [2009] 1 All
E.R. 448
Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth; Laddingford 14–035, 20–008, 20–018, 20–019, 20–041,
Enclosures Ltd v Forsyth [1996] A.C. 344; [1995] 3 W.L.R.
20–043, 20–045, 20–046, 20–056, 20–
118 HL
087
RV Ward Ltd v Bignall [1967] 1 Q.B. 534; [1967] 2 W.L.R.
12–031, 18–020, 18–103
1050 CA (Civ Div)
RW Green Ltd v Cade Bros Farms [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 602
7–024, 7–074, 7–079
QBD
RWE Vertrieb AG v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen
7–109, 7–111, 7–115, 7–118
eV (C-92/11) [2013] 3 C.M.L.R. 10 ECJ (1st Chamber)
Ryall v Rowles (1750) 1 Ves.Sen. 348
15–002, 15–006
Ryan v Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association
21–039, 21–040, 21–04
[1893] 1 Ch. 116 CA
Ryan v Pilkington [1959] 1 W.L.R. 403; [1959] 1 All E.R. 689
16–008
CA
Ryan v Ridley & Co (1902) 8 Com.Cas. 105
18–103
Ryder v Wombwell (1868–69) L.R. 4 Ex. 32 Ex Chamber
12–003, 12–005, 12–006
S Pearson & Son Ltd v Dublin Corp [1907] A.C. 351 HL (UK7–042, 9–027, 9–036, 9–048
Irl)
SA Ancien Maison Marcel Bauche v Woodhouse Drake & Carey
(Sugar) Ltd. See Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche SA v
Woodhouse Drake and Carey (Sugar) Ltd
SAB Miller Africa v Esat African Breweries [2009] EWHC
21–058
2140 (Comm); [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 392
Sachs v Miklos [1948] 2 K.B. 23; [1948] 1 All E.R. 67 CA
16–040
Sadler v Imperial Life Assurance Co of Canada Ltd [1988]
11–083, 11–154
I.R.L.R. 388 QBD
Safeer, The. See Kuwait Supply Co v Oyster Marine
Management Inc (The Safeer)
Safehaven Investments Inc v Springbok Ltd (1996) 71 P. & C.R.
9–138, 9–155, 18–026, 20–150
59; [1995] E.G. 96 (C.S.) Ch D
Safetynet Security Ltd v Coppage [2013] EWCA Civ 1176;
11–078
[2013] I.R.L.R. 970
Safeway Stores Ltd v Interserve Project Services Ltd (formerly
14–049
Tilbury Douglas Construction Ltd) [2005] EWHC 3085; 105
Con. L.R. 60 QBD (TCC)
Safeway Stores Ltd v Twigger [2010] EWCA Civ 1472; [2011]
11–022, 11–023, 11–024
2 All E.R. 841; [2011] Bus. L.R. 1629; [2011] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 462; [2011] 1 C.L.C. 80; [2011] U.K.C.L.R. 339
Saffron Walden Second Benefit Building Society v Rayner; sub
16–081
nom Saffron Walden Building Society v Rayner (1880) L.R.
14 Ch. D. 406 CA
Said v Butt [1920] 3 K.B. 497 KBD
16–060, 16–072
Saint Line Ltd v Richardsons Westgarth Ltd [1940] 2 K.B. 99
7–017
Saipem SpA v Dredging VO2 BV (The Volvox Hollandia
14–049
(No.2)) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 315 QBD (Comm)
Saipol SA v Inerco Trade SA [2014] EWHC 2211 (Comm);
20–111
[2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 26
Sale Continuation Ltd v Austin Taylor & Co Ltd [1968] 2 Q.B.
17–058
849; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1427 QBD (Comm)
Saleslease Ltd v Davis [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1664; [2000] 1 All E.R.
20–112
(Comm) 883 CA (Civ Div)
Salford City Council v Torkington [2004] EWCA Civ 1646;
20–059
[2004] 51 E.G. 89 (C.S.)
Salford Corp v Lever (No.2) [1891] 1 Q.B. 168 CA
16–098
Salsi v Jetspeed Air Services [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 57 QBD
6–050
(Comm)
Salton v New Beeston Cycle Co [1900] 1 Ch. 43 Ch D
16–107
Salvage Association v CAP Financial Services [1995] F.S.R. 654
7–065, 7–078, 7–087, 20–035, 22–004
QBD
Salvation Army Trustee Co Ltd v West Yorkshire CC (1981) 41
3–128
P. & C.R. 179 QBD
SAM Business Systems Ltd v Hedley & Co [2002] EWHC
7–066
2733; [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 465 QBD (TCC)
Samah, The. See Mmecen SA v Inter Ro-Ro SA and Gulf Ro-Ro
Services SA (The Samah and The Lina V)
Samarenko v Dawn Hill House Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1445;
18–035, 18–067, 18–101, 18–103, 18–107
[2013] Ch. 36; [2012] 3 W.L.R. 638; [2012] 2 All E.R. 476;
[2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 240; [2012] 1 P. & C.R. 14;
[2011] 49 E.G. 98 (C.S.); [2011] N.P.C. 125
Samick Lines Co v Owners of the Antonis P Lemos [1985] A.C.
711; [1985] 2 W.L.R. 468 HL
Sampson v Floyd [1989] 33 E.G. 41; [1989] E.G. 22 (C.S.);
[1989] 2 E.G.L.R. 49 CA (Civ Div)
Samuel v Wadlow [2007] EWCA Civ 155
Samuels v Davis [1943] K.B. 526 CA
Sandeman Coprimar SA v Transitos y Transportes Integrales SL
[2003] EWCA Civ 113; [2003] Q.B. 1270; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 172
Sanders v Parry [1967] 1 W.L.R. 753; [1967] 2 All E.R. 803
Assizes
Sandwell Park Colliery Co, Re; sub nom Field v Sandwell Park
Colliery Co [1929] 1 Ch. 277 Ch D
Sanix Ace, The. See Obestain Inc v National Mineral
Development Corp Ltd (The Sanix Ace)
Sanko Iris, The. See Sanko Steamship Co Ltd v Eacom Timber
Sales (The Sanko Iris and Sanko Venus)
Sanko Steamship Co Ltd v Eacom Timber Sales (The Sanko Iris
and Sanko Venus) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 487 Sup Ct (BC)
Sanko Steamship Co Ltd v Kano Trading Ltd [1978] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 156 CA (Civ Div)
Sans Souci Ltd v VRL Services Ltd [2012] UKPC 6
Santa Martha Baay Scheepvaart and Handelsmaatschappij NV v
Scanbulk A/S (The Rijn) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 267; [1981]
Com. L.R. 188 QBD (Comm)
Sapwell v Bass [1910] 2 K.B. 486 KBD
Sard v Rhodes (1836) 1 M. & W. 153
Saronikos, The. See Greenmast Shipping Co SA v Jean Lion et
Cie (The Saronikos)
Sasea Finance Ltd (In Liquidation) v KPMG (formerly KPMG
Peat Marwick McLintock) (No.2) [2000] 1 All E.R. 676;
[2000] B.C.C. 989 CA (Civ Div)
Satanita, The. See Clarke v Earl of Dunraven (The Satanita)
Satef-Huttenes Alberns SpA v Paloma Tercera Shipping Co SA
(The Pegase) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 175; [1980] Com. L.R. 9
QBD (Comm)
Satyam Computer Services Ltd v Upaid Systems Ltd [2008]
EWCA Civ 487; [2008] 2 C.L.C. 864
Saudi Prince, The (No.2) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 CA (Civ Div)
Saulle v Nouvet [2007] EWHC 2902 (QB)
Saunders v Anglia Building Society (formerly Northampton
Town and County Building Society); sub nom Gallie v Lee
[1971] A.C. 1004; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 1078; [1970] 3 All E.R.
961; (1971) 22 P. & C.R. 300; (1970) 114 S.J. 885 HL
Saunders v Edwards [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1116; [1987] 2 All E.R.
651 CA (Civ Div)
Savage v Uwechia [1961] 1 W.L.R. 455; [1961] 1 All E.R. 830
PC (Nig)
Sayer v Wagstaff (1844) 14 L.J.Ch. 116
Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958] 1 W.L.R. 623; [1958] 2 All E.R.
14–045
20–082, 22–012
5–034
17–069
14–059, 14–073
6–043, 11–069
18–105
17–086, 18–035
18–048
6–012
20–069, 20–070
20–059
17–005
20–097
20–055, 20–102, 20–107
3–034
7–020
12–053
8–055, 8–080, 8–081, 8–082, 8–083, 8–
086
11–114, 11–124
3–018
17–005
20–123, 20–126
342 CA
SC Confectia SA v Miss Mania Wholesale Ltd [2014] EWCA
Civ 1484
Scala House & District Property Co v Forbes [1974] Q.B. 575;
[1973] 3 W.L.R. 14; [1973] 3 All E.R. 308; (1973) 26 P. &
C.R. 164; (1973) 117 S.J. 467 CA (Civ Div)
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] 1
A.C. 294; [1991] 3 W.L.R. 778; [1991] 4 All E.R. 563;
[1991] I.C.R. 771; [1991] I.R.L.R. 522; [1991] Pens. L.R.
195; (1991) 141 N.L.J. 1482; (1991) 135 S.J. 172 HL
Scammell v Dicker. See Dicker v Scammell
Scancarriers A/S v Aotearoa International (The Barranduna and
The Tarago) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 419; (1985) 135 N.L.J.
799 PC (NZ)
Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrolera
Ecuatoriana (The Scaptrade) [1983] 2 A.C. 694; [1983] 3
W.L.R. 203; [1983] 2 All E.R. 763; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
253 HL
Scanlan’s New Neon Ltd v Toohey’s Ltd (1943) 67 C.L.R. 169
Scaplake, The. See Pyxis Special Shipping Co Ltd v Dritsas &
Kaglis Bros (The Scaplake)
Scaptrade, The. See Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota
Petrolera Ecuatoriana (The Scaptrade)
Scarf v Jardine (1881–82) L.R. 7 App. Cas. 345; [1881–5] All
E.R. Rep. 651 HL
Scarfe v Morgan (1838) 4 M. & W. 270
Scarisbrick v Pattison (1869) 20 L.T. 175
Schaefer v Schuhmann [1972] A.C. 572; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 481
PC (Aus)
Schebsman (Deceased) Ex p. Official Receiver, Re; sub nom
Trustee v Cargo Supertintendents (London) Ltd [1944] Ch.
83; [1943] 2 All E.R. 768 CA
Scheggia v Gradwell 102960; sub nom Sheggia v [1963] 1
W.L.R. 1049; [1963] 3 All E.R. 114 CA (Civ Div)
Schelde Delta Shipping BV v Astarte Shipping BV (The
Pamela); sub nom Mondial Shipping & Chartering BV v
Astarte Shipping BV [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 249; [1995]
C.L.C. 1011 QBD (Comm)
Schering Agrochemicals Ltd v Resibel NV SA, November 26,
1992 CA (Civ Div)
Schering Chemicals Ltd v Falkman Ltd [1982] Q.B. 1; [1981] 2
W.L.R. 848; [1981] 2 All E.R. 321; (1981) 125 S.J. 342 CA
(Civ Div)
Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlev von Appen GmbH v Voest Alpine
Intertrading GmbH; Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlev von
Appen GmbH v Wiener Allianz Versicherungs AG [1997] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 279; [1997] C.L.C. 993 CA (Civ Div)
Schindler v Pigault (1975) 30 P. & C.R. 328; (1975) 119 S.J. 273
Ch D
Schmaltz v Avery (1851) 16 Q.B. 655
Schneider v Heath (1813) 3 Camp. 506
20–110
18–065
6–044, 6–045, 6–046, 20–059, 20–123
2–006
2–083, 2–099, 3–072, 3–081, 3–083, 6–
023, 14–141, 18–064, 18–065, 18–066,
18–085, 18–088, 18–102, 20–153, 21–
036, 21–038, 21–039, 21–058
19–042, 19–043, 19–056
16–022, 16–076
11–141
22–026
5–024
14–082, 14–084, 14–088, 14–101
16–088
2–026, 2–060, 18–064
20–096, 20–124
11–069
15–080
20–150
16–072
9–137
Schneider v Norris (1814) 2 M. & S. 286
Scholefield Goodman & Sons v Zyngier [1986] A.C. 562;
[1985] 3 W.L.R. 953 PC (Aus)
Scholefield v Templer (1859) 4 D. & J. 429
Scholey v Central Ry Co of Venezuela (1869–70) L.R. 9 Eq.
266, Lord Chancellor
Schroeder v Central Bank of London Ltd (1876) 34 L.T. 735
Schwabacher, Re; sub nom Stern v Schwabacher (1907) 98 L.T.
127
Schwawel v Reade [1913] 2 I.R. 64 HL
Schweppe v Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442
SCI (Sales Curve Interactive) Ltd v Titus Sarl (A Firm) [2001]
EWCA Civ 591; [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 416
Scorer v Seymour Jones [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1419; [1966] 3 All
E.R. 347 CA
Scotson v Pegg (1861) 6 H. & N. 295
Scott v Avery (1856) 5 H.L. Cas. 811 HL
Scott v Bradley [1971] Ch. 850; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 731 Ch D
Scott v Brown Doering McNab & Co; Slaughter & May v
Brown Doering McNab & Co [1892] 2 Q.B. 724 CA
5–023
13–018
9–090
9–116
15–018
21–018
9–052
2–053, 2–057, 2–079, 2–081, 2–108, 3–
158
18–015, 18–066, 18–071, 20–145
11–075, 11–162
3–048, 3–054, 3–055
11–050
5–022, 5–025, 6–021, 21–033
11–011,11–129
Scott v Coulson [1903] 2 Ch. 249 CA
8–018, 8–020
Scott v Frank F Scott (London) Ltd [1940] Ch. 794 CA
8–078
Scott v Godfrey [1901] 2 Q.B. 726
16–020
Scott v Littledale (1858) 8 E. & B. 815
8–016
Scott v Scott [1913] P. 52 PDAD
11–039
Scottish & Newcastle International Ltd v Othon Ghalanos Ltd
14–050, 14–073
[2008] UKHL 11; [2008] 2 All E.R. 768; [2008] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 369; [2008] Bus. L.R. 583; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
462; [2008] 1 C.L.C. 186; [2008] I.L.Pr. 30; (2008) 158
N.L.J. 334; (2008) 152(8) S.J.L.B. 32
Scottish & Newcastle Plc v Lancashire Mortgage Corp Ltd
5–011
[2007] EWCA Civ 684; [2007] N.P.C. 84
Scottish Petroleum Co (No.2), Re (1883) L.R. 23 Ch. D. 413 CA
9–115
Scottish Widows Fund and Life Assurance Society v BGC
8–065
International (formerly Cantor Fitzgerald International)
[2012] EWCA Civ 607; 142 Con. L.R. 27
Scrace v Whittington (1823) 2 B. & C. 11
16–070
Scriven Bros & Co v Hindley & Co [1913] 3 K.B. 564 KBD
8–042, 8–052
Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd; sub nom Midland
6–039, 14–016, 14–058, 14–059, 14–060,
Silicones Ltd v Scruttons Ltd [1962] A.C. 446; [1962] 2
14–061, 14–062, 14–065, 14–069, 14–
W.L.R. 186; [1962] 1 All E.R. 1; [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 365;
071, 14–072, 14–073, 14–095
(1962) 106 S.J. 34 HL
Scudamore v Vandenstene (1587) 2 CoInst. 673
14–131
Scullion v Bank of Scotland Plc (t/a Colleys) [2011] EWCA Civ
9–039
693; [2011] 1 W.L.R. 3212; [2011] B.L.R. 449; [2011]
H.L.R. 43; [2011] P.N.L.R. 27; [2011] 3 E.G.L.R. 69; [2011]
37 E.G. 110; [2011] 25 E.G. 105 (C.S.); (2011) 155(25)
S.J.L.B. 35; [2011] N.P.C. 62
Scully UK Ltd v Lee [1998] I.R.L.R. 259 CA (Civ Div)
11–068, 11–077, 11–162
Sea Angel, The. See Edwinton Commercial Corp v Tsavliris
Russ (Worldwide Salvage & Towage) Ltd (The Sea Angel)
Sea Calm Shipping Co SA v Chantiers Navals de l’Esterel SA
(The Uhenbels) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 294 QBD (Comm)
Sea Emerald SA v Prominvestbank [2008] EWHC 1979
(Comm)
Sea Hawk, The. See Locabail International Finance Ltd v
Agroexport and Atlanta (UK) Ltd (The Sea Hawk)
Seabridge Shipping Ltd v Antco Shipping Co (The Furness
Bridge) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 367; (1977) 121 S.J. 491
QBD (Comm)
Seadrill Management Services Ltd v OAO Gazprom (The Ekha)
[2009] EWHC 1530 (Comm); [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 543;
126 Con. L.R. 130
Seaflower, The (No.1). See BS&N Ltd (BVI) v Micado Shipping
Ltd (Malta) (The Seaflower (No.1))
Seaflower, The (No.2). See BS&N Ltd (BVI) v Micado Shipping
Ltd (Malta) (The Seaflower (No.2))
Sealace Shipping Co Ltd v Oceanvoice Ltd (The Alecos M)
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 120 CA (Civ Div)
Seatbooker Sales Ltd v Southend United Football Club [2008]
EWHC 157 (QB)
Seaton v Burnand; sub nom Seaton v Heath [1900] A.C. 135 HL
Seaton v Heath. See Seaton v Burnand
Secretary of State for Employment v Associated Society of
Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (No.2); sub nom
Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No.2) [1972] 2
Q.B. 455; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 1370 CA (Civ Div)
Secretary of State for Employment v Globe Elastic Thread Co
Ltd [1980] A.C. 506; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 143 HL
Secretary of State for Employment v Wilson [1978] 1 W.L.R.
568; [1978] 3 All E.R. 137 EAT
Secretary of State for Transport v Christos. See Christos v
Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the
Regions
Seddon v North Eastern Salt Co Ltd [1905] 1 Ch. 326 Ch D
Seechurn v Ace Insurance SA NV; sub nom Ace Insurance SA
NV v Seechurn [2002] EWCA Civ 67; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
390
Sefton (Earl of) v Tophams Ltd (No.2); Earl of Sefton v Capital
and Counties Property Co Ltd [1967] 1 A.C. 50; [1966] 2
W.L.R. 814 HL
Segap Garages Ltd v Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd, Times, 24
October 1989 CA (Civ Div)
Select Commodities Ltd v Valdo SA (The Florida) [2006]
EWHC 1137; [2006] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 493 QBD (Comm)
Selectmove Ltd, Re [1995] 1 W.L.R. 474; [1995] 2 All E.R. 531;
[1995] S.T.C. 406; [1994] B.C.C. 349; 66 T.C. 552 CA (Civ
Div)
Selene G, The. See Portaria Shipping Co v Gulf Pacific
Navigation Co Ltd (The Selene G)
Selkirk v Romar Investments [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1415; [1963] 3
All E.R. 994 PC PC (Bah)
Sellers v London Counties Newspapers [1951] 1 K.B. 784;
9–168
16–022, 16–025, 16–044
19–053
17–062
20–055, 20–114
20–079
9–149
17–055
3–088
20–120
9–103
3–081, 3–084
14–140
18–024
19–070
2–044, 3–101, 3–117, 16–025
4–020, 9–138
16–086, 16–104
[1951] 1 All E.R. 54 CA
Sempra Metals Ltd v IRC [2007] UKHL 34; [2008] 1 A.C. 561; 20–060, 20–061, 20–062, 20–065, 20–105
[2007] 3 W.L.R. 354; [2007] 4 All E.R. 657; [2008] Bus.
L.R. 49; [2007] S.T.C. 1559; [2008] Eu. L.R. 1; [2007]
B.T.C. 509; [2007] S.T.I. 1865; (2007) 104(31) L.S.G. 25;
(2007) 157 N.L.J. 1082; (2007) 151 S.J.L.B. 985
Sen v Headley [1991] Ch. 425; [1991] 2 W.L.R. 1308 CA
3–122, 15–029
Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd v STC Submarine Systems
9–009
Ltd Unreported 26 May 1994
Sennar (No.2), The. See DSV Silo und Verwaltungsgesellschaft
mbH v Owners of the Sennar (The Sennar (No.2))
Sepoong Engineering Construction Co Ltd v Formula One
3–031, 3–155
Management Ltd (formerly Formula One Administration
Ltd) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 602 QBD (Comm)
Servicepower Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Servicepower Business
19–037
Solutions Ltd [2009] EWHC 179 (Ch)
Seven Seas Properties Ltd v Al-Essa (No.1) [1988] 1 W.L.R.
20–049, 20–108, 20–118
1272; [1989] 1 All E.R. 164 Ch D
Seven Seas Properties Ltd v Al-Essa (No.2) [1993] 1 W.L.R.
20–108
1083; [1993] 3 All E.R. 577 Ch D
Sevin v Deslandes (1860) 30 L.J. (Ch.) 457
21–058
Seymour v Bridge (1884–85) L.R. 14 Q.B.D. 460 QBD
16–020
SG & R Valuation Co v Boudrais [2008] EWHC 1340 (QB);
21–057
[2008] I.R.L.R. 770
Shackleford’s Case. See Rolling Stock Co of ireland, Re
Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) 9 C.B.(N.S.) 159
3–009, 3–054, 4–018
Shaftsbury House (Developments) Ltd v Lee [2010] EWHC
7–098
1484 (Ch)
Shah v Shah [2001] EWCA Civ 527; [2002] Q.B. 35
3–089, 3–099, 3–170
Shaker v Vistajet Group Holding SA [2012] EWHC 1329
2–100
(Comm); [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 1010; [2012] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 93
Shallcross v Wright (1850) 12 Beav 558
4–020
Shamah, The. See Mmecen SA v Inter Ro-Ro SA and Gulf RoRo Services SA (The Shamah)
Shamia v Joory [1958] 1 Q.B. 448; [1958] 2 W.L.R. 84 QBD
15–004
Shamrock SS Co v Storey & Co (1899) 81 L.T. 413
2–080
Shamsher Jute Mills v Sethia London [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 388
3–068
QBD (Comm)
Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd [1951] 2 K.B. 854;
14–006, 14–007
[1951] 2 All E.R. 471 KBD
Shanshal v Al Kishtaini. See Al-Kishtaini v Shanshal
Shared Network Services Ltd v Nextiraone UK Ltd [2011]
7–031
EWHC 3845 (Comm)
Sharif v Azad [1967] 1 Q.B. 605; [1966] 3 W.L.R. 1285 CA
11–166
Sharma v Simposh Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1383; [2013] Ch. 23;
5–010
[2012] 3 W.L.R. 503; [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 288; [2012]
1 P. & C.R. 12; [2012] 1 E.G.L.R. 113; [2012] 6 E.G. 92;
[2011] 48 E.G. 87 (C.S.); [2012] 1 P. & C.R. DG12
Sharp v Christmas (1892) 8 T.L.R. 687
18–103
Sharp v Harrison [1922] 1 Ch. 502 Ch D
21–053
Sharpe Ex p. Tr of the Bankrupt’s Property, Re; sub nom Sharpe 3–123, 3–125, 3–139, 3–145, 4–019, 14–
Re, Ex p. Tr of the Bankrupt v Sharpe [1980] 1 W.L.R. 219;
[1980] 1 All E.R. 198 Ch D
Sharpe v Worcester Diocesan Board of Finance Ltd [2015]
EWCA Civ 399; [2015] I.R.L.R. 663
Shaw v Benson (1882–83) L.R. 11 Q.B.D. 563 CA
Shaw v Fitzgerald [1992] 1 F.L.R. 357; [1992] F.C.R. 162
Shaw v Groom [1970] 2 Q.B. 504; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 299 CA
(Civ Div)
Shaw v Lighthousexpress Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 161
Shaw v Shaw [1965] 1 W.L.R. 537; [1965] 1 All E.R. 638 CA
Shawton Engineering Ltd v DGP International Ltd (t/a Design
Group Partnership) [2005] EWCA Civ 1359; [2006] B.L.R.
1
Shayler v Woolf [1946] Ch. 320; [1946] 2 All E.R. 54 CA
Shearman (t/a Charles Shearman Agencies) v Hunter Boot Ltd
[2014] EWHC 47 (QB); [2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 689;
[2014] 1 C.L.C. 240; [2014] E.C.C. 12
Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc v Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 570; [1989] 3 C.M.L.R. 429; (1990)
140 N.L.J. 247 QBD (Comm)
134
4–025
11–008, 11–111
11–038
11–003, 11–019, 11–114, 11–151
2–079
11–129
18–100, 18–107
15–054
16–109
3–094, 3–096, 3–098, 6–003, 6–022, 11–
104, 19–032, 20–044, 20–055, 20–071,
20–073
Sheers v Thimbleby (1879) 13 T.L.R. 451
5–025
Sheffield v Conran, 22 Con. L.R. 108 CA (Civ Div)
17–029
Sheffield v Pickfords Ltd [1997] C.L.C. 648; (1997) 16 Tr. L.R.
7–062
337 CA (Civ Div)
Sheffield District Ry v Great Central Ry (1911) 27 T.L.R. 451
2–100
Ch D
Sheffield Gas Co v Harrison (1853) 17 Beav 294
21–045
Sheikh Bros v Ochsner (Arnold Julius) [1957] A.C. 136; [1957]
8–012
2 W.L.R. 254 PC (EA)
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (No.1); Meux’s
21–055
Brewery Co v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1
Ch. 287 CA
Shell Egypt West Manzala GmbH v Dana Gas Egypt Ltd [2010]
18–073
EWHC 465 (Comm)
Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Seabridge Shipping (The
17–037
Metula) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 5 CA (Civ Div)
Shell Tankers (UK) Ltd v Astro Comino Armadora SA (The
6–025, 6–028, 9–048
Pacific Colocotronis) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 40 CA (Civ
Div)
Shell (UK) Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd [1976] 1 W.L.R. 1187;
6–035,6–040,6–041, 10–050, 11–064, 11–
[1977] 1 All E.R. 481; (1976) 120 S.J. 523 CA (Civ Div)
128, 17–073, 19–115, 21–033
Shell (UK) Ltd v Total UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 180; [2010] 3
7–033, 14–024, 14–050
W.L.R. 1192
Shelley v Paddock [1980] Q.B. 348; [1980] 2 W.L.R. 647 CA
11–126
(Civ Div)
Shepheard v Broome; sub nom Broome v Speak [1904] A.C.
9–072
342 HL
Shepherd v Commr of Taxation [1966] A.L.R. 969
15–025
Shepherd v Croft [1911] 1 Ch. 521 Ch D
9–138
Shepherd (FC) & Co v Jerrom [1987] Q.B. 301; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 17–077, 19–073, 19–084, 19–088, 19–089,
801; [1986] 3 All E.R. 589; [1986] I.C.R. 802; [1986]
19–091, 19–115
I.R.L.R. 358; (1986) 130 S.J. 665 CA (Civ Div)
Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham (No.1) [1971] Ch. 340; [1970]
3 W.L.R. 348 DC
Shepherds Investments Ltd v Walters [2006] EWHC 836; [2007]
I.R.L.R. 110 Ch D
Sheppard & Cooper Ltd v TSB Bank Plc (No.2) [1996] 2 All
E.R. 654; [1996] B.C.C. 965 Ch D
Sherdley v Sherdley [1988] A.C. 213; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 1071 HL
Shiloh Spinners Ltd v Harding [1973] A.C. 691; [1973] 2
W.L.R. 28; [1973] 1 All E.R. 90; (1973) 25 P. & C.R. 48;
(1972) 117 S.J. 34 HL
Shine, Re [1892] 1 Q.B. 522 CA
Shinjitsu Maru (No.5), The. See AB Marintrans v Comet
Shipping Co Ltd (The Shinjitsu Maru (No.5))
Shipley UDC v Bradford Corp [1936] Ch. 375 Ch D
Shipping Corp of India v Naviera Letasa, SA [1976] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 132 QBD (Comm)
Shipping Developments Corp v V/O Sojuzneftexport (The
Delian Spirit) [1972] 1 Q.B. 103; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1434 CA
(Civ Div)
Shipton, Anderson & Co, Re [1915] 3 K.B. 676 KBD
Shipton Anderson & Co v Weil Bros & Co [1912] 1 K.B. 574
KBD
Shires v Brock (1977) 247 E.G. 127 CA (Civ Div)
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson; sub nom Hudson v Shogun
Finance Ltd [2003] UKHL 62; [2004] 1 A.C. 919; [2003] 3
W.L.R. 1371; [2004] 1 All E.R. 215; [2004] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 332; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 532; [2004] R.T.R. 12;
(2003) 100(46) L.S.G. 25; (2003) 153 N.L.J. 1790; (2003)
147 S.J.L.B. 1368
Shore v Wilson (1842) 9 Cl. & Fin. 355
Short v Spackman (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 962
Shove v Downs Surgical Plc [1984] 1 All E.R. 7; [1984] I.C.R.
532 QBD
Showa Oil Tanker Co of Japan Ltd v Maravan SA of Caracas
(The Larissa) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 QBD (Comm)
Shuey v US, 92 U.S. 73 (1875)
SIAT di del Ferro v Tradax Overseas SA [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
53 CA (Civ Div)
Siben, The. See Hughes v Clewley (The Siben)
Siboen and the Sibotre, The. See Occidental Worldwide
Investment Corp v Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and the
Sibotre)
Sibohelle, The. See TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASA (The Sibohelle)
Sibthorpe v Southwark LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 25; [2011] 1
W.L.R. 2111; [2011] 2 All E.R. 240; [2011] C.P. Rep. 21;
[2011] 3 Costs L.R. 427; [2011] H.L.R. 19; (2011) 108(6)
L.S.G. 18; (2011) 161 N.L.J. 173; [2011] N.P.C. 11
Sichel v Mosenthal (1862) 30 Beav 371
Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Pneupac Ltd [1982] 1 W.L.R. 185;
[1982] 1 All E.R. 377 CA (Civ Div)
Siew Soon Wah (alias Siew Pooi Yong) v Yong Tong Hong
[1973] A.C. 836; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 713 PC (Mal)
21–053
11–069
17–002
12–007, 12–008
18–066, 18–067, 18–106, 21–041
15–074
8–064
2–107, 20–070
20–070
19–017
17–033
18–075
6–020, 8–038, 8–039, 8–040, 8–055, 8–
083, 9–090, 12–031, 16–006, 16–072
6–011
16–069
20–066, 20–083
9–051
2–060
7–011
11–012, 11–013, 15–058
21–018
8–024
2–082
Sig Bergesen DY & Co v Mobil Shipping and Transportation Co
(The Berge Sund) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 453 CA (Civ Div)
Sigma Finance Corp, Re [2009] UKSC 2; [2010] 1 All E.R. 571;
[2010] B.C.C. 40; (2009) 159 N.L.J. 1550; (2009) 153(42)
S.J.L.B. 29
Sika Contracts Ltd v BL Gill and Closeglen Properties Ltd
(1978) 9 B.L.R. 11 QBD
Silver Coast Shipping Co v Union Nationale des Cooperatives
Agricoles des Cereales (The Silver Sky) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 95 QBD (Comm)
Silver Queen Maritime Ltd v Persia Petroleum Services Plc
[2010] EWHC 2867 (QB)
Silver Sky, The. See Silver Coast Shipping Co v Union
Nationale des Cooperatives Agricoles des Cereales (The
Silver Sky)
Silverman (George) v Silverman (1969) 113 S.J. 563 CA (Civ
Div)
Silverwood v Silverwood (1997) 74 P. & C.R. 453; (1997) 74 P.
& C.R. D9 CA (Civ Div)
6–043
6–012
16–069
19–083, 20–097
3–173, 9–156
11–073
11–145
Silvester, Re; sub nom Midland Ry Co v Silvester [1895] 1 Ch.
2–068
573 Ch D
Silvey v Pendragon Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 784; [2001] I.R.L.R.
18–006
685
Sim v Rotherham MBC; Townend v Doncaster MBC; Barnfield 6–046, 17–036, 17–040, 17–045, 17–047,
v Solihull MBC; Rathbone v Croydon LBC [1987] Ch. 216;
18–023
[1986] 3 W.L.R. 851 Ch D
Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd [1988]
9–040, 14–048, 14–049, 14–050, 14–051,
Q.B. 758; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 761; [1988] 1 All E.R. 791; 40
14–074
B.L.R. 28; [1988] F.T.L.R. 469; [1988] E.G. 16 (C.S.);
(1988) 138 N.L.J. Rep. 53; (1988) 132 S.J. 463 CA (Civ
Div)
Simmons v Hoover [1977] Q.B. 284; [1976] 3 W.L.R. 901 EAT
17–073, 18–006
Simms v Conlon. See Conlon v Simms
Simoco Digital UK Ltd, Re. See Thunderbird Industries LLC v
Simoco Digital UK Ltd
Simon Container Machinery Ltd v Emba Machinery AB [1998]
3–050, 14–128
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 429 QBD (Comm)
Simona, The. See Fercometal Sarl v MSC Mediterranean
Shipping Co SA (The Simona)
Simpkins v Pays [1955] 1 W.L.R. 975; [1955] 3 All E.R. 10
4–019
Assizes (Chester)
Simpson v Crippin (1872–73) L.R. 8 Q.B. 14 QB
18–034
Simpson v Hughes (1897) 66 L.J.Ch. 334
2–019
Simpson v John Reynolds & Co (Insurances) Ltd [1975] 1
3–017
W.L.R. 617; [1975] 2 All E.R. 88 CA (Civ Div)
Simpson v London & North Western Ry Co (1875–76) L.R. 1
20–107
Q.B.D. 274 QBD
Simpson v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust
15–058, 15–060, 15–066
[2011] EWCA Civ 1149; [2012] Q.B. 640; [2012] 2 W.L.R.
873; [2012] 1 All E.R. 1423; [2012] 1 Costs L.O. 9; [2012]
P.I.Q.R. P2; (2012) 124 B.M.L.R. 1; (2011) 108(41) L.S.G.
24; (2011) 161 N.L.J. 1451
Sims v Bond (1833) 5 B. & Ad. 389
16–071
Sims & Co v Midland Ry Co [1913] 1 K.B. 103 KBD
16–037
Simson v Jones (1831) 2 Russ & My. 365
12–021
Sinclair v British Telecommunications Plc [2001] 1 W.L.R. 38;
15–037
[2000] 2 All E.R. 461 CA (Civ Div)
Sinclair’s Life Policy, Re [1938] Ch. 799 Ch D
14–040, 14–056, 14–082, 14–084, 14–088,
14–133
Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd
16–098
(In Administration) [2011] EWCA Civ 347; [2012] Ch. 453;
[2011] 3 W.L.R. 1153; [2011] 4 All E.R. 335; [2011] Bus.
L.R. 1126; [2011] 2 B.C.L.C. 501; [2011] W.T.L.R. 1043;
[2011] 2 P. & C.R. DG6
Sindel v Georgio, 154 C.L.R. 611 HC (Aus)
4–010
Sine Nomine, The. See AB Corp v CD Co (The Sine Nomine)
Singer Co (UK) Ltd v Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority [1988]
7–078, 7–080
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 164; [1988] 1 F.T.L.R. 442 QBD (Comm)
Singh v Ali [1960] A.C. 167; [1960] 2 W.L.R. 180 PC (FMS)
11–141, 11–150
Singh v Beggs (1996) 71 P. & C.R. 120 CA (Civ Div)
5–027
Singh v Sanghera [2013] EWHC 956 (Ch)
5–010
Singh (Sudagar) v Nazeer [1979] Ch. 474; [1978] 3 W.L.R. 785
18–027
Ch D
Sirius International Insurance Co (Publ) v FAI General
6–011
Insurance Ltd; sub nom Sirius International Insurance Corp
Ltd v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd [2004] UKHL 54;
[2004] 1 W.L.R. 3251; [2005] 1 All E.R. 191; [2005] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 117; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461; [2005] 1
C.L.C. 451; [2005] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 294; (2004) 101(48)
L.S.G. 25; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 1435
Sirius International Insurance Corp v Oriental Assurance Corp
9–012
[1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 699; [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R.
343 QBD (Comm)
Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd [1994] 2 A.C. 199; 14–016, 16–046, 16–058, 16–059, 16–060,
[1994] 2 W.L.R. 370 PC (HK)
16–071
Siveyer v Allison [1935] 2 K.B. 403 KBD
11–032
Six Continents Hotels Inc v Event Hotels GmbH [2006] EWHC
9–134
2317; (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 1251 QBD
Skeate v Beale (1841) 11 A. & E. 983
10–004
Skilton v Sullivan, Times, 25 March 1994 CA (Civ Div)
11–056, 11–114
Skips A/S Nordheim v Syrian Petroleum Co and Petrofina SA
2–102
(The Varenna) [1984] Q.B. 599; [1983] 3 All E.R. 645 CA
(Civ Di)
Skopas, The. See Resolute Maritime Inc v Nippon Kaiji Kyokai
(The Skopas)
Sky Petroleum v VIP Petroleum [1974] 1 W.L.R. 576; [1974] 1
19–006, 21–026
All E.R. 954 Ch D
Slack v Leeds Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd (No.1); sub
21–062
nom Leeds Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd v Slack
[1924] A.C. 851; [1924] All E.R. Rep. 264 HL
Slade v Metrodent [1953] 2 Q.B. 112; [1953] 2 W.L.R. 1202
12–011, 12–016
QBD
Slater v Hoyle & Smith Ltd [1920] 2 K.B. 11 CA
20–049, 20–050, 20–051
Slater v Raw, Times, 15 October 1977 CA (Civ Div)
2–083, 11–035, 21–042
Slator v Trimble (1861) 14 Ir.C.L.R. 342
12–018, 12–019, 12–023
Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P. & C.R. 196; [1996] N.P.C. 16
3–146
CA (Civ Div)
Slingsby v District Bank Ltd (Manchester) [1932] 1 K.B. 544;
16–022
(1931) 41 Ll. L. Rep. 138 CA
Slingsby’s Case (1588) 5 Co. Rep. 18b
13–021, 13–22
Slocock’s Will Trusts, Re [1979] 1 All E.R. 358 Ch D
8–072, 8–078
Smales v Lea [2011] EWCA Civ 1325; 140 Con. L.R. 70; [2012]
17–038
P.N.L.R. 8
Smart v Sandars (1848) 5 C.B. 895
16–112
Smeaton Hanscomb & Co v Sassoon I Setty Son & Co (No.1)
7–024, 7–027, 7–032
[1953] 1 W.L.R. 1468; [1953] 2 All E.R. 1471 QBD
Smethurst v Mitchell (1859) 1 E. & E. 622
16–076
Smidt v Tiden (1873–74) L.R. 9 Q.B. 446 QB
8–044, 8–049
Smit International Singapore Pte Ltd v Kurnia Dewi Shipping
2–018, 2–027, 2–051, 2–089, 6–037, 16–
SA (The Kurnia Dewi) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 552 QBD
076, 22–020
(Admlty)
Smith v Anderson (1880) L.R. 15 Ch. D. 247 CA
11–008, 11–111
Smith v Butler [1900] 1 Q.B. 694 CA
2–106
Smith v Carillion (JM) Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 209; [2015]
14–006
I.R.L.R. 467
Smith v Chadwick (1883–84) L.R. 9 App. Cas. 187 HL
Smith v Cooper [2010] EWCA Civ 722; [2010] 2 F.C.R. 551
Smith v Cuff (1817) 6 M. & S. 160
Smith v Eric S Bush (A Firm); Harris v Wyre Forest DC [1990]
1 A.C. 831; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 790; [1989] 2 All E.R. 514;
(1989) 21 H.L.R. 424; 87 L.G.R. 685; [1955–95] P.N.L.R.
467; [1989] 18 E.G. 99; [1989] 17 E.G. 68; (1990) 9 Tr. L.R.
1; (1989) 153 L.G. Rev. 984; (1989) 139 N.L.J. 576; (1989)
133 S.J. 597 HL
Smith v Green (1875–76) L.R. 1 C.P.D. 92 CPD
Smith v Hamilton [1951] Ch. 174; [1950] 2 All E.R. 928 Ch D
Smith v Harrison (1857) 26 L.J. Ch. 412
Smith v Henniker-Major & Co [2002] EWCA Civ 762; [2003]
Ch. 182
Smith v Hughes (1870–71) L.R. 6 Q.B. 597; [1861–73] All E.R.
Rep. 632 QB
Smith v Jones [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1089; [1954] 2 All E.R. 823 Ch
D
Smith v Kay (1859) 7 H.L.C. 750
Smith v Land & House Property Corp (1885) L.R. 28 Ch. D. 7
CA
Smith v Lawson (1998) 75 P. & C.R. 466; [1997] E.G. 85 (C.S.)
CA (Civ Div)
Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] 2 Q.B. 405; [1962] 2 W.L.R.
148 QBD
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd. See Maloco v
Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
Smith v Mansi [1963] 1 W.L.R. 26; [1962] 3 All E.R. 857 CA
Smith v Monteith (1844) 13 M. & W. 427
Smith v Morgan [1971] 1 W.L.R. 803; [1971] 2 All E.R. 1500
Ch D
3–029, 9–010, 9–031
10–031
11–132
7–056, 7–081, 9–028, 9–028, 9–029, 9–
037, 9–038, 9–039, 9–052, 9–065, 9–
128, 14–045, 14–049, 17–068
9–071
18–107
3–028
12–069, 16–052
1–002, 8–042, 8–043, 8–044, 8–047, 8–
051, 8–054, 9–138
8–075
9–021
9–012, 9–028, 9–030
3–077, 3–086, 3–089
20–103
4–010
10–003
2–093, 2–094
Smith v Owners of the SS Zigurds [1934] A.C. 209; (1933) 47
Ll. L. Rep. 267 HL
Smith v Smith (Disclaimer of Interest under Will); sub nom
Smith (Deceased), Re [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1937; [2001] 3 All
E.R. 552 Ch D
Smith v South Wales Switchgear Ltd. See Smith v UMB
Chrysler (Scotland) Ltd
Smith v Taylor [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 231; 116 N.L.J. 1518
QBD
Smith v UMB Chrysler (Scotland) Ltd; sub nom Smith v South
Wales Switchgear Co Ltd [1978] 1 W.L.R. 165; [1978] 1 All
E.R. 18; 1978 S.C. (H.L.) 1; 1978 S.L.T. 21; 8 B.L.R. 1;
(1978) 122 S.J. 61 HL
Smith v Warde (1845) 15 Sim. 56
Smith v Wheatcroft (1878) L.R. 9 Ch. D. 223 Ch D
Smith v Wilson (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 728
Smith v Zimbalist, 2 Cal.App. 2d 234; 38 P. 2d 170 (1934)
Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment
Board [1949] 2 K.B. 500
Smith Hogg & Co Ltd v Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance
Co Ltd [1940] A.C. 997; (1940) 67 Ll. L. Rep. 253 HL
15–020
15–025
7–011
6–003, 7–008, 7–013, 7–033, 7–034
15–029
16–060
6–027
8–018
14–016, 14–132
20–095
Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v Long [1989] 1 W.L.R.
9–014, 9–065, 9–069, 20–019
1; [1988] 3 All E.R. 887 CA (Civ Div)
Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Citibank NA; sub nom Smith
9–024, 9–065, 9–071, 9–072, 9–073, 9–
New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset
074, 9–075, 9–076, 9–096, 9–106, 22–
Management) Ltd [1997] A.C. 254; [1996] 3 W.L.R. 1051;
005
[1996] 4 All E.R. 769; [1997] 1 B.C.L.C. 350; [1996] C.L.C.
1958; (1996) 93(46) L.S.G. 28; (1996) 146 N.L.J. 1722;
(1997) 141 S.J.L.B. 5 HL
Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset
Management) Ltd. See Smith New Court Securities Ltd v
Citibank NA
Smithies v National Association of Operative Plasterers [1909] 1
14–140
K.B. 310 CA
SmithKline Beecham Plc v Apotex Europe Ltd [2006] EWCA
3–094, 3–098, 14–027, 14–029, 14–031
Civ 658; [2006] 3 W.L.R. 1146; [2006] 4 All E.R. 1078;
[2006] C.P. Rep. 39; [2007] F.S.R. 6; (2006) 29(10) I.P.D.
29072; (2006) 103(23) L.S.G. 32; (2006) 156 N.L.J. 952
Smout v Ilberry (1842) 10 M. & W. 1
16–080
Smyth v Anderson (1849) 7 C.B. 21
16–064
SN Kurkjian (Commodity Brokers) Ltd v Marketing Exchange
18–080
for Africa Ltd (formerly T M Motiram (UK) Ltd) (No.1)
[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 614 QBD (Comm)
Snell v Unity Finance Co Ltd [1964] 2 Q.B. 203; [1963] 3
11–110
W.L.R. 559 CA
Snelling v John G Snelling Ltd [1973] Q.B. 87; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 2–093, 2–094, 3–108, 4–021, 14–038, 14–
588 QBD
069
Snia v Suzuki & Co (1929) 29 Com.Cas. 284
17–088
Snookes v Jani-King (GB) Ltd; Little v Jani-King (GB) Ltd
7–055
[2006] EWHC 289; [2006] I.L.Pr. 19 QBD
Soames, Re (1897) 13 T.L.R. 439
3–011
Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices SA v Agrimpex
17–065
Hungarian Trading Co for Agricultural Products; sub nom
The Aello [1961] A.C. 135; [1960] 3 W.L.R. 145; [1960] 2
All E.R. 578; [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 623; (1960) 104 S.J.
543
Sociedad Iberica de Molturacion SA v Tradax Export SA [1978]
19–054
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 QBD (Comm)
Societa Esplosivi Industriali SpA v Ordnance Technologies
11–097
(UK) Ltd (formerly SEI (UK) Ltd) [2004] EWHC 48; [2004]
1 All E.R. (Comm) 619 Ch D
Société Commerciale de Réassurance v Eras International Ltd
14–049, 15–077, 15–078, 20–123
(formerly Eras (UK)); sub nom Eras EIL Actions, Re [1992]
2 All E.R. 82 (Note); [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 570 CA (Civ
Div)
Société des Industries Metallurgiques SA v Bronx Engineering
21–020, 21–024
Co [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 CA (Civ Div)
Société Franco-Tunisienne d’Armement-Tunis v Sidermar SpA;
19–006, 22–025
sub nom The Massalia [1961] 2 Q.B. 278; [1960] 3 W.L.R.
701 QBD (Comm)
Société Générale de Paris v Milders (1883) 49 L.T. 55
17–015
Société Italo-Belge Pour le Commerce et L’Industrie SA
3–081, 3–084, 3–085, 3–086, 3–090, 18–
(Antwerp) v Palm and Vegetable Oils (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
054, 18–055
(The Post Chaser) [1982] 1 All E.R. 19; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 695 QBD (Comm)
Socimer International Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Standard
2–096, 6–040, 6–042
Bank London Ltd (No.2) [2006] EWHC 718 QBD (Comm)
Socol 3, The. See Onego Shipping & Chartering BV v JSC
Arcadia Shipping (The Socol 3)
Soden v British & Commonwealth Holdings Plc (In
9–033, 14–012, 14–115
Administration) [1998] A.C. 298; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 840 HL
Sole v WJ Hallt Ltd [1973] Q.B. 574; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 171 QBD
20–126
Soleimany v Soleimany [1999] Q.B. 785; [1998] 3 W.L.R. 811; 11–051, 11–053, 11–060, 11–111, 11–112
[1999] 3 All E.R. 847 CA (Civ Div)
Solholt, The. See Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet Solholt (The
Solholt)
Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 K.B. 671; [1949] 2 All E.R. 1107; 66
8–018, 8–027, 8–028, 8–029, 8–030, 8–
T.L.R. (Pt. 1) 448 CA
055
Solomon v Pender (1865) 3 H. & C. 639
16–098
Somerset v Cookson (1735) 3 P.Wms. 390
21–024
Somma v Hazelhurst; Somma v Savelli [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1014;
11–045
[1978] 2 All E.R. 1011 CA (Civ Div)
Sonat Offshore SA v Amerada Hess Development and Texaco
7–033, 7–047
(Britain) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 145; 39 B.L.R. 1 CA (Civ
Div)
Sonicare International Ltd v East Anglia Freight Terminal Ltd;
14–073
Sonicare International Ltd v Neptune Orient Lines Ltd
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 48 CC (Central London)
Sony Computer Entertainment UK Ltd v Cinram Logistics
20–058,21–013
[2008] EWCA Civ 955; [2009] Bus L.R. 529
Sookraj v Samaroo [2004] UKPC 50; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 1244;
18–010
[2005] 1 P. & C.R. DG11
Soon Hua Seng Co Ltd v Glencore Grain Ltd, Transcript: LTA
18–043, 18–048
96/5656/B CA (Civ Div)
Soper v Arnold (1889) L.R. 14 App. Cas. 429 HL
8–058
Sorrell v Finch [1977] A.C. 728; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 833 HL
16–008
Sorsbie v Park (1843) 12 M. & W. 146
13–021, 13–023
Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet Solholt (The Solholt) [1983] 1 18–009, 18–063, 18–070, 20–004, 20–114,
Lloyd’s Rep. 605; [1983] Com. L.R. 114; (1983) 127 S.J.
20–117
305 CA (Civ Div)
Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] EWCA Civ 969; [2008] 2 W.L.R.
2–053
834
South, Ex p. (1818) 3 Swanst. 392
15–006
South African Territories Ltd v Wallington [1898] A.C. 309 HL
21–018
South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd;
1–011, 6–033, 9–024, 9–044, 9–065, 9–
United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Prudential Property Services
070, 9–071, 9–072, 9–096, 20–022,
Ltd; Nykredit Mortgage Bank Plc v Edward Erdman Group
20–024, 20–071, 20–110, 20–123
Ltd; sub nom Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star
Insurance Co Ltd [1997] A.C. 191; [1996] 3 W.L.R. 87;
[1996] 3 All E.R. 365; [1996] 5 Bank. L.R. 211; [1996]
C.L.C. 1179; 80 B.L.R. 1; 50 Con. L.R. 153; [1996] P.N.L.R.
455; [1996] 2 E.G.L.R. 93; [1996] 27 E.G. 125; [1996] E.G.
107 (C.S.); (1996) 93(32) L.S.G. 33; (1996) 146 N.L.J. 956;
(1996) 140 S.J.L.B. 156; [1996] N.P.C. 100 HL
South Australian Management Corp v Sheahan [1995] A.L.M.D.
14–060
3577 Sup Ct (S Aus) (Sgl judge)
South Caribbean Trading Ltd v Trafigura Beheer BV [2004]
3–051,3–063,3–085, 17–062
EWHC 2676; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 128 QBD (Comm)
South of England Natural Gas and Petroleum Co Ltd, Re [1911]
9–158
1 Ch. 573 Ch D
South Tyneside MBC v Svenska International Plc [1995] 1 All
12–082, 22–015
E.R. 545 QBD
South West Water Services Ltd v International Computers Ltd
7–065, 9–134, 22–006
[1999] B.L.R. 420; [1999–2000] Info. T.L.R. 1 QBD
South Western General Property Co v Marton (1982) 263 E.G.
9–126
1090; (1983) 2 Tr. L. 14 QBD
South Western Mineral Water Co Ltd v Ashmore [1967] 1
11–166
W.L.R. 1110; [1967] 2 All E.R. 953 Ch D
Southampton v Brown (1827) 6 B. & C. 718
14–131
Southampton Container Terminals Ltd v Hansa Schiffahrts
20–041
GmbH (The Maersk Colombo); sub nom Southampton
Container Terminals Ltd v Schiffahrtsgesellschaft “Hansa
Australia” MGH & Co [2001] EWCA Civ 717; [2001] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 275
Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] A.C. 701;
6–035, 6–046
[1940] 2 All E.R. 445 HL
Southern Water Authority v Carey [1985] 2 All E.R. 1077 QBD 14–065, 14–070, 14–087, 14–133, 16–046
Southwark LBC v Logan (1997) 29 H.L.R. 40; (1996) 8 Admin.
3–019, 3–085
L.R. 315 CA (Civ Div)
Southway Group Ltd v Wolff, (1991) 57 Build L.R. 33 CA (Civ
17–010
Div)
Sovereign Finance Ltd v Silver Crest Furniture Ltd (1997) 16 Tr.
7–081
L.R. 370; [1997] C.C.L.R. 76 QBD
Sovfracht (V/O) v Van Udens Scheepvaart en Agentuur
11–059
Maatschappij (NV Gebr); sub nom NV Gerb Van Udens
Scheepvaart en Agentuur Maatschappij v V/O Sovfracht
[1943] A.C. 203; [1943] 1 All E.R. 76; (1942) 74 Ll. L. Rep.
59 HL
Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the
Environment; Brompton Securities Ltd v Secretary of State
for the Environment [1979] A.C. 144; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 951;
[1977] 2 All E.R. 385; 75 L.G.R. 510; (1978) 35 P. & C.R.
350; (1977) 243 E.G. 995; [1977] J.P.L. 443 HL
Span Terza (No.2), The. See Stellar Chartering and Brokerage
Inc v Efibanca-Ente Finanziario Interbancario SpA (The
Span Terza)
Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co
Ltd [2015] EWHC 718 (Comm); [2015] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
879
Spector v Ageda [1973] Ch. 30; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 498 Ch D
Spellman v Spellman [1961] 1 W.L.R. 921; [1961] 2 All E.R.
498 CA
Spenborough UDC’s Agreement, Re; sub nom Stenborough
Corp v Cooke Sons & Co [1968] Ch. 139; [1967] 2 W.L.R.
1403 Ch D
Spence v Crawford [1939] 3 All E.R. 271; 1939 S.C. (H.L.) 52
HL
Spence v Shell UK (1980) 256 E.G. 55 CA (Civ Div)
Spencer v Harding (1869–70) L.R. 5 C.P. 561 CCP
Spencer v Secretary of State for Defence [2012] EWCA Civ
1368; [2013] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 287; [2013] 1 P. & C.R. 5;
[2013] L. & T.R. 10; [2013] 1 P. & C.R. DG3
Spettabile Consorzio Veneziano di Armamento e Navigazione v
Northumberland Shipbuilding Co (1919) 121 L.T. 628
Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV; sub nom Spice
Girls Ltd v Aprilla World Service BV [2002] EWCA Civ 15;
[2002] E.M.L.R. 27
Spiers v Hunt [1908] 1 K.B. 720 KBD
Spiller v Paris Skating Rink Co (1877–78) L.R. 7 Ch. D. 368 Ch
D
Spiro v Glencrown Properties Ltd [1991] Ch. 537; [1991] 2
W.L.R. 931 Ch D
Spiro v Lintern [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1002; [1973] 3 All E.R. 319 CA
(Civ Div)
Spiros C, The. See Tradigrain SA v King Diamond Marine Ltd
(The Spiros C)
Splendid Sun, The. See Andre et Cie SA v Marine Transocean
Ltd (The Splendid Sun)
Sport International Bussum BV v Inter-Footwear [1984] 1
W.L.R. 776; [1984] 2 All E.R. 321 HL
Spread Trustee Co Ltd v Hutcheson [2011] UKPC 13; [2012] 2
A.C. 194; [2012] 2 W.L.R. 1360; [2012] 1 All E.R. 251;
[2012] P.N.L.R. 1; [2012] W.T.L.R. 317; 14 I.T.E.L.R. 37
Spreadex Ltd v Cochrane [2012] EWHC 1290 (Comm); [2012]
Info. T.L.R. 1; [2012] L.L.R. 742
Spriggs v Sotheby Parke Bernet & Co [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
487; [1986] 1 E.G.L.R. 13 CA (Civ Div)
Spring Finance Ltd v HS Real Co LLC [2009] EWHC 3580
1–008
18–071
11–112, 11–162, 11–166
4–017, 15–017, 15–050
16–104
9–104, 9–108, 9–109, 9–110, 9–114
3–081
2–006, 2–013
1–003, 6–035
18–038
9–010, 9–024, 9–025, 9–137, 9–141
11–038
16–048
3–160, 5–008
2–045, 9–161, 16–008, 16–029
18–066, 20–132
7–043
3–030, 7–105, 7–106, 12–081
7–033, 7–037
3–127, 5–036
(Comm)
Spring Finance Ltd v HS Real Co LLC [2011] EWHC 57
3–127
(Comm)
Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc [1995] 2 A.C. 296; [1994] 3
6–045, 6–046, 9–038, 9–040, 9–041
W.L.R. 354; [1994] 3 All E.R. 129; [1994] C.L.C. 766;
[1994] I.C.R. 596; [1994] I.R.L.R. 460; (1994) 91(40)
L.S.G. 36; (1994) 144 N.L.J. 971; (1994) 138 S.J.L.B. 183
HL
Spring v National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers
6–035
Society (No.2) [1956] 1 W.L.R. 585; [1956] 2 All E.R. 221
Chancery Ct of Lancaster
Springer v Great Western Ry Co [1921] 1 K.B. 257; (1920) 4 Ll.
16–037, 16–040
L. Rep. 211 CA
Springwell Navigation Corp v JP Morgan Chase Bank (formerly
9–006, 9–126
Chase Manhattan Bank) [2010] EWCA Civ 1221; [2010] 2
C.L.C. 705
Sri Lanka Omnibus Co v Perera [1952] A.C. 76; [1951] 2 T.L.R.
21–018
1184 PC (Cey)
St Albans City and District Council v International Computers
6–046, 7–078, 7–082, 14–024, 20–116
Ltd [1996] 4 All E.R. 481; [1997–98] Info. T.L.R. 58 CA
(Civ Div)
St Enoch Shipping Co Ltd v Phosphate Mining Co [1916] 2
17–032
K.B. 624 KBD
St Ivel Ltd v Wincanton Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1286
6–024
St John Shipping Corp v Joseph Rank Ltd [1957] 1 Q.B. 267;
11–003, 11–019, 11–029, 11–113, 11–115
[1956] 3 W.L.R. 870 QBD
St Maximus Shipping Co Ltd v AP Moller-Maersk A/S [2014]
8–065
EWHC 1643 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 377
Stabilad Ltd v Stephens & Carter Ltd (No.2) [1999] 2 All E.R.
2–079, 2–108, 3–030
(Comm) 651 CA (Civ Div)
Stacey (t/a New Gailey Caravan/ Motorhomes Centre) v
20–096
Autosleeper Group Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1551
Stafford v Conti Commodity Services Ltd [1981] 1 All E.R. 691;
17–068
[1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 QBD (Comm)
Staffordshire AHA v South Staffordshire Waterworks Co [1978]
19–037
1 W.L.R. 1387; [1978] 3 All E.R. 769 CA (Civ Div)
Stag Line Ltd v Foscolo Mango & Co Ltd; sub nom Foscolo
7–032
Mango & Co Ltd v Stag Line Ltd; Foscolo, Mango & Co
Ltd, and HC Vivian Ltd v Stag Line Ltd; Foscolo, Mango &
Co Ltd, and HC Vivian Ltd v Stag Line Ltd; Foscolo, Mango
& Co Ltd, v Stag Line Ltd [1932] A.C. 328; (1931) 41 Ll. L.
Rep. 165 HL
Stag Line Ltd v Tyne Ship Repair Group Ltd (The Zinnia)
9–162, 14–005, 14–065, 17–066
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 211; (1985) 4 Tr. L. 33 QBD (Comm)
Stait v Fenner [1912] 2 Ch. 504 Ch D
8–071
Stallion v Albert Stallion Holdings (Great Britain) Ltd [2009]
3–131,21–039
EWHC 1950 (Ch); [2010] 2 F.L.R. 78
Standard Bank London Ltd v Apostolakis (No.1) [2002] C.L.C.
7–101
933; [2000] I.L.Pr. 766 QBD (Comm)
Standard Bank Plc v Agrinvest International Inc [2010] EWCA
18–010
Civ 1400
Standard Chartered Bank v Banque Marocaine du Commerce
8–004
Exterieur [2006] EWHC 413
Standard Chartered Bank v Ceylon Petroleum Corp [2012]
9–126, 12–074
EWCA Civ 1049
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp
9–035
(No.1) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 656 CA (Civ Div)
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp
9–035, 9–036, 11–140, 20–127
(No.2); Standard Chartered Bank v Mehra [2002] UKHL 43;
[2003] 1 A.C. 959; [2002] 3 W.L.R. 1547; [2003] 1 All E.R.
173; [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 931; [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
227; [2002] B.C.C. 846; [2003] 1 B.C.L.C. 244; [2002]
C.L.C. 1330; (2003) 100(1) L.S.G. 26; (2002) 146 S.J.L.B.
258
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp
9–074, 20–036
(No.3) [2001] EWCA Civ 55; [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 822
Standard Life Healthcare Ltd v Gorman [2009] EWCA Civ
16–091
1292; [2010] I.R.L.R. 233
Standing v Bowring (1886) L.R. 31 Ch. D. 282 CA
15–019
Staniforth v Lyall (1830) 7 Bing. 169
20–008
Stanlake Holdings Ltd v Tropical Capital Investments Ltd,
9–087
Financial Times, 25 June 1991 CA (Civ Div)
Stanley v English Fibres Industries Ltd (1889) 68 L.J.Q.B. 839
15–020
Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 K.B. 48; [1948] 1 All E.R. 599 CA
20–097
Stanton v Richardson; Richardson v Stanton (1873–74) L.R. 9
17–018, 18–037
C.P. 390, Ex Chamber
Stapleton-Bretherton, Re [1941] Ch. 482
14–040, 14–082, 14–085
Star Gazer, The. See Allseas International Management v Panroy
Bulk Transport SA (The Star Gazer)
Star Sea, The. See Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris
Insurance Co Ltd (The Star Sea)
Star Shipping AG v China National Foreign Trade
2–083, 2–096, 6–036, 6–045
Transportation Corp (The Star Texas) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
445 CA (Civ Div)
Star Steamship Society v Beogradska Plovidba (The Junior K)
2–088, 2–108
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583 QBD (Comm)
Star Texas, The. See Star Shipping AG v China National Foreign
Trade Transportation Corp (The Star Texas)
Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holdings BV
3–094
[2014] EWHC 1311 (Comm)
Starkey v Bank of England; sub nom Oliver v Bank of England
16–078
[1903] A.C. 114 HL
Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Aviation
13–014, 14–027, 14–032, 14–061, 14–095
Versicherungs AG [2014] EWHC 3068 (Comm); [2014] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 579; [2015] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 54
Starside Properties v Mustapha [1974] 1 W.L.R. 816; [1974] 2
20–148,20–151
All E.R. 567 CA (Civ Div)
Starsin, The. See Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private
Ltd (The Starsin)
State Securities Plc v Initial Industry Ltd [2004] All E.R. (D)
18–085
317 (Jan)
State Trading Corp of India Ltd v Cie Française d’Importation et
3–073, 18–082
de Distribution [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 679 QBD (Comm)
State Trading Corp of India Ltd v M Golodetz & Co Inc Ltd
7–032, 17–079, 18–011, 18–016, 18–020,
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277 CA (Civ Div)
Static Control Components (Europe) Ltd v Egan; sub nom Egan
v Static Control Components (Europe) Ltd [2004] EWCA
Civ 392; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 429
Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP (The Harriette
N) [2008] EWHC 2257 (Comm); [2009] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
1035; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 685
Stead v Dawber, 113 E.R. 22; (1839) 10 Ad. & El. 57
Stealth Construction Ltd, Re [2011] EWHC 1305 (Ch); [2012] 1
B.C.L.C. 297; [2011] B.P.I.R. 1173
Steedman v Drinkle [1916] 1 A.C. 275 PC (Can)
Steeds v Steeds (1889) L.R. 22 Q.B.D. 537 QBD
Steel v State Line Steamship Co (1877–78) L.R. 3 App. Cas. 72
HL
Steel Wing Co Ltd, Re [1921] 1 Ch. 349 Ch D
Stein Forbes & Co Ltd v County Tailoring Co Ltd (1916) 115
L.T. 215
Steinberg v Scala (Leeds) Ltd [1923] 2 Ch. 452 CA
Stellar Chartering and Brokerage Inc v Efibanca-Ente
Finanziario Interbancario SpA (The Span Terza (No.2))
[1984] 1 W.L.R. 27; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 HL
Stena Line Ltd v Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund Trustees
Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 543; [2011] Pens. L.R. 223
Stena Nautica (No.2), The. See CN Marine Inc v Stena Line A/B
(The Stena Nautica (No.2))
Stenhouse Australia v Phillips [1974] A.C. 391; [1974] 2 W.L.R.
134 PC (Aus)
Stephen v International Sleeping Car Co Ltd (1903) 19 T.L.R.
620
Stephens v Avery [1988] Ch. 449; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 1280 Ch D
Stephens v Dudbridge Ironworks Co Ltd [1904] 2 K.B. 225 CA
Stephens v Venables (1862) 30 Beav 625
Steria Ltd v Hutchison [2006] EWCA Civ 1551; [2006] Pens.
L.R. 291 CA (Civ Div)
Steven v Bromley & Son [1919] 2 K.B. 722 CA
Stevens v Benning (1854) 1 K. & J. 168; 6 D.M. & G. 223
Stevens v Newey; sub nom Stevens v Leeder; Leeder v Stevens
[2005] EWCA Civ 50; (2005) 149 S.J.L.B. 112
Stevenson v Rogers [1999] Q.B. 1028; [1999] 2 W.L.R. 1064
CA (Civ Div)
Stevenson v Snow (1761) 3 Burr. 1237
Steward v Rapley (t/a Rapley Flatt & Co) [1955–95] P.N.L.R.
451; [1989] 15 E.G. 198; [1989] 1 E.G.L.R. 159 CA (Civ
Div)
Stewart v Aberdein (1838) 4 M. & W. 211
Stewart v Kennedy (No.1) (1890) L.R. 15 App. Cas. 75 HL
Stewart v Oriental Fire & Marine Insurance Co Ltd [1985] Q.B.
988; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 741 QBD (Comm)
Stewart v Reavell’s Garage [1952] 2 Q.B. 545; [1952] 1 All E.R.
1191 QBD
Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd [1992] Q.B. 600;
18–043, 18–044, 18–054, 18–055, 18–
094, 18–095
6–013, 6–024, 7–015
2–044, 8–044, 8–051, 8–054, 8–058
3–062, 3–075
5–008
18–067, 18–102, 20–151
13–022, 13–031
17–066
15–013
21–007
12–019, 12–024, 12–030
18–063
6–035
11–067, 11–075, 11–083, 11–162
7–008
11–044, 11–069
12–012
15–042
3–083, 3–084, 3–090, 3–096, 3–133
2–004, 2–018, 22–020
15–053
10–023
7–054, 7–100
22–003
20–044
16–056
8–056
11–121
16–099, 17–012
7–055, 7–068, 7–074
[1992] 2 W.L.R. 721 CA (Civ Div)
Stickney v Keeble [1915] A.C. 386 HL
18–107, 21–029
Stikeman v Dawson (1847) 1 De G. & Sm. 90
12–044
Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp. 317; 6 Esp. 129
3–048, 3–051, 3–088, 11–036
Stimpson v Smith [1999] Ch. 340; [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1292; [1999]
13–017
2 All E.R. 833 CA (Civ Div)
Stinnes Interoil GmbH v A Halcoussis & Co (The Yanxilas)
16–058, 16–069
[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 QBD (Comm)
Stinnes Interoil GmbH v A Halcoussis & Co (The Yanxilas
20–097
(No.2)) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 676 QBD (Comm)
Stirling v Maitland (1864) 5 B. & S. 840
6–046
Stockloser v Johnson [1954] 1 Q.B. 476; [1954] 2 W.L.R. 439
20–152, 20–153
CA
Stockport MBC v O’Reilly (No.2) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 70;
19–083
[1983] Com. L.R. 32 QBD (Comm)
Stocks v Dobson (1853) 4 D.M. & G. 11
15–022, 15–023
Stocks v Wilson [1913] 2 K.B. 235 KBD
12–003, 12–031, 12–035, 12–041, 12–046
Stockton v Mason [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 430; [1979] R.T.R. 130
16–011
CA (Civ Div)
Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co (Abuse of Process)
15–065
[1999] 3 All E.R. 822; [1999] C.L.C. 1451 QBD (Comm)
Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [2002] EWCA Civ 17–062, 17–075, 17–091, 18–018, 18–020,
889; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 436
18–026, 18–071, 18–084, 18–085, 18–
086
Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co; sub nom Stocznia 17–091, 18–018, 19–045, 20–154, 21–012,
Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc [1998] 1 W.L.R. 574; [1998] 1
22–003
All E.R. 883; [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 609; [1998] C.L.C. 540;
(1998) 95(15) L.S.G. 33; (1998) 148 N.L.J. 330; (1998) 142
S.J.L.B. 118 HL
Stocznia Gdyinia SA v Gearbulk Holdings Ltd [2009] EWCA
18–073
Civ 75; [2010] Q.B. 27
Stoddart v Union Trust Ltd [1912] 1 K.B. 181 CA
15–041
Stoke on Trent City Council v W & J Wass Ltd (No.1) [1988] 1
20–019
W.L.R. 1406; [1988] 3 All E.R. 394 CA (Civ Div)
Stokes v Whicher [1920] 1 Ch. 411 Ch D
5–025
Stolt Loyalty, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 598 CA (Civ Div)
2–045, 9–161, 16–058
Stone v Reliance Mutual Insurance Society [1972] 1 Lloyd’s
16–011
Rep. 469 CA (Civ Div)
Stone & Rolls Ltd (In Liquidation) v Moore Stephens (A Firm) 11–022, 11–023, 11–024, 11–115, 11–169,
[2009] UKHL 39; [2009] 1 A.C. 1391; [2009] 3 W.L.R. 455;
20–097
[2009] 4 All E.R. 431; [2010] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 125;
[2009] Bus. L.R. 1356; [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 537; [2009] 2
B.C.L.C. 563; [2009] 2 C.L.C. 121; [2009] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C.
557; [2009] B.P.I.R. 1191; [2009] P.N.L.R. 36; (2009) 159
N.L.J. 1218; (2009) 153(31) S.J.L.B. 28
Stone Vickers Ltd v Appledore Ferguson Shipbuilders Ltd
14–128
[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 578 CA (Civ Div)
Stoomv Maats De Maas NV v Nippon Yusen Kaisha (The
2–060
Pendrecht) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 56 QBD (Comm)
Storer v Great Western Ry (1842) 2 Y. & C.C.C. 48
21–040
Storer v Manchester City Council [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1403; [1974]
2–002, 2–086, 4–002
3 All E.R. 824 CA (Civ Div)
Stork, The. See Compania Naviera Maropan SA v Bowaters
Lloyd Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd (The Stork)
Stour Valley Builders v Stuart [2003] T.C.L.R. 8 CA (Civ Div)
Strachan & Henshaw Ltd v Stein Industrie (UK) Ltd (NO.2)87
B.L.R. 52; 63 Con. L.R. 160 CA (Civ Div)
Strand Electric and Engineering Co Ltd v Brisford
Entertainments Ltd [1952] 2 Q.B. 246; [1952] 1 All E.R. 796
CA
Strange (SW) v Mann [1965] 1 W.L.R. 629; [1965] 1 All E.R.
1069 Ch D
Strategic Property Ltd v O’Se [2009] EWHC 3512 (Ch)
Stray v Russell (1859) 1 E. & E. 889
Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809; [1985] 2 W.L.R. 877;
[1985] 2 All E.R. 289; (1985) 17 H.L.R. 402; (1985) 50 P. &
C.R. 258; [1985] 1 E.G.L.R. 128; (1985) 274 E.G. 821;
[2008] B.T.C. 7094; (1985) 82 L.S.G. 2087; (1985) 135
N.L.J. 460; (1985) 129 S.J. 348 HL
Strickland v Turner (1852) 7 Ex. 208
Strive Shipping Corp v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association
(Bermuda) Ltd (The Grecia Express) [2002] EWHC 203;
[2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 213; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 88
QBD (Comm)
Strongman (1945) v Sincock [1955] 2 Q.B. 525; [1955] 3
W.L.R. 360 CA
Stroud v Austin & Co (1883) Cab. & El. 119
Stroude v Beazer Homes Ltd [2005] EWHC 2686; [2006] 2 P. &
C.R. 6 Ch D
Strover v Harrington [1988] Ch. 390; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 572 Ch D
Strover v Strover [2005] EWHC 860; [2005] W.T.L.R. 1245 Ch
D
Strutt v Whitnell [1975] 1 W.L.R. 870; [1975] 2 All E.R. 510
CA (Civ Div)
Strydom v Vendside Ltd [2009] EWHC 2130 (QB)
Stubbes v Trower, Still & Keeling [1987] I.R.L.R. 321; (1987)
137 N.L.J. 520 CA (Civ Div)
Stubbs v Holywell Ry (1867) L.R. 2 Ex. 311
Sturcke v SW Edwards Ltd (1972) 23 P. & C.R. 185 Ch D
Sturlyn v Albany (1587) Cro.Eliz. 67
Sucden Financial v Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd, [2010] EWHC
2133 (Comm)
Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton [1983] 1 A.C. 444;
[1982] 3 W.L.R. 315; [1982] 3 All E.R. 1; (1982) 44 P. &
C.R. 153; (1983) 265 E.G. 215; (1982) 79 L.S.G. 1175;
(1982) 126 S.J. 512 HL
Sugar v London, Midland & Scottish Ry [1941] 1 All E.R. 172
Sugarman v CJS Investments LLP [2014] EWCA Civ 1239;
[2015] 1 B.C.L.C. 1; [2014] 3 E.G.L.R. 127; [2015] 1 P. &
C.R. DG11
Suggitt v Suggitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1140; [2012] W.T.L.R.
1607
Suiker Unie v Commission. See Cooperatieve Vereniging Suiker
3–059
9–013
22–011
11–075
20–108
22–006
11–045
8–008
9–164
11–125
20–055
13–003
4–005, 9–028, 16–022, 18–033
3–129
18–009, 20–117
10–045
6–037
15–072, 19–106
19–050
3–031
7–038, 18–064
2–079, 2–096, 19–082
7–008
6–012
3–132, 3–134, 3–135, 3–143, 3–146
7–019, 7–022, 7–023, 7–025, 7–026, 7–
Unie UA v Commission of the European Communities
(40/73) Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement SA v NV
Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 A.C. 361; [1966] 2
W.L.R. 944; [1966] 2 All E.R. 61; [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
529; (1966) 110 S.J. 367 HL
Sukuman Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat; sub nom Sumukan
Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat [2007] EWCA Civ 243
Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v Enesa Engenharia SA
[2012] EWCA Civ 638; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 102; [2012] 2 All
E.R. (Comm) 795; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 671; [2012] 2
C.L.C. 216; [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 405
Suleman v Shahsavari [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1181; [1989] 2 All E.R.
460 Ch D
Suleyman Stalskiy, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 609 Sup Ct (BC)
Sullivan v Constable (1932) 49 T.L.R. 369
Sullivan v Henderson [1973] 1 W.L.R. 333; [1973] 1 All E.R. 48
Ch D
Sumitomo Bank Ltd v Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA [1997] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 487; [1996] E.G. 150 (C.S.) QBD (Comm)
Summers v Solomon (1857) 7 E. & B. 879
Sumnall v Statt (1985) 49 P. & C.R. 367; (1984) 271 E.G. 628
CA (Civ Div)
Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 Q.B. 673 CA
028, 7–029, 7–030, 7–031, 7–032, 7–
033, 18–037, 18–054, 18–073
7–008
2–101
20–074
14–065
8–044
21–030, 21–034
9–146, 20–126
16–021
19–084
17–032, 17–035, 17–037, 17–041, 17–042,
17–047, 17–048, 18–110
Sun Alliance Pensions Life & Investments Services Ltd v RJL;
6–020, 6–041
Sun Alliance Pensions Life & Investments Services Ltd v
Anthony Webster [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 410 QBD
Sun Happiness, The. See Etablissement Biret et Cie SA v
Yukeiteru Kaiun KK & Nissui Shipping Corp (The Sun
Happiness)
Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Milano Assicurazioni SpA
16–043
[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 225 QBD (Comm)
Sunderland Association Football Club v Uruguay Montevideo
8–037
FC [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 828 QBD
Sunderland Marine Insurance Co v Kearney (1851) 16 Q.B. 925
14–131
Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rodgers [2014] EWCA Civ 1373; [2015]
18–006, 21–057
I.C.R. 272; [2015] I.R.L.R. 57
Sunrock Aircraft Corp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines Systems
20–041
Denmark-Norway-Sweden [2007] EWCA Civ 882; [2007] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 612
Sunshine Exploration Ltd v Dolly Varden Mines Ltd (1969) 8
20–041
D.L.R. (3d) 441
Super Servant Two, The. See J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV
(The Super Servant Two)
Superhulls Cover Case, The. See Youell v Bland Welch & Co
Ltd (No.2)
Superior Overseas Development Corp and Phillips Petroleum
19–037
(UK) Co v British Gas Corp [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 262 CA
(Civ Div)
Supershield Ltd v Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd [2010]
20–095, 20–098, 20–111
EWCA Civ 7; [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349
Surgicraft Ltd v Paradigm Biovices Inc [2010] EWHC 1291
8–062, 8–065
(Comm)
Suriya & Douglas v Midland Bank Plc [1999] 1 All E.R.
9–162
(Comm.) 612; [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. Bank. 103 CA (Civ Div)
Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Sri Lanka (The Apj Akash) [1977] 1
3–022
W.L.R. 565; [1977] 2 All E.R. 481 QBD (Comm)
Surrey CC and Mole DC v Bredero Homes Ltd [1993] 1 W.L.R. 2–099, 20–013, 20–014, 20–015, 21–063
1361; [1993] 3 All E.R. 705 CA (Civ Div)
Sutton v Hutchinson [2005] EWCA Civ 1773
11–166
Sutton v Sutton [1984] Ch. 184; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 146 Ch D
11–039, 11–048, 21–048
Sutton & Co v Grey [1894] 1 Q.B. 285 CA
5–016
Sutton Housing Trust v Lawrence (1987) 19 H.L.R. 520; (1988)
21–041,21–053
55 P. & C.R. 320 CA (Civ Div)
Sutton LBC v Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd [1997] 6 Bank. L.R.
12–074
156; (1997) 29 H.L.R. 608 CA (Civ Div)
Swain v Law Society [1983] 1 A.C. 598; [1982] 3 W.L.R. 261 11–152, 14–017, 14–082, 14–085, 14–087,
HL
14–129
Swain v West (Butchers) [1936] 1 All E.R. 224 KBD
3–048
Swainland Builders Ltd v Freehold Properties Ltd [2002] EWCA
8–063, 8–064
Civ 560; [2002] 2 E.G.L.R. 71
Swaisland v Dearsley (1861) Beav 430
8–052
Swan v Bank of Scotland (1836) 10 Bli.(N.S.) 627
Swan, The. See Bridges & Salmon Ltd v Owner of The Swan
(The Swan)
Swaziland Central Transport Administration and Alfko
Aussenhandels GmbH v Leila Maritime Co Ltd and
Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (The Leila) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 172 QBD (Comm)
Sweet & Maxwell v Universal News Services [1964] 2 Q.B.
699; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 356 CA
Sweetman v Nathan [2003] EWCA Civ 1115; [2004] C.P. Rep.
7; [2004] P.N.L.R. 7
SWI Ltd v P & I Data Services Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 663;
[2007] B.L.R. 430
Swift v MacBean [1942] 1 K.B. 375 KBD
Swindle v Harrison [1997] 4 All E.R. 705; [1997] P.N.L.R. 641
CA (Civ Div)
Swingcastle Ltd v Alastair Gibson (A Firm) [1991] 2 A.C. 223;
[1991] 2 W.L.R. 1091; [1991] 2 All E.R. 353; [1955–95]
P.N.L.R. 590; [1991] 17 E.G. 83; [1991] C.C.L.R. 55; [1991]
E.G. 46 (C.S.); (1991) 141 N.L.J. 563; (1991) 135 S.J. 542
HL
Swiss Bank Corp v Brink’s-MAT Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 79
QBD (Comm)
Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] A.C. 584; [1981] 2
W.L.R. 893; [1981] 2 All E.R. 449; (1981) 125 S.J. 495 HL
Sybron Corp v Rochem Ltd [1984] Ch. 112; [1983] 3 W.L.R.
713 CA (Civ Div)
Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin [2012] EWHC 3443 (Ch)
Sykes v Beadon (1879) L.R. 11 Ch. D. 170 Ch D
Sykes v Midland Bank Executor & Trustee Co Ltd [1971] 1
Q.B. 113; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 273 CA (Civ Div)
Sykes (Basil Landon) v DPP; sub nom R. v Sykes (Basil
13–012
3–095
2–081, 18–038, 21–042
11–113
17–040
19–058
20–094
9–070
7–025, 14–073
14–140, 15–017, 21–020
3–048, 9–137, 9–162
9–009
11–008, 11–110, 11–150
20–094
3–045
Landon) [1962] A.C. 528; [1961] 3 W.L.R. 371 HL
Sylvan Crest Sand & Gravel Co v United States, 150 F. 2d. 642
2–022
(1945)
Sylvia Shipping Co Ltd v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd; sub nom
20–098, 20–111
The Sylvia [2010] EWHC 542 (Comm); [2010] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 81
Sylvia, The. See Sylvia Shipping Co Ltd v Progress Bulk
Carriers Ltd (The Sylvia)
Symbian Ltd v Christensen [2000] U.K.C.L.R. 879; [2001]
11–064, 11–084, 21–058
I.R.L.R. 77 CA (Civ Div)
Symes v Hughes; Symes v Hughes (1869–70) L.R. 9 Eq. 475, Ct
11–138
of Chancery
Symington & Co v Union Insurance Society of Canton (1928)
8–064
34 Comm.Cas. 233
Symon’s Case. See Asiatic Banking Corp, Re
Synge v Synge [1894] 1 Q.B. 466 CA
4–017, 17–081, 17–092
Syrett v Egerton [1957] 1 W.L.R. 1130; [1957] 3 All E.R. 331
11–061
DC
Syros Shipping Co SA v Elaghill Trading Co (The Proodos C) 3–038, 3–048, 3–088, 3–089, 10–002, 17–
[1981] 3 All E.R. 189; [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 390 QBD
063
(Comm)
Systems Reliability Holdings v Smith [1990] I.R.L.R. 377 Ch D
Sze Hai Tong Bank v Rambler Cycle Co [1959] A.C. 576;
[1959] 3 W.L.R. 214 PC (Sing)
T (A Minor) v Surrey CC; Harrison v Surrey CC [1994] 4 All
E.R. 577; [1994] 2 F.C.R. 1306 QBD
T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment), Re; sub nom T (Consent to
Medical Treatment) (Adult Patient), Re [1993] Fam. 95;
[1992] 3 W.L.R. 782 CA (Civ Div)
T Choithram International SA v Pagarani; sub nom Pagarani, Re
[2001] 1 W.L.R. 1; [2001] 2 All E.R. 492 PC (BVI)
T Comedy (UK) Ltd v Easy Managed Transport Ltd [2007]
EWHC 611 (Comm); [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 397
T Lucas & Co Ltd v Mitchell [1974] Ch. 129; [1972] 3 W.L.R.
934 CA (Civ Div)
T Mahesan S/O Thambiah v Malaysia Government Officers’
Cooperative Housing Society [1979] A.C. 374; [1978] 2
W.L.R. 444 PC (Mal)
T&N Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Plc [2002] EWHC 2420;
[2002] C.L.C. 1342 Ch D
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009]
H.C.A. 8
Taberna Europe CDO II Plc v Selskabet (Formerly Roskilde
Bank A/S) (In Bankruptcy) [2015] EWHC 871 (Comm)
Tackey v McBain [1912] A.C. 186 HL
Taddy & Co v Sterious & Co [1904] 1 Ch. 354 Ch D
Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Kamsing Knitting Factory [1979]
A.C. 91; [1978] 2 W.L.R. 62; [1978] 1 All E.R. 515; (1977)
121 S.J. 662 PC (HK)
Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd (No.1)
[1986] A.C. 80; [1985] 3 W.L.R. 317 PC (HK)
Tailby v Official Receiver; sub nom Official Receiver as Tr of
11–068, 11–070, 11–075
7–025, 7–028, 7–030
20–097
10–023
15–028, 15–030, 21–046
14–134
11–075, 11–161, 11–162
16–098
11–050
20–041
9–006, 9–044
9–029
14–062
20–076
6–045, 20–123
11–061, 15–025, 21–024
the Estate of Izon (A Bankrupt) v Tailby (1888) L.R. 13 App.
Cas. 523 HL
Taiwan Scot Co Ltd v The Masters Golf Co Ltd [2009] EWCA
Civ 685
Takaro Properties Ltd v Rowling (1986) 1 N.Z.L.R. 22
Talbot Underwriting Ltd v Nausch Hogan & Murray Inc (The
Jascon 5) [2006] EWCA Civ 889; [2006] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
751; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 195
Tallis v Tallis (1853) 1 E. & B. 391
Tamplin v James (1880) L.R. 15 Ch. D. 215; [1874–80] All E.R.
Rep. 562 CA
Tamplin SS Co Ltd v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Co. See FA
Tamplin Steamship Co Ltd v Anglo Mexican Petroleum
Products Co Ltd
Tamvaco v Lucas (1859) 1 E. & E. 581
Tancred v Delagoa Bay & East Africa Ry (1889) L.R. 23 Q.B.D.
239 QBD
Tandrin Aviation Holdings Ltd v Aero Toy Store LLC [2010]
EWHC 40 (Comm); [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 668
Tang Man Sit (Deceased) v Capacious Investments Ltd [1996]
A.C. 514; [1996] 2 W.L.R. 192 PC (HK)
Tankreederei Ahrenkeil GmbH v Frahuil SA (The Multitank
Holsatia) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 486 QBD (Comm)
Tanner v Moore (1846) 9 Q.B. 1
Tanner v Tanner (No.1) [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1346; [1975] 3 All E.R.
776; (1975) 5 Fam. Law 193; (1975) 119 S.J. 391 CA (Civ
Div)
Tappenden (t/a English & American Autos) v Artus [1964] 2
Q.B. 185; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 685 CA
Targe Towing Ltd v Marine Blast Ltd. See Marine Blast Ltd v
Targe Towing Ltd
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] A.C. 421; [1995] 3
W.L.R. 352; [1995] 3 All E.R. 785; [1995] C.L.C. 1052;
(1995) 139 S.J.L.B. 195; [1995] N.P.C. 136 HL
Targett v Torfaen BC [1992] 3 All E.R. 27; (1992) 24 H.L.R.
164 CA (Civ Div)
Tartsinis v Navona Management Co [2015] EWHC 57 (Comm)
Tasker v Scott (1815) 6 Taunt. 234
Tate v Williamson (1866–67) L.R. 2 Ch. App. 55, Lord
Chancellor
Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council; sub nom
Tate & Lyle Food & Distribution Ltd v Greater London
Council [1983] 2 A.C. 509; [1983] 2 W.L.R. 649; [1983] 1
All E.R. 1159; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 117; 81 L.G.R. 4434;
(1983) 46 P. & C.R. 243 HL
Tate & Lyle Ltd v Hain Steamship Co Ltd; sub nom Hain
Steamship Co v Tate & Lyle Ltd [1936] 2 All E.R. 597;
(1936) 55 Ll. L. Rep. 159; 52 T.L.R. 617; 41 Com. Cas. 350;
[1936] W.N. 210 HL
Tatlock v Harris (1789) 3 T.R. 174
Tatra, The. See Arctic Shipping Co Ltd v Mobilia AB Tattersall
v Drysdale (The Tatra)
20–137
20–003
16–058
11–063
8–056
17–033
15–012
19–036
9–033, 20–010, 20–035
2–003, 2–005, 2–047, 2–047, 2–075, 3–
083
3–018
3–024, 3–123, 3–139, 3–145, 4–017, 4–
019, 11–045
14–134
20–094
14–049, 20–126
8–065, 8–066
11–007
10–024, 10–026
14–046
17–044
15–003
Tay Salmon Fisheries Co Ltd v Speedie, 1929 S.C. 593; 1929
19–059
S.L.T. 484 IH (1 Div)
Taylor, Ex p. (1856) 8 D.M. & G. 254
12–030
Taylor v Allon [1966] 1 Q.B. 304; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 598 DC
2–018
Taylor v Bhail [1996] C.L.C. 377; 50 Con. L.R. 70 CA (Civ Div)
11–015, 11–152
Taylor v Bowers (1875–76) L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 291 CA
11–140
Taylor v Brewer (1813) 1 M. & S. 290
4–020, 16–085
Taylor v Burton [2015] EWCA Civ 142
4–009
Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 122 E.R. 309; (1863) 3 B. & S. 826
19–003, 19–004, 19–007, 19–010, 19–011,
KB
19–032, 19–056, 19–059, 19–085, 19–
093, 19–102, 19–118, 19–121
Taylor v Chester (1868–69) L.R. 4 Q.B. 309 QB
11–143, 11–144, 11–166
Taylor v Dickens [1998] 1 F.L.R. 806; [1998] 3 F.C.R. 455 Ch D
3–127
Taylor v Jones (1875–76) L.R. 1 C.P.D. 87 CPD
2–015
Taylor v Laird (1856) 25 L.J.Ex. 329
17–035
Taylor v Motability Finance Ltd [2004] EWHC 2619 QBD
18–016, 22–022
(Comm)
Taylor v National Union of Seamen [1967] 1 W.L.R. 532; [1967]
16–104, 21–036
1 All E.R. 767 Ch D
Taylor v Oakes Roncoroni & Co (1922) 127 L.T. 267
17–027, 17–061
Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1300; [2006]
E.M.L.R. 4
Taylor v Webb [1937] 2 K.B. 283 CA
Taylor & Sons v Bank of Athens; Pennoid Bros v Bank of
Athens (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 88; (1922) 27 Com. Cas. 142
KBD
Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd; Old
& Campbell Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society
[1982] Q.B. 133; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 576; [1981] 1 All E.R.
897; [1981] Com. L.R. 34; (1979) 251 E.G. 159 Ch D
TC Industrial Plant Pty Ltd v Robert’s (Queensland) Ltd [1964]
A.L.R. 1083
TCB Ltd v Gray [1987] Ch. 458; [1987] 3 W.L.R. 1144 CA (Civ
Div)
Teacher v Calder (1889) 1 F.(H.L.) 39
Technip-Coflexip SA v Tube Tech International Ltd. See Tube
Tech International Ltd v Technip-Coflexip SA
Techno Land Improvements v British Leyland (UK) Ltd (1979)
252 E.G. 805
Technotrade Ltd v Larkstore Ltd. See Offer-Hoar v Larkstore
Ltd
Teheran-Europe Co Ltd v ST Belton (Tractors) Ltd (No.1)
[1968] 2 Q.B. 545; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 205 CA (Civ Div)
Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol [2009] EWCA Civ
1209; [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357
Tekron Resources Ltd v Guinea Investment Co Ltd [2003]
EWHC 2577; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 26 QBD
Tektrol Ltd (formerly Atto Power Controls Ltd) v International
Insurance Co of Hanover Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 845; [2006]
1 All E.R. (Comm) 780; [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 701
Tele 2 International Card Co SA v Post Office Ltd [2009]
EWCA Civ 9
2–107
17–019
20–008, 20–052
3–088, 3–120, 3–127, 3–133, 3–134, 3–
149, 3–150, 3–151
20–035
3–090, 3–095
20–004
20–071
16–055, 16–076
2–021, 2–075
11–058
7–015
14–023, 18–085, 20–063
Telephone Rentals v Burgess Salmon, Independent, 22 April
1987 CA (Civ Div)
Telfair Shipping Corp v Athos Shipping Co SA (The Athos)
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 CA (Civ Div)
Temperance Loan Fund Ltd v Rose [1932] 2 K.B. 522 CA
Tenant v Elliott (1791) 1 B. & P 3
Tenax Steamship Co v Owners of the Motor Vessel Brimnes
(The Brimnes); sub nom Tenax Steamship Co v Reinante
Transoceanica Navegacion SA (The Brimnes) [1975] Q.B.
929; [1974] 3 W.L.R. 613; [1974] 3 All E.R. 88; [1974] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 241; (1974) 118 S.J. 808 CA (Civ Div)
Tennant Radiant Heat v Warrington Development Corp [1988] 1
E.G.L.R. 41; [1988] 11 E.G. 71 CA (Civ Div)
Tennants (Lancashire) Ltd v CS Wilson & Co Ltd; sub nom
Wilson & Co Ltd v Tennants (Lancashire) Ltd [1917] A.C.
495 HL
Tennent v Tennents (1870–75) L.R. 2 Sc. 6 HL
Tercon Contractors Ltd v British Columbia (2010) 315 D.L.R.
(4th) 385
Terence Ltd v Nelson (1937) 157 L.T. 254
Terkol Rederierne v Petroleo Brasileiro SA and Frota Nacional
de Petroleiros (The Badagry) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 CA
(Civ Div)
Termagent, The (1914) 1 Com. Cas. 239
Terrapin International Ltd v IRC [1976] 1 W.L.R. 665; [1976] 2
All E.R. 461 Ch D
Territorial & Auxiliary Forces Association v Nichols. See
London County Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association
v Nichols
Tesco Stores v Gibson (William) & Son (1970) 214 E.G. 835
Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and
Customs Commrs [2012] UKSC 19; [2012] 2 A.C. 337;
[2012] 2 W.L.R. 1149; [2012] 3 All E.R. 909; [2012] Bus.
L.R. 1033; [2012] S.T.C. 1362; [2012] B.T.C. 312; [2012]
S.T.I. 1707
Tetley v Shand (1871) 25 L.T. 658
Tetley & Co v British Trade Corp (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 678
KBD
Texaco v Mulberry Filling Station [1972] 1 W.L.R. 814; [1972]
1 All E.R. 513 Ch D
Texaco Ltd v Eurogulf Shipping Co Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
541 QBD (Comm)
Texaco Melbourne, The. See Att Gen of Ghana v Texaco
Overseas Tankships Ltd (The Texaco Melbourne)
Texas Instruments Ltd v Nason (Europe) Ltd [1991] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 146 QBD
TFL Prosperity, The. See Tor Line A/B v Alltrans Group of
Canada Ltd (The TFL Prosperity)
TFS Derivatives Ltd v Morgan [2004] EWHC 3181; [2005]
I.R.L.R. 246 QBD
Thacker v Hardy (1878–79) L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 685 CA
Thackwell v Barclays Bank Plc [1986] 1 All E.R. 676 QBD
18–025
3–081
13–012
11–151
2–026, 2–060, 18–063, 18–080
20–127
19–029, 19–032
3–016, 9–153
7–023
9–052
19–010, 19–032, 19–054
14–073
3–173
2–109
22–017
16–097, 17–004
16–038
11–082, 11–101, 21–054
17–076, 20–054
14–060
11–078, 11–084
16–092
11–112, 11–150
Thai-Europe Tapioca Service Ltd v Seine Navigation Co Inc
(The Maritime Winner) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 506 QBD
(Comm)
Thai Maparn Trading Co Ltd v Louis Drefyus Commodities
Asia Pte Ltd [2011] EWHC 2494 (Comm); [2011] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 704
Thai Trading Co v Taylor [1998] Q.B. 781; [1998] 2 W.L.R. 893
CA (Civ Div)
Thake v Maurice [1986] Q.B. 644; [1986] 2 W.L.R. 337; [1986]
1 All E.R. 479; (1986) 83 L.S.G. 123; (1986) 136 N.L.J. 92
CA (Civ Div)
Thames Sack & Bag Co Ltd v Knowles (1918) 88 L.J.K.B. 585
Thames Tideway Properties Ltd v Serfaty & Partners [1999] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 110 CC (Central London)
Thames Valley Power Ltd v Total Gas & Power Ltd [2005]
EWHC 2208; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 441 QBD (Comm)
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Reynolds [1996] I.R.L.R. 186 EAT
Thanakharn Kasikorn Thai Chamkat (Mahachon) v Akai
Holdings Ltd [2010] HKFCA 64; [2011] 1 H.K.L.C. 357
Tharros Shipping Co Ltd v Bias Shipping Ltd (The Griparion)
(No.2) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533 QBD (Comm Ct)
Tharros Shipping Co Ltd v Den Norske Bank Plc [1997] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 541
Thavorn v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 259 QBD (Comm)
Themehelp Ltd v West [1996] Q.B. 84
Thirkell v Cambi [1919] 2 K.B. 591
Thomas v Brown (1875–76) L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 714 QBD
Thomas v Cook (1828) 8 B. & C. 728
Thomas v Farr Plc [2007] EWCA Civ 118; [2007] I.C.R. 932
Thomas v Harrowing SS Co. See William Thomas & Sons v
Harrowing Steamship Co
Thomas v Ken Thomas Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1504; [2006] 42
E.G. 244 (C.S.)
Thomas v Thomas (1655) Sty. 461
Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 Q.B. 851
Thomas v University ofBradford; sub nom Thomas v Bradford
University [1987] A.C. 795; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 677 HL
Thomas Bates & Son Ltd v Wyndham’s (Lingerie) Ltd [1981] 1
W.L.R. 505
Thomas Marshall (Exports) Ltd v Guinle [1979] Ch. 227; [1978]
3 W.L.R. 116 Ch D
Thomas P Gonzalez Corp v FR Waring (International) Pty Ltd
[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 160 CA (Civ Div)
Thomas Wilson Sons & Co v Owners of Cargo of the Xantho
(The Xantho) (1887) L.R. 12 App.Cas. 503 HL
Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries Ltd [1996] 2 All E.R. 573
Ch D
Thompson v ASDA-MFI Group Plc [1988] Ch. 241; [1988] 2
W.L.R. 1093 Ch D
Thompson v Corroon (1993) 66 P. & C.R. 445; [1993] N.P.C. 54
2–003, 2–075
17–062, 18–053
11–013, 11–033
6–043, 17–069
21–023
7–022
19–036, 21–020, 21–021, 21–026
17–047
16–027
20–116
15–065
13–036, 14–041
21–020, 21–054
5–024
5–026, 22–001
5–015
11–075
18–080
14–016
3–002, 3–004, 3–010, 3–011, 3–023, 3–
027
11–054
2–096, 8–062, 8–069
18–005
20–131,20–143
17–069
9–012, 9–061, 9–079, 9–106, 9–134, 9–
141
2–107, 2–110, 18–005
18–015
PC (WI)
Thompson v Foy [2009] EWHC 1076 (Ch)
Thompson v Hakewill (1865) 19 C.B.(N.S.) 713
Thompson v Hickman [1907] 1 Ch. 550 Ch D
Thompson v London Midland & Scottish Ry Co [1930] 1 K.B.
41 CA
Thompson v Percival (1834) 5 B. & Ad. 925
Thompson v T Lohan (Plant Hire) and Hurdiss (JW) [1987] 1
W.L.R. 649; [1987] 2 All E.R. 631; [1987] I.R.L.R. 148;
(1987) 84 L.S.G. 979; (1987) 131 S.J. 358 CA (Civ Div)
Thomson v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ
555; [2005] P.N.L.R. 38
Thomson v Davenport (1829) 9 B. & C. 78
Thomson v Eastwood (1876–77) L.R. 2 App. Cas. 215 HL (UKIrl)
Thor Navigation Inc v Ingosstrakh Insurance Co Ltd [2005]
EWHC 19; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 547 QBD (Comm)
Thorensen Car Ferries v Weymouth Portland BC [1977] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 614 QBD (Comm)
Thoresen & Co (Bangkok) Ltd v Fathom Marine Co Ltd [2004]
EWHC 167; [2004] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 935; [2004] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 622 QBD (Comm)
Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937] A.C. 797; [1937] 3
All E.R. 157; (1938) 26 Cr. App. R. 51 HL
Thornely, Re [1975] C.L.J. 26
Thorner v Field (1612) 1 Bulst. 120
Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 776; [2009]
3 All E.R. 945; [2009] 2 F.L.R. 405; [2009] 3 F.C.R. 123;
[2009] 2 P. & C.R. 24; [2009] 2 E.G.L.R. 111; [2009]
W.T.L.R. 713; (2009–10) 12 I.T.E.L.R. 62; [2009] Fam. Law
583; [2009] 13 E.G. 142 (C.S.); (2009) 159 N.L.J. 514;
(2009) 153(12) S.J.L.B. 30; [2009] N.P.C. 50; [2009] 2 P. &
C.R. DG2
Thornett v Yuills Ltd; sub nom Arbitration between Thornett and
Fehr & Yuills Ltd, Re [1921] 1 K.B. 219; (1920) 5 Ll. L.
Rep. 47 KBD
Thornett & Fehr and Yuills Ltd, Re. See Thornett v Yuills Ltd
Thornton v Jenkyns (1840) 1 Man. & G. 166
Thornton v Kempster (1814) 5 Taunt. 786
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 Q.B. 163; [1971] 2
W.L.R. 585; [1971] 1 All E.R. 686; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
289; [1971] R.T.R. 79; (1970) 115 S.J. 75 CA (Civ Div)
Thornton Springer v NEM Insurance Co Ltd [2000] 2 All E.R.
489; [2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 486; [2000] C.L.C. 975;
[2000] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 590; (2000) 97(13) L.S.G. 42;
(2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 147
Thoroughgood’s Case (1584) 2 Co.Rep. 9a
Thorp v Thorp (1702) 12 Mod. 445
Thorpe v Fasey [1949] Ch. 649; [1949] 2 All E.R. 393 Ch D
Thorpe v Jackson (1837) 2 Y. & C. Ex. 553
Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No.1) [1996] Q.B. 292;
[1995] 3 W.L.R. 650; [1995] 4 All E.R. 312; [1995] C.L.C.
3–133, 10–013, 10–023
13–021, 13–022, 13–023
8–071
2–012, 7–006, 7–008, 7–044
3–165
7–037, 7–070
8–020, 9–012, 9–075, 20–024
16–075
10–022, 10–026
3–095
2–017, 3–045, 3–046
2–089
10–002
3–009
3–017
3–124, 3–126, 3–127, 3–132, 3–136, 3–
141, 3–143, 3–147, 3–149, 5–011
17–033, 20–069
3–018
8–054
2–011, 2–012, 7–009, 7–044
3–040, 3–088, 3–095, 3–098
8–079
3–008
22–005
13–010
15–007, 15–060
99 CA (Civ Div)
Thunderbird Industries LLC v Simoco Digital UK Ltd; sub nom
Simoco Digital UK Ltd, Re [2004] EWHC 209; [2004] 1
B.C.L.C. 541 Ch D (Companies Ct)
Thurstan v Notts PBBS. See Nottingham Permanent Benefit
Building Society v Thurstan
Ticehurst & Thompson v British Telecommunications. See
British Telecommunications Plc v Ticehurst
Tiedemann & Ledermann Frères, Re [1899] 2 Q.B. 66 QBD
Tiffany Investments Ltd v Bircham & Co Nominees (No.2) Ltd
[2003] EWCA Civ 1759; [2004] 2 P. & C.R. 10
Tigana Ltd v Decoro Ltd [2003] EWHC 23; [2003] E.C.C. 23
QBD
Tigris International NV v China Southern Airlines Co Ltd
[2014] EWCA Civ 1649
Tilcon Ltd v Land and Real Estate Investments Ltd [1987] 1
W.L.R. 46; [1987] 1 All E.R. 615 CA (Civ Div)
Tilney Engineering v Admos Knitting Machinery [1987] 2 C.L.
21
Tilson v Alstom Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 1308
Timber Shipping Co SA v London and Overseas Freighters; sub
nom London & Overseas Freighters Ltdv Timber Shipping
Co SA [1972] A.C. 1; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1360; [1971] 2 All
E.R. 599; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 523; (1971) 115 S.J. 404
HL
17–086
16–045
2–094
16–108
16–098
18–009, 18–021
3–100
14–006
18–005
Timeload Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc [1995]
6–044, 6–045, 7–047, 7–066, 7–067, 18–
E.M.L.R. 459 CA (Civ Div)
069
Timmins v Moreland Street Property Co Ltd [1958] Ch. 110;
5–025
[1957] 3 W.L.R. 678 CA
Timothy v Simpson (1834) 6 C.&P. 499
2–009
Timpson’s Exrs v Yerbury (Inspector of Taxes) [1936] 1 K.B.
15–018, 15–019
645 CA
Tingley v Muller [1917] 2 Ch. 144 CA
11–059
Tinline v White Cross Insurance Association Ltd [1921] 3 K.B.
11–025
327 KBD
Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 L.T. 271
2–019, 2–041, 2–049, 2–062
Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 A.C. 340; [1993] 3 W.L.R. 126;
11–112, 11–113, 11–140, 11–145, 11–147,
[1993] 3 All E.R. 65; [1993] 2 F.L.R. 963; (1994) 68 P. &
11–149, 11–150
C.R. 412; [1993] E.G. 118 (C.S.); [1993] N.P.C. 97 HL
Tipping v Eckersley (1855) 2 K. & J. 264
21–051
Tippins v Coates (1853) 18 Beav 401
13–003
Titan Europe 2006–3 Plc v Colliers International UK Plc (In
14–033
Liquidation) [2014] EWHC 3106 (Comm); [2015] P.N.L.R.
1
Titan Steel Wheels Ltd v RBS [2010] EWHC 211 (Comm);
9–117
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 92
Tito v Waddell (No.2); Tito v Att Gen [1977] Ch. 106; [1977] 2
2–079, 2–096, 14–138, 15–077, 15–081,
W.L.R. 496; [1977] 3 All E.R. 129; (1976) 121 S.J. 10 Ch D
17–019, 20–004, 20–041, 21–028, 21–
030, 21–041, 21–042
Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd [1975] Ch. 146; [1974] 2
4–008
W.L.R. 176 CA (Civ Div)
Toepfer v Cremer. See Alfred C Toepfer v Peter Cremer GmbH
18–035
& Co
Toepfer v Warinco AG [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 569 QBD (Comm)
Toepfer (Hamburg) v Lenersan-Poortman NV (Rotterdam);
Toepfer (Hamburg) v Verheijdens Veervoeder
Commissiehandel (Rotterdam) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 143
CA (Civ Div)
Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900)
Ltd; Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) Ltd
v Tolhurst [1903] A.C. 414 HL
Tomlinson v Gill (1756) Amb. 330
Toms v Wilson (1862) 4 B. & S. 442
Tonkin v UK Insurance Ltd [2006] EWHC 1120; [2006] 2 All
E.R. (Comm) 550 QBD (TCC)
Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd.
SeeTungsten Electric Co Ltd v Tool Metal Manufacturing Co
Ltd (No.3)
Toomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd (No.2) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 88; [1995] 4 Re. L.R. 314 QBD (Comm)
Tootal Clothing Ltd v Guinea Properties Management Ltd
(1992) 64 P. & C.R. 452; [1992] 41 E.G. 117 CA (Civ Div)
Tooth v Hallett (1868–69) L.R. 4 Ch. App. 242 CA in Chancery
Toprak Mahsulleri Ofisi v Finagrain Compagnie Commerciale
Agricole et Financière SA [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 98 CA (Civ
Div)
3–074, 18–084
18–054, 18–055, 18–103
15–054
14–081
17–002
3–085
9–123
5–012
15–038
20–070, 20–074
Tor Line A/B v Alltrans Group of Canada Ltd (The TFL
7–030
Prosperity) [1984] 1 W.L.R. 48; [1984] 1 All E.R. 103;
[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 123; (1984) 81 L.S.G. 435; (1984)
134 N.L.J. 34; (1984) 128 S.J. 18 HL
Torenia, The. See Aktieselskabet de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v
Bajamar Compania Naviera SA (The Torenia)
Torkington v Magee [1903] 1 K.B. 644 CA
15–015, 15–064
Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins [1969] 2 Ch. 106; [1969] 2
14–135
W.L.R. 289; [1969] 1 All E.R. 522; 6 K.I.R. 15; (1968) 113
S.J. 52 CA (Civ Div)
Torrance v Bolton (1872–73) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 118 CA in
8–028
Chancery
Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corp (The Gregos)
17–075, 18–036, 18–037, 18–050, 18–053,
[1994] 1 W.L.R. 1465; [1994] 4 All E.R. 998; [1995] 1
18–054, 18–055, 20–110
Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ; [1994] C.L.C. 1188; (1994) 144 N.L.J. 1550
HL
Total Gas Marketing Ltd v Arco British Ltd [1998] 2 Lloyd’s
2–104, 2–107, 6–011, 19–051
Rep. 209; [1998] C.L.C. 1275 HL
Total Liban SA v Vitol Energy SA [2001] Q.B. 643; [2000] 3
15–064, 20–057
W.L.R. 1142 QBD (Comm)
Total Oil Great Britain Ltd v Thompson Garages (Biggin Hill)
18–014, 18–037, 21–026
Ltd [1972] 1 Q.B. 318; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 979; [1971] 3 All
E.R. 1226; (1971) 115 S.J. 848 CA (Civ Div)
Total Transport Corp v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (The Eurus)
20–097, 20–108, 21–004
[1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351; [1998] C.L.C. 90, (Civ Div)
Touche v Metropolitan Ry Warehousing Co (1870–71) L.R. 6
16–047
Ch. App. 671, Lord Chancellor
Touche Ross & Co v Baker (Colin) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 207;
13–002, 14–010
(1992) 89(28) L.S.G. 31 HL
Toulmin v Anderson (1808) 1 Taunt. 227
Toulmin v Millar; sub nom Millar v Toulmin (1887) L.R. 12
App. Cas. 746 HL
Tower Hamlets LBC v British Gas Corp, Times, 14 December
1983 CA (Civ Div)
Townends Group Ltd v Cobb; sub nom Townends Grove Ltd v
Cobb [2004] EWHC 3432; (2005) 102(4) L.S.G. 30 Ch D
Townsend’s Case (1871) L.R. 13 Eq. 148
Tracomin SA v Anton C Neilson A/S [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 195;
(1984) 134 N.L.J. 705 QBD (Comm)
Tradax Export SA v André et Cie SA; sub nom Andre et Cie SA
v Tradax Export SA [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 CA (Civ Div)
Tradax Export SA v Dorada Compania Naviera SA of Panama
(The Lutetian) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 140; [1982] Com. L.R.
130 QBD (Comm)
Tradax Export SA v European Grain & Shipping Ltd [1983] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 100 QBD (Comm)
Tradax Export SA v Italgrani di Francesco Ambrosio; Italgrani
Di Francesco Ambrosio V Sosimage Spa; Sosimage SpA v
Italgrani di Francesco Ambrosio [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 112
CA (Civ Div)
Tradax Internacional SA v Goldschmidt SA [1977] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 604 QBD (Comm)
Trade and Transport Inc v Iino Kaiun Kaisha Ltd (The Angelia)
[1973] 1 W.L.R. 210; [1973] 2 All E.R. 144; [1972] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 154; (1972) 117 S.J. 123 QBD
Trade Indemnity Co Ltd v Workington Harbour and Dock Board
(No.1); sub nom Workington Harbour and Dock Board v
Trade Indemnity Co Ltd [1937] A.C. 1; [1936] 1 All E.R.
454; (1936) 54 Ll. L. Rep. 103 HL
Trademark Licensing Co Ltd v Leofelis SA [2012] EWCA Civ
985
Tradigrain SA v Intertek Testing Services Canada Ltd [2007]
EWCA Civ 154
Tradigrain SA v King Diamond Marine Ltd (The Spiros C); sub
nom Tradigrain SA v King Diamond Shipping SA (The
Spiros C) [2000] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 542; [2000] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 319 CA (Civ Div)
Tradigrain SA v State Trading Corp of India [2005] EWHC
2206; [2006] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 197; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
216 QBD (Comm)
Trado, The. See Marseille Fret SA v D Oltmann Schiffahrts
GmbH & Co KG (The Trado)
Trafalgar House Construction (Regions) Ltd v General Surety &
Guarantee Co Ltd [1996] A.C. 199; [1995] 3 W.L.R. 204 HL
Trafigura Beheer BV v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [2007]
EWCA Civ 794; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 622; [1995] 3 All
E.R. 737; [1995] C.L.C. 925; 73 B.L.R. 32; 44 Con. L.R.
104; (1995) 92(28) L.S.G. 39; (1995) 145 N.L.J. 1221;
(1995) 139 S.J.L.B. 177
Traill v Baring (1864) 4 D.J. & S. 318
11–166
16–086
19–037
11–078, 11–161
2–036
2–005, 2–048
19–036
3–094, 18–063, 18–098
18–041, 18–052
18–051
18–053, 21–007
7–020, 7–021, 17–060, 17–070, 17–074,
18–050, 19–068
9–149, 9–154
17–065
7–016, 7–036, 7–038
6–043, 14–021, 14–040
20–143
9–149
7–025, 20–065
9–020, 9–142
Tramp Shipping Corp v Greenwich Marine Inc (The New
17–073
Horizon) [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1042; [1975] 2 All E.R. 989 CA
(Civ Div)
Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd [1952] 2 Q.B.
17–015, 17–016, 17–020, 17–052, 20–054,
297; [1952] 1 All E.R. 970; [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 348;
20–062, 20–113
[1952] 1 T.L.R. 1066; (1952) 96 S.J. 312 CA
Transag Haulage Ltd (IAR) v Leyland DAF Finance Plc [1994]
18–066
B.C.C. 356; [1994] 2 B.C.L.C. 88 Ch D
Transatlantic Finance Corp v United States of America, 363 F.
19–031
2d. 312 (1966)
Transcatalana de Commercio SA v Incobrasa Industrial e
3–085, 18–087, 18–090
Commercial Brazileira SA (The Vera) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
215; [1994] C.L.C. 400 QBD (Comm)
Transcontinental Underwriting Agency v Grand Union
16–069
Insurance Co [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 409; [1987] 1 F.T.L.R.
35 QBD (Comm)
Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) 20–023, 20–098, 20–101, 20–102, 20–105,
[2008] UKHL 48; [2009] 1 A.C. 61; [2008] 3 W.L.R. 345;
20–109, 20–110, 20–111, 20–134
[2008] 4 All E.R. 159; [2008] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 753;
[2008] Bus. L.R. 1395; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 275; [2008] 2
C.L.C. 1; (2008) 105(28) L.S.G. 14; (2008) 158 N.L.J. 1040;
(2008) 152(29) S.J.L.B. 30
Transformers and Rectifiers Ltd v Needs Ltd [2015] EWHC 269
2–021, 7–008, 7–011
(TCC); [2015] B.L.R. 336; [2015] T.C.L.R. 2; 159 Con. L.R.
33
Transgrain Shipping BV v Deiulemar Shipping SPA (In
3–098
Liquidation) [2014] EWHC 4202 (Comm); [2015] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 461
Transworld Oil v North Bay Shipping Corp (The Rio Claro)
20–101, 20–108
[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 173 QBD (Comm)
Treacy v Corcorran (1874) I.R. 8 C.L. 40
17–047
Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd v ADT Fire & Security Plc [2012]
2–021, 20–126
EWCA Civ 1158; [2012] B.L.R. 441; 144 Con. L.R. 1
Tredegar Iron & Coal Co Ltd v Hawthorn Bros & Co (1902) 18
20–076
T.L.R. 716
Trego v Hunt [1896] A.C. 7 HL
11–068, 21–042
Trendtex Trading Corp v Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] Q.B.
3–159
529; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 356 CA (Civ Div)
Trendtex Trading Corp v Crédit Suisse [1982] A.C. 679; [1981] 11–012, 11–036, 15–058, 15–059, 15–065
3 W.L.R. 766; [1981] 3 All E.R. 520; [1981] Com. L.R. 262;
(1981) 125 S.J. 761 HL
Trepca Mines Ltd (No.2), Re; sub nom Radomir Nicola Pachitch
11–166
(Pasic)’s Application, Re [1963] Ch. 199; [1962] 3 W.L.R.
955 CA
Triad Shipping Co v Stellar Chartering & Brokerage Inc (The
6–046
Island Archon) [1995] 1 All E.R. 595; [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
227 CA (Civ Div)
Triangle Steel & Supply Co v Korean United Lines Inc (1985)
14–050
63 B.C.L.R. 66 Sup Ct (BC)
Tribe v Taylor (1875–76) L.R. 1 C.P.D. 505, CPD
16–086
Tribe v Tribe [1996] Ch. 107; [1995] 3 W.L.R. 913 CA (Civ
11–140, 11–141, 11–146, 11–147, 11–148,
Div)
11–149
Trident Beauty, The. See Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v
Creditcorp Ltd (The Trident Beauty)
Trident General Ins Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165
14–017, 14–056, 14–082, 14–124
C.L.R. 107
Trident Turboprop (Dublin) Ltd v First Flight Couriers Ltd
7–034, 7–090, 9–124
[2008] EWHC 1686 (Comm); [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 581
Triggs v Staines UDC; sub nom Staines UDC’s Agreement, Re
11–155, 12–082
[1969] 1 Ch. 10; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 1433 Ch D
Trollope & Colls Ltd v North West Metropolitan Regional
6–033, 6–039
Hospital Board [1973] 1 W.L.R. 601; [1973] 2 All E.R. 260
HL
Troop v Gibson [1986] 1 E.G.L.R. 1; (1986) 277 E.G. 1134 CA
3–094, 3–097
(Civ Div)
Tropwind, The. See Tropwood AG of Zug v Jade Enterprises Ltd
(The Tropwind)
Tropwood AG of Zug v Jade Enterprises Ltd (The Tropwind)
2–083, 2–086, 2–093, 18–066
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 232; [1982] Com. L.R. 17 CA (Civ
Div)
Trusted v Clifford Chance [2000] W.T.L.R. 1219 Ch D
14–076
Trytel, Re; sub nom Tr of the Property of the Bankrupt, Ex p. v
15–021
Performing Right Society and Soundtrac Film Co [1952] 2
T.L.R. 32; [1952] W.N. 355
Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH; Albert D Gaon & 19–005, 19–006, 19–031, 19–033, 19–067,
19–072, 19–075, 19–091, 19–120
Co v Société Interprofessionelle des Oleagineux Fluides
Alimentaires [1962] A.C. 93; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 633; [1961] 2
All E.R. 179; [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 329; (1961) 105 S.J.
346 HL
Tsavliris v OSA Marine Ltd Unreported 19 January 1996
7–017
TSB Bank Plc v Camfield [1995] 1 W.L.R. 430; [1995] 1 All
9–060, 9–061, 9–087, 9–104, 9–109, 9–
E.R. 951; [1995] 1 F.L.R. 751; [1995] 2 F.C.R. 254; (1995)
118
27 H.L.R. 205; (1995) 92(3) L.S.G. 37; (1995) 145 N.L.J.
215; (1995) 139 S.J.L.B. 15 CA (Civ Div)
TSC Europe (UK) Ltd v Massey [1999] I.R.L.R. 22 Ch D
11–068, 11–073, 11–089
TSG Building Services Plc v South Anglia Housing Ltd [2013]
6–042
EWHC 1151 (TCC); [2013] B.L.R. 484; 148 Con. L.R. 228
TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASA; sub nom The Sibohelle [2011] EWHC
2–048, 8–039
1150 (Comm); [2011] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 647; [2011] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 220; [2011] Arb. L.R. 35; [2011] C.I.L.L. 3058
Tube Tech International Ltd v Technip-Coflexip SA; sub nom
3–048
Technip-Coflexip SA v Tube Tech International Ltd [2005]
EWCA Civ 1369; 106 Con. L.R. 32
Tudor Grange Holdings Ltd v Citibank NA [1992] Ch. 53;
7–084, 9–015
[1991] 3 W.L.R. 750 Ch D
Tudor Marine Ltd v Tradax Export SA (The Virgo) [1976] 2
16–069
Lloyd’s Rep. 135 CA (Civ Div)
Tufton Associates Ltd v Dilmun Shipping [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
18–082
71 QBD (Comm)
Tufton v Sperni [1952] 2 T.L.R. 516; [1952] W.N. 439 CA
10–023, 10–024
Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 2 Ph. 774; (1848) 18 L.J. Ch. 83
14–138, 14–141
Tullett Prebon Group Ltd v El-Hajjali [2008] EWHC 1924 (QB);
20–137
[2008] I.R.L.R. 760
Tullett Prebon Plc v BGC Brokers LP [2011] EWCA Civ 131;
17–086
[2011] I.R.L.R. 420
Tullis v Jacson [1892] 3 Ch. 441 Ch D
7–042
Tungsten Electric Co Ltd v Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd
3–086, 3–088, 3–114
(No.3); sub nom Tool Metal Manufacture Co Ltd v Tungsten
Electric Co Ltd [1955] 1 W.L.R. 761; [1955] 2 All E.R. 657;
(1955) 72 R.P.C. 209; (1955) 99 S.J. 470 HL
Tunstall v Condon [1980] I.C.R. 786 EAT
16–107
Turcan, Re (1889) L.R. 40 Ch. D. 5 CA
15–050
Turiddu, The. See Cil v Owners of the Turiddu
Turkey v Awadh [2005] EWCA Civ 382; [2005] 2 F.C.R. 7
10–014, 10–020
Turnbull & Co v Duval [1902] A.C. 429 PC (Jam)
10–016
Turner v Commonwealth & British Minerals Ltd [2000] I.R.L.R.
11–078
114 CA (Civ Div)
Turner v Forwood [1951] 1 All E.R. 746; [1951] W.N. 189 CA
3–015, 6–031
Turner v Goldsmith [1891] 1 Q.B. 544 CA
16–091, 19–012, 19–025
Turner v Green [1895] 2 Ch. 205 Ch D
9–156
Turner v Hatton. See LD Turner Ltd v RS Hatton (Bradford) Ltd
Turner v Mason (1845) 14 M. & W. 112
18–037
Turner v Owen (1862) 3 F. & F. 176
3–051
Turner v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
6–048
664; [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. Bank. 231 CA (Civ Div)
Turner v Sawdon & Co [1901] 2 K.B. 653 CA
17–054
Turner v Vaughan (1767) 2 Wils.K.B. 339
11–044
Turner & Co (GB) Ltd v Abi [2010] EWHC 2078 (QB); [2011]
7–101, 7–106
1 C.M.L.R. 17
Turriff Construction Ltd v Regalia Knitting Mills Ltd, 9 B.L.R.
4–021
20; (1971) 222 E.G. 169 QBD
Turtle Offshore SA v Superior Trading Inc [2008] EWHC 3034;
7–028, 7–030
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177
Tweddell v Henderson [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1496; [1975] 2 All E.R.
4–002, 5–022, 5–024
1096 Ch D
Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B. & S. 393
3–023, 14–014, 14–015, 14–016, 14–091
Twins Transport Ltd v Patrick & Brocklehurst (t/a HV&C
14–074
Patrick Estates Developers), 25 B.L.R. 65 QBD
Twintec Ltd v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd [2014] EWHC 10 (TCC);
2–017
[2014] B.L.R. 150; [2014] C.I.L.L. 3476
Twycross v Grant (No.1) (1876–77) L.R. 2 C.P.D. 469 CA
9–065, 9–073
Twyford v Manchester Corp [1946] Ch. 236; [1946] 1 All E.R.
10–011
621 Ch D
Tychi (No. 2), The. See MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v
Polish Ocean Lines
Tye v House (1998) 76 P. & C.R. 188; [1997] 2 E.G.L.R. 171 Ch
3–160, 4–014, 21–019
D
Tyers v Rosedale and Ferryhill Iron Co Ltd (1874–75) L.R. 10
3–072, 5–032, 5–033
Ex. 195 Ex Chamber
Tyrie v Fletcher (1777) 2 Cowp. 666
19–106, 19–110, 22–003
Tzelepi, The. See Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v
Zannis Compania Naviera SA (The Tzelepi)
UBS AG (London Branch) v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig 8–065, 9–031, 9–036, 9–109, 9–126, 16–
GmbH [2014] EWHC 3615 (Comm)
010, 16–018, 16–097, 16–098
UBS Wealth Management UK Ltd v Vestra Wealth LLP [2008]
11–069
EWHC 1974 (QB); [2008] I.R.L.R. 965
UCB Corporate Services Ltd (formerly UCB Bank Plc) v Clyde
5–020, 20–126
& Co [2000] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 257; [2000] Lloyd’s Rep.
P.N. 653 CA (Civ Div)
UCB Corporate Services Ltd v Thomason [2005] EWCA Civ
9–060, 9–077
225; [2005] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 601
UCB Corporate Services Ltd v Williams; sub nom Williams v
9–024,9–025, 10–017
UCB Corporate Services [2002] EWCA Civ 555; [2002] 3
F.C.R. 448; [2003] 1 P. & C.R. 12; [2002] 19 E.G. 149
(C.S.); (2002) 99(24) L.S.G. 34; (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 151;
[2002] N.P.C. 63; [2002] 2 P. & C.R. DG17
UCB Leasing Ltd v Holtom (t/a David Holtom & Co) [1987]
18–070, 18–073, 21–001
R.T.R. 362; (1987) 137 N.L.J. 614 CA (Civ Div)
Uddin v Ahmed [2001] EWCA Civ 204; [2001] 3 F.C.R. 300
14–005, 14–014
UGS Finance v National Mortgage Bank of Greece and National
7–026
Bank of Greece SA [1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 446; (1963) 107
S.J. 552 CA
Uhenbels, The. See Sea Calm Shipping Co SA v Chantiers
Navals de l’Esterel SA (The Uhenbels)
UK Housing Alliance Ltd v Francis [2010] EWCA Civ 117;
7–102, 7–104, 7–106, 20–143, 20–152
[2010] 3 All E.R. 519
Ullises Shipping Corp v Fal Shipping Co Ltd (The Greek
20–116
Fighter) [2006] EWHC 1729; [2006] 2 C.L.C. 497 QBD
(Comm)
Ulysses Compania Naviera SA v Huntingdon Petroleum
2–005
Services (The Ermoupolis) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 160 QBD
(Comm)
Unaoil Ltd v Leighton Offshore Pte Ltd [2014] EWHC 2965
20–130
(Comm); 156 Con. L.R. 24
Unchained Growth III Plc v Granby Village (Manchester)
7–087
Management Co Ltd; Granby Village (Manchester)
Management Co Ltd v Unchained Growth III Plc [2000] 1
W.L.R. 739; [2000] L. & T.R. 186 CA (Civ Div
Underwood v Underwood [1894] P. 204 CA
3–100
Unger v Preston Corp [1942] 1 All E.R. 200
19–022
Union Amsterdam, The. See Blue Anchor Line Ltd v Alfred C
Toepfer International GmbH (The Union Amsterdam)
Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] A.C. 514; 18–057, 18–063, 18–067, 18–106, 20–147,
[1997] 2 W.L.R. 341 PC (HK)
20–151
Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association
11–109
(ASBL) v Bosman (C-415/93); sub nom Royal Club Liegois
SA v Bosman (C–415/93); Union des Associations
Européennes de Football (UEFA) v Bosman (C-415/93)
[1996] All E.R. (EC) 97; [1995] E.C.R. I–4921 ECJ
Union Transport Finance v British Car Auctions [1978] 2 All
11–141
E.R. 385; (1977) 246 E.G. 131 CA (Civ Div)
Unique Mariner, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 438 QBD (Admlty)
8–050, 9–136, 16–021
Unique Mariner, The (No.2) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.37
17–053
Unisys International Services Ltd (formerly Sperry Rand) v
2–005
Eastern Counties Newspapers Ltd; Unisys International
Services Ltd (Formerly Sperry Rand) v Eastern Counties
Newspapers Group [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 538 CA (Civ Div)
United Bank Ltd v Asif Unreported 11 February 2000 CA
5–036
United Bank of Kuwait v Hammoud; City Trust Ltd v Levy
16–025
[1988] 1 W.L.R. 1051; [1988] 3 All E.R. 418; (1988) 138
N.L.J. Rep. 281; (1988) 132 S.J. 1388 CA (Civ Div)
United City Merchants (Investments) Ltd v Royal Bank of
3–159, 11–157
Canada (The American Accord) [1983] 1 A.C. 168; [1982] 2
W.L.R. 1039; [1982] 2 All E.R. 720; [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
1; [1982] Com. L.R. 142 HL
United Dominions Corp (Jamaica) v Shoucair (Michael Mitri)
5–034
[1969] 1 A.C. 340; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 893 PC (Jam)
United Dominions Trust (Commercial) Ltd v Eagle Aircraft
18–075, 18–105
Services; sub nom United Dominions Trust (Commercial) v
Eagle Aviation [1968] 1 W.L.R. 74; [1968] 1 All E.R. 104;
(1967) 111 S.J. 849 CA (Civ Div)
United Dominions Trust (Commercial) Ltd v Ennis [1968] 1
17–072, 18–013, 18–073, 20–144
Q.B. 54; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1 CA (Civ Div)
United Dominions Trust (Commercial) Ltd v Parkway Motors
15–050
Ltd [1955] 1 W.L.R. 719; [1955] 2 All E.R. 55 QBD
United Dominions Trust v Western [1976] Q.B. 513; [1976] 2
8–086, 14–006
W.L.R. 64 CA (Civ Div)
United Fresh Meat Co v Charterhouse Cold Storage [1974] 2
7–022, 7–028
Lloyd’s Rep. 286 QBD
United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley BC; Cheapside Land 3–160, 18–042, 18–045, 18–051, 18–075,
18–100, 18–104, 18–105
Development Co Ltd v Messels Service Co [1978] A.C. 904;
[1977] 2 W.L.R. 806; [1977] 2 All E.R. 62; 75 L.G.R. 407;
(1977) 33 P. & C.R. 220; (1977) 243 E.G. 43; (1977) 121
S.J. 223 HL
United Shoe Machinery Co of Canada v Brunet [1909] A.C. 330
9–116, 11–092
PC (Can)
United States v Motor Trucks Ltd [1924] A.C. 196 PC (Can)
8–059
Unitel Film und Fernseh Produktionsgesellschaft mbH & Co, Re
11–107
[1978] 3 C.M.L.R. 306; [1978] F.S.R. 627, CEC
Unity Finance Ltd v Woodcock [1963] 1 W.L.R. 455; [1963] 2
13–012
All E.R. 270 CA
Universal Banking Corp, Re; sub nom Gunn’s Case (1867–68)
2–024
L.R. 3 Ch. App. 40 CA in Chancery
Universal Bulk Carriers Pte Ltd v Andre et Cie SA; sub nom
18–053, 18–054, 19–054
Andre et Cie SA v Universal Bulk Carriers Ltd [2001]
EWCA Civ 588; [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 510; [2001] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 65
Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v Citati (No.1) [1957] 1 W.L.R. 17–027, 17–074, 17–076, 17–077, 17–084,
979; [1957] 3 All E.R. 234 CA
17–086, 17–087, 17–088, 18–050, 18–
103
Universal Corp v Five Ways Properties [1979] 1 All E.R. 552;
17–065, 19–026, 20–150
(1979) 38 P. & C.R. 687 CA (Civ Div)
Universal Steam Navigation Co Ltd v James McKelvie & Co;
16–069, 16–071
sub nom Ariadne Steamship Co Ltd v James McKelvie & Co
[1923] A.C. 492; (1923) 15 Ll. L. Rep. 99 HL
Universal Thermosensors Ltd v Hibben [1992] 1 W.L.R. 840;
11–069
[1992] 3 All E.R. 257 Ch D
Universe Sentinel, The. See Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia
v International Transport Workers Federation (The Universe
Sentinel)
Universe Tankships Inc ofMonrovia v International Transport
Workers Federation (The Universe Sentinel) [1983] 1 A.C.
366; [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803; [1982] 2 All E.R. 67; [1982] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 537; [1982] Com. L.R. 149; [1982] I.C.R. 262;
[1982] I.R.L.R. 200 HL
University Council of the Vidyodaya University of Ceylon v
Silva; sub nom Vidyodaya University of Ceylon v Silva
[1965] 1 W.L.R. 77; [1964] 3 All E.R. 865 PC (Cey)
University of Edinburgh v Onifade, 2005 S.L.T. (Sh Ct) 63 Sh Pr
University of Keele v Price Waterhouse [2004] EWCA Civ 583;
[2004] P.N.L.R. 43
University of Nottingham v Fishel [2000] I.C.R. 1462; [2000]
I.R.L.R. 471 QBD
Upfill v Wright [1911] 1 K.B. 506 KBD
Upton v Henderson (1912) 28 T.L.R. 398
Upton-on-Severn RDC v Powell [1942] 1 All E.R. 220 CA
UR Power GmbH v Kuok Oils and Grains Pte Ltd [2009]
EWHC 1940 (Comm); [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 495
Urban I (Blonk Street) Ltd v Ayres [2013] EWCA Civ 816;
[2014] 1 W.L.R. 756; [2013] B.L.R. 505; [2014] 1 P. & C.R.
1; [2013] 3 E.G.L.R. 91; [2013] 29 E.G. 105 (C.S.)
3–048, 4–022, 10–002, 10–004, 10–005,
10–007, 10–008, 10–012
Urquhart v Macpherson (1877–78) L.R. 3 App. Cas. 831 PC
(Aus)
Urquhart Lindsay & Co Ltd v Eastern Bank Ltd [1922] 1 K.B.
318; (1921) 9 Ll. L. Rep. 572 KBD
Uxbridge Permanent Benefit Building Society v Pickard [1939]
2 K.B. 248 CA
Uzinterimpex JSC v Standard Bank Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 819;
[2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 456; [2008] 2 C.L.C. 80
V Berg & Son v Vanden Avenne-Izegem PVBA [1977] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 499 CA (Civ Div)
V v V (Ancillary Relief: Pre-Nuptial Agreement) [2011] EWHC
3230 (Fam); [2012] 1 F.L.R. 1315; [2012] 2 F.C.R. 98;
[2012] Fam. Law 274; (2012) 109(4) L.S.G. 17
Vagres Compania Maritima SA v Nissho-Iwai American Corp
(The Karin Vatis) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 330 CA (Civ Div)
Vakante v Addey and Stanhope School Governing Body; sub
nom Addey and Stanhope School v Vakante [2004] EWCA
Civ 1065; [2004] 4 All E.R. 1056; [2005] I.C.R. 231
Valentini v Canali (1890) L.R. 24 Q.B.D. 166 QBD
Valilas v Januzaj [2014] EWCA Civ 436; [2015] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 1047; 154 Con. L.R. 38
Van Den Hurk v R Martens & Co Ltd (In Liquidation) [1920] 1
K.B. 850; (1920) 2 Ll. L. Rep. 281 KBD (Comm Ct)
Van der Linde v Van der Linde [1947] Ch. 306; [1947] L.J.R.
592 Ch D
Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co (formerly
Jason Construction Co) [1969] 1 Q.B. 607; [1968] 3 W.L.R.
1141 CA (Civ Div)
Van Oppen v Bedford Charity Trs; sub nom Van Oppen v Clerk
to the Trs of the Bedford Charity; Van Oppen v Bedford
9–089, 9–118
21–036, 21–037
2–016
7–015
20–010
11–044
11–061
2–048
2–103, 17–017
18–107
20–062
16–028
6–040
17–063
11–049
17–018, 17–032
11–113
12–030
18–031, 18–033, 18–037
20–072
8–072
15–020
3–169, 14–049
School Trs [1990] 1 W.L.R. 235; [1989] 3 All E.R. 389 CA
(Civ Div)
Van Praagh v Everidge [1903] 1 Ch. 434 CA
Van Toll v South Eastern Ry (1862) 12 C.B.N.S. 75
Vanbergen v St Edmunds Properties Ltd [1933] 2 K.B. 223 CA
Vancouver Malt & Sake Brewing Co Ltd v Vancouver Breweries
Ltd [1934] A.C. 181 PC (Can)
Vanda Compania Limitada of Costa Rica v Société Maritime
Nationale of Paris (The Ile aux Moines) [1974] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 263 QBD (Comm)
Vandenbergh v Spooner (1866) L.R. 1 Ex. 316
Vandepitte v Preferred Accident Insurance Corp of New York;
sub nom Vandepitte v Preferred Accident Insurance Co of
New York [1933] A.C. 70; (1932) 44 Ll. L. Rep. 41 PC
(Can)
Vandervell v IRC [1967] 2 A.C. 291; [1967] 2 W.L.R. 87 HL
Vandyke v Fender; sub nom Vandyke v Fender and Reddington
Foundries [1970] 2 Q.B. 292; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 929 CA (Civ
Div)
Vansittart v Vansittart (1858) D. & J. 249
Vantage Navigation Corp v Suhail and Saud Bahwan Building
Materials (The Alev) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 QBD
(Comm)
Varenna, The. See Skips A/S Nordheim v Syrian Petroleum Co
and Petrofina SA (The Varenna)
Vargas Pena Apezteguia y Cia SAIC v Peter Cremer GmbH &
Co [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 394 QBD (Comm)
Varverakis v Compagnia de Navegacion Artico SA (The Merak)
[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 250 CA (Civ Div)
Vaswani v Italian Motors (Sales and Services) Ltd [1996] 1
W.L.R. 270; [1996] R.T.R. 115 PC (HK)
Vaughan v Vaughan [1953] 1 Q.B. 762; [1953] 1 W.L.R. 236 CA
Vaughan-Neil v IRC [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1283; [1979] 3 All E.R.
481 Ch D
Vaught v Tel Sell UK Ltd [2005] EWHC 2404
Vedatech Corp v Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd (formerly Seagate
Software IMG Ltd) [2002] EWHC 818 Ch D
Vellino v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police
[2001] EWCA Civ 1249; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 218
Venning, Re,; sub nom Halifax Building Society Appeal, Re63
T.L.R. 394; [1947] W.N. 196 CA
Veracruz I, The. See Veracruz Transportation v VC Shipping Co
Inc and Den Norske Bank A/S (The Veracruz I)
Veracruz Transportation v VC Shipping Co Inc and Den Norske
Bank A/S (The Veracruz) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 353 CA
(Civ Div)
Vercoe v Rutland Fund Management Ltd [2010] EWHC 424
(Ch)
Verizon UK Ltd v Swiftnet Ltd [2008] EWHC 551 (Comm)
Verrall v Farnes [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1254; [1966] 2 All E.R. 808
Ch D
Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC [1981] Q.B. 202; [1980] 3 W.L.R.
8–042, 8–047
7–044
3–048, 3–063
11–067
20–071
5–020
14–082, 14–083
15–016
16–004
11–040
3–048, 5–001, 10–004
20–052
2–108
18–038
4–026
11–072
17–047
22–022
11–023
3–113
17–077, 21–062
20–010, 20–017, 20–018
20–036
3–166
21–019, 21–035
258; [1980] 1 All E.R. 839 CA (Civ Div)
Vertex Data Science Ltd v Powergen Retail Ltd [2006] EWHC
21–041
1340; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 591 QBD (Comm)
Vic Mill Ltd, Re [1913] 1 Ch. 465 CA
20–058
Victor Chandler International Ltd v Customs and Excise
5–028
Commrs [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1296; [2000] 2 All E.R. 315 CA
(Civ Div)
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) v Newman Industries [1949] 2 K.B. 20–059, 20–100, 20–101, 20–102, 20–103,
528; [1949] 1 All E.R. 997; 65 T.L.R. 274; (1949) 93 S.J.
20–108, 20–110
371 CA
Victoria Seats Agency v Paget (1902) 19 T.L.R. 16
19–007, 19–078
Victorian Daylesford Syndicate Ltd v Dott [1905] 2 Ch. 624 Ch
11–019
D
Vidyodaya University Council v Silva. See University Council
of the Vidyodaya University of Ceylon v Silva
Vigers v Cook [1919] 2 K.B. 475 CA
18–033
Vigers v Pike (1842) 8 Cl. & F. 562
9–116
Vincent v Premo Enterprises (Voucher Sales) [1969] 2 Q.B. 609;
3–172, 3–173, 4–010
[1969] 2 W.L.R. 1256; [1969] 2 All E.R. 941; (1969) 20 P. &
C.R. 591; (1969) 113 S.J. 266 CA (Civ Div)
Vinmar International Ltd v Theresa Navigation SA [2001] 2 All
20–050
E.R. (Comm) 243; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 QBD (Comm)
Virgo Steamship Co SA v Skaarup Shipping Corp (The Kapetan
14–050
Georgis) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 352; [1988] F.T.L.R. 180
QBD (Comm)
Virulite LLC v Virulite Distribution Ltd [2014] EWHC 366
(QB); [2015] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 204
Vis Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov [2014] EWCA Civ 313
Visscher v Honourable President Justice Giudice (2009) 239
C.L.R. 361
Vistafjord, The. See Norwegian American Cruises A/S v Paul
Mundy Ltd (The Vistafjord)
Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd (The Santa Clara) [1996] A.C. 800;
[1996] 3 W.L.R. 105; [1996] 3 All E.R. 193; [1996] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 225; [1996] C.L.C. 1159; (1996) 15 Tr. L.R.
347; (1996) 93(26) L.S.G. 19; (1996) 146 N.L.J. 957; (1996)
140 S.J.L.B. 147 HL
Vladimir Ilich, The. See Waren Import Gesellschaft Krohn & Co
v Alfred C Toepfer (The Vladimir Ilich)
Vlierboom v Chapman (1844) 13 M. & W. 230
Voest Alpine Intertrading GmbH v Chevron International Oil Co
Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 547 QBD (Comm)
Völk v Etablissements J Vervaecke SPRL (5/69) [1969] E.C.R.
295; [1969] C.M.L.R. 273 ECJ
Volvox Hollandia (No.2), The. See Saipem SpA v Dredging
VO2 BV (The Volvox Hollandia (No.2))
Von Hatzfeldt Wildenburg v Alexander [1912] 1 Ch. 284 Ch D
Vosper Thornycroft v Ministry of Defence [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
58 QBD (Comm)
Voyce v Voyce (1991) 62 P. & C.R. 290 CA (Civ Div)
Voyle v Hughes (1854) 2 Sm. & G. 18
W Lamb Ltd (t/a Premier Pump & Tank Co) v J Jarvis & Sons
2–017, 3–084, 3–086, 3–114, 5–036
2–047
18–006
2–043, 2–044, 2–047, 17–079, 18–011
17–032
3–087, 15–080
11–107
2–089, 2–099
2–093
3–130, 3–140
15–028
20–127
Plc, 60 Con. L.R. 1 QBD
W&J Investments Ltd v Bunting [1984] 1 N.S.W.R. 331
W&J Lane v Spratt [1970] 2 Q.B. 480; [1969] 3 W.L.R. 950;
[1970] 1 All E.R. 162 QBD (Comm)
Wade v Simeon (1846) 2 C.B. 548
Wadham Stringer Finance Ltd v Meaney [1981] 1 W.L.R. 39;
[1980] 3 All E.R. 789 QBD
Wadsworth v Lydell [1981] 1 W.L.R. 598; [1981] 2 All E.R. 401
CA (Civ Div)
Wagon Mound, The. See Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts
Dock & Engineering Co
Wah v Grant Thornton International Ltd [2012] EWHC 3198
(Ch); [2013] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1226; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 11
Wahda Bank v Arab Bank Plc (Preliminary Issue) (1993) 90(4)
L.S.G. 38; (1993) 137 S.J.L.B. 24 QBD
Wait, Re [1927] 1 Ch. 606 CA
Waithman v Wakefield (1807) 1 Camp. 120
Wake v Renault (UK) Ltd (1996) 15 Tr. L.R. 514 Ch D
Wake, Exr of T Wilkinson v TW Harrop and JC Harrop (1862)
158 E.R. 859; (1862) 1 Hurl. & C. 202 Ct of Exch
Wakeham v Wood (1982) 43 P. & C.R. 40; [1982] J.P.L. 242 CA
(Civ Div)
Wale, Re; sub nom Wale v Harris [1956] 1 W.L.R. 1346; [1956]
3 All E.R. 280 Ch D
Wales v Wadham [1977] 1 W.L.R. 199; [1977] 1 All E.R. 125
CA (Civ Div)
Walford v Miles [1992] 2 A.C. 128; [1992] 2 W.L.R. 174;
[1992] 1 All E.R. 453; (1992) 64 P. & C.R. 166; [1992] 1
E.G.L.R. 207; [1992] 11 E.G. 115; [1992] N.P.C. 4 HL
Walker, Re [1905] 1 Ch. 160 CA
Walker v Boyle; sub nom Boyle v Walker [1982] 1 W.L.R. 495;
[1982] 1 All E.R. 634; (1982) 44 P. & C.R. 20; (1982) 261
E.G. 1090; (1982) 79 L.S.G. 954; (1981) 125 S.J. 724 Ch D
Walker v Bradford Old Bank Ltd (1883–84) L.R. 12 Q.B.D. 511
QBD
Walker v Eastern Counties Ry (1848) 6 Hare 594
Walker v Galt, 171 F. 2d 613 (1948)
Walker v Geo H Medlicott & Son [1999] 1 W.L.R. 727; [1999] 1
All E.R. 685 CA (Civ Div)
Walker v Perkins (1764) 3 Burr. 1568
Walker v Standard Chartered Bank; Jasaro SA v Standard
Chartered Bank [1992] B.C.L.C. 535 CA (Civ Div)
Walker Property Investments (Brighton) v Walker (1947) 177
L.T. 204 CA
Walkinshaw v Diniz [2002] EWCA Civ 180; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 165
Wall v Rederiaktiebolaget Lugudde [1915] 3 K.B. 66 KBD
Wallace v Kelsall (1840) 7 M. & W. 264
Wallace Bogan & Co v Cove [1997] I.R.L.R. 453 CA (Civ Div)
Wallersteiner v Moir (No.2); sub nom Moir v Wallersteiner
(No.2) [1975] Q.B. 373; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 389; [1975] 1 All
20–141
7–028
3–038, 11–036
20–132
20–060
2–101
19–046
9–098, 19–113, 21–023, 21–025
16–043
21–058
6–020
21–053
15–029
8–045, 9–142, 9–153
2–099, 2–100, 2–102, 4–014, 6–040
12–056
9–046, 9–126, 9–134
15–015, 15–020, 15–024
21–019
9–114
14–052
11–044
18–018
6–030
7–047, 20–078
20–141
13–030
11–069
11–013
E.R. 849; (1975) 119 S.J. 97 CA (Civ Div)
Wallingford v Mutual Society (1879–80) L.R. 5 App. Cas. 685
HL
Wallis Chlorine Syndicate Ltd v American Alkali Co Ltd (1901)
17 T.L.R. 565
Wallis Ex p. Jenks, Re [1902] 1 K.B. 719 KBD
Walls v Atcheson (1826) 3 Bing. 462
Walrond v Walrond (1858) Johns. 18
Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) L.R. 21 Ch. D. 9 CA
Walsh v Singh [2009] EWHC 3219 (Ch); [2010] 1 F.L.R. 1658
Walsh v Whitcomb (1797) 2 Esp. 565
Walter v Everard [1891] 2 Q.B. 369 CA
Walter v James (1870–71) L.R. 6 Ex. 124 Ex Ct
Walter & Sullivan v J Murphy & Sons [1955] 2 Q.B. 584;
[1955] 2 W.L.R. 919 CA
Walters v Morgan (1861) 3 D.F. & J. 718
Walton v Mascall (1844) 13 M. & W. 452
Walton v Walton Unreported 14 April 1994
Walton (Grain and Shipping) Ltd v British Italian Trading Co
Ltd [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 QBD (Comm)
Walton Harvey Ltd v Walker & Homfrays Ltd [1931] 1 Ch. 274
CA
Waltons Stones (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 C.L.R. 387
Warburton v Heyworth; sub nom Warburton v Heywood (1880–
81) L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 1 CA
Ward v Audland (1845) 8 Beav 201
Ward v Byham [1956] 1 W.L.R. 496; [1956] 2 All E.R. 318 CA
Ward v Cannock Chase DC [1986] Ch. 546; [1986] 2 W.L.R.
660 Ch D
Ward v Hobbs (1878–79) L.R. 4 App. Cas. 13 HL
Warehousing and Forwarding Co of East Africa Ltd v Jafferali
& Sons Ltd [1964] A.C. 1; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 489; [1963] 3
All E.R. 571; (1963) 107 S.J. 700 PC (EA)
Waren Import Gesellschaft Krohn & Co v Alfred C Toepfer (The
Vladimir Ilich) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 322 QBD (Comm)
Warinco v Fritz Mauthner [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 151 CA (Civ
Div)
Warinco v Samor SpA [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 CA (Civ Div)
Waring v Favenck (1807) 2 Camp. 85
Waring & Gillow v Thompson (1912) 29 T.L.R. 154
Warlow v Harrison (1859) 1 E. & E. 309
Warman v Southern Counties Car Finance Corp Ltd [1949] 2
K.B. 576; [1949] 1 All E.R. 711 KBD
Warmington v Miller [1973] Q.B. 877; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 654;
[1973] 2 All E.R. 372; (1973) 25 P. & C.R. 340; (1973) 117
S.J. 166 CA (Civ Div)
Warner Bros Pictures Inc v Nelson [1937] 1 K.B. 209 KBD
Warner Bros Records Inc v Rollgreen Ltd [1976] Q.B. 430;
[1975] 2 W.L.R. 816 CA (Civ Div)
Warner v Armfield Retail & Leisure Ltd [2014] I.C.R. 239;
[2014] Eq. L.R. 122 EAT
Warren (t/a On-line Cartons and Print) v Drukkerij Flach BV
20–132
20–062
15–076
21–012
11–153
5–005, 11–145
3–127
16–112
12–007, 12–016
16–051, 17–008
15–013
9–137, 21–031
17–002
3–126
11–020, 19–048
19–076
3–079, 3–093, 3–127
17–035
15–028
3–043, 3–046
20–041
9–138
16–051
17–057
19–053
18–034
16–064
21–042
2–008, 3–162
22–010, 22–011, 22–012
21–034
21–052, 21–057, 21–059, 21–060
15–022
19–023
16–109
[2014] EWCA Civ 993; [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 111; [2014] 2
C.L.C. 51; [2015] E.C.C. 1
Warren, Re (1884) 53 L.J. Ch. 1016
Warren v Mendy [1989] 1 W.L.R. 853; [1989] 3 All E.R. 103
CA (Civ Div)
Washington Trader, The. See American Trading & Production
Corp v Shell International Marine Ltd (The Washington
Trader)
Waterman v Fryer [1922] 1 K.B. 499 KBD
Waters v Monarch Fire & Life Assurance Co [1834–60] All E.R.
Rep. 654; (1856) 5 El. & Bl. 870 QBD
Wates Ltd v Greater London Council, 25 B.L.R. 1 CA (Civ Div)
Watford BC v Watford RDC (1988) 86 L.G.R. 524
Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA
Civ 317; [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 696; [2001] B.L.R. 143
Wathen v Sandys (1811) 2 Camp. 640
Watkin v Watson-Smith, Times, 3 July 1986
Watkins v Carrig, 21 A.2d. 591 (1941)
Watkins v Rymill (1882–83) L.R. 10 Q.B.D. 178 QBD
Watkins v Watkins [1896] P. 222 CA
Watson v Ambergate Ry Co (1851) 15 Jur.448
Watson v Ambergate, etc., Ry (1851) 15 Jur. 448
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] Q.B.
1134; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1256 CA (Civ Div)
3–102, 3–113
21–047, 21–057, 21–058
12–012
14–082, 14–128
19–037, 19–039, 19–070
19–037
7–017, 7–021, 7–074, 7–076, 7–079, 7–
082, 9–126
3–044
8–053
3–051
7–006, 7–044
15–068
20–059
20–059
14–047, 14–050
Watson v Davies [1931] 1 Ch. 455 Ch D
16–051
Watson v King (1815) 4 Camp. 272
16–113
Watson v Lucas [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1493; [1980] 3 All E.R. 647
11–045
CA (Civ Div)
Watson v Mid Wales Ry Co (1866–67) L.R. 2 C.P. 593 CCP
15–042
Watson v Prager [1991] 1 W.L.R. 726; [1991] 3 All E.R. 487 Ch
11–064, 11–094, 11–097, 11–098
D
Watson v Swann (1862) 11 C.B.(N.S.) 756
16–046
Watteau v Fenwick [1893] 1 Q.B. 346 QBD
14–079, 16–030, 16–031
Watts v Aldington; Tolstoy v Aldington [1999] L. & T.R. 578
13–014
CA (Civ Div)
Watts v Cresswell (1714) 2 Eq.Ca.Abr. 515
12–047
Watts v Morrow [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1421; [1991] 4 All E.R. 937; 20–006, 20–039, 20–042, 20–044, 20–082,
54 B.L.R. 86; 26 Con. L.R. 98; (1991) 23 H.L.R. 608;
20–084, 20–086, 20–088
[1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 152; [1991] 43 E.G. 121; (1992) 8 Const.
L.J. 73; [1991] E.G. 88 (C.S.); (1992) 89(14) L.S.G. 33;
(1991) 141 N.L.J. 1331; [1991] N.P.C. 98 CA (Civ Div)
Watts v Seymour [1967] 2 Q.B. 647; [1967] 2 W.L.R. 1072 DC
12–031
Watts v Spence [1976] Ch. 165; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 1039 Ch D
9–035, 21–030, 21–034
Watts v Watts [2014] W.T.L.R. 1781 Ch D
11–114
Watts & Co Ltd v Mitsui & Co Ltd; sub nom Mitsui & Co Ltd v
19–051, 20–048
Watts, Watts & Co Ltd [1917] A.C. 227 HL
Waugh v HB Clifford & Sons Ltd [1982] Ch. 374; [1982] 2
16–019
W.L.R. 679 CA (Civ Div)
Waugh v Morris (1872–73) L.R. 8 Q.B. 202 QBD
11–117
Wauton v Coppard [1899] 1 Ch. 92 Ch D
9–017
Way v Latilla [1937] 3 All E.R. 759 HL
2–086, 22–020
Way’s Trust, Re (1864) 2 D.J. & S. 365
15–028, 15–030
WC Leng & Co Ltd v Andrews [1909] 1 Ch. 763 CA
WEA (A Debtor), Re [1901] 2 K.B. 642 CA
Wear Breeze, The. See Margarine Union GmbH v Cambay
Prince Steamship Co (The Wear Breeze)
Weatherby v Banham (1832) 5 C. & P. 228
Webb, Re [1941] Ch. 225 Ch D
Webb v Chief Constable of Merseyside; sub nom Porter v Chief
Constable of Merseyside; Chief Constable of Merseyside v
Porter [2000] Q.B. 427; [2000] 2 W.L.R. 546 CA (Civ Div)
Webb v Hewitt (1857) 3 K. & J. 438
Webster v Bosanquet [1912] A.C. 394 PC (Cey)
Webster v Cecil (1861) 30 Beav 62
Webster v Liddington [2014] EWCA Civ 560; [2015] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 427; (2014) 138 B.M.L.R. 135; [2014] P.N.L.R. 26
Weddell v JA Pearce & Major (A Firm) [1988] Ch. 26; [1987] 3
W.L.R. 592 Ch D
Wedgwood v Adams (1843) 6 Beav 600
Weeks v Propert (1872–73) L.R. 8 C.P. 427 CCP
Weeks v Tybald (1605) Noy 11
Wegg-Prosser v Evans [1895] 1 Q.B. 108 CA
Weigall v Runciman (1916) 85 L.J.K.B. 1187
Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C. & P. 557
Weld-Blundell v Stephens [1920] A.C. 956 HL
Weldon v GRE Linked Life Assurance Ltd [2000] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 914 QBD
Well Barn Farming Ltd v Backhouse [2005] EWHC 1520;
[2005] 3 E.G.L.R. 109 Ch D
Wells (Merstham) v Buckland Sand and Silica Co [1965] 2 Q.B.
170; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 453 QBD
Wells v Smith [1914] 3 K.B. 722 KBD
Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd [1992]
B.C.C. 270; [1992] B.C.L.C. 148 CA (Civ Div)
Welven Ltd v Soar Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 3240 (Comm)
Wenckheim v Arndt (NZ) 1 J.R. 73 (1873)
Wenjiang, The. See International Sea Tankers Inc of Liberia v
Hemisphere Shipping Co of Hong Kong (The Wenjiang)
Wenjiang, The (No.2). See International Sea Tankers Inc of
Liberia v Hemisphere Shipping Co Ltd of Hong Kong (The
Wenjiang (No.2))
Werderman v Société Générale d’Electricité (1881–82) L.R. 19
Ch. D. 246 CA
Wertheim v Chicoutimi Pulp Co [1911] A.C. 301 PC (Can)
Wessex Dairies Ltd v Smith [1935] 2 K.B. 80; [1935] All E.R.
Rep. 75 CA
West v Houghton (1878–79) L.R. 4 C.P.D. 197 CPD
West v Ian Finlay and Associates [2014] EWCA Civ 316; [2014]
B.L.R. 324; 153 Con. L.R. 1; [2014] 2 E.G.L.R. 63; [2014]
C.I.L.L. 3507
West v National Motor and Accident Insurance Union [1955] 1
W.L.R. 343; [1955] 1 All E.R. 800 CA
West Country Cleaners (Falmouth) Ltd v Saly [1966] 1 W.L.R.
1485; [1966] 3 All E.R. 210 CA
11–071, 12–012
13–013
2–018, 2–027
14–082, 14–084
11–112, 11–150
13–014
20–131
8–056, 21–032
9–008
15–007, 15–065
21–030
12–080, 16–081
4–004
13–005
16–017
3–108
11–026, 20–097, 20–107
15–077
3–029, 3–031
14–006
9–026
2–097, 16–057
9–126
2–038
15–080
20–049, 20–051
6–043, 11–069
14–083
7–080, 7–103, 7–105, 7–106
9–118
18–076
West London Commercial Bank Ltd v Kitson; West London
9–017
Commercial Bank Ltd v Porter; West London Commercial
Bank Ltd v Woodward (1883–84) L.R. 13 Q.B.D. 360 CA
West of England Shipowners Mutual Insurance Association
11–047, 14–044
(Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd (The Glacier Bay) [1996] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 370; [1996] C.L.C. 240 CA (Civ Div)
West Sussex CC v Amberley (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 11;
2–096
(2011) 14 C.C.L. Rep. 178
Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport SPDR Holding Co Ltd
11–053
[2000] Q.B. 288; [1999] 3 W.L.R. 811; [1999] 3 All E.R.
864; [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 CA (Civ Div)
Westbrook Resources Ltd v Globe Metallurgical Inc [2009]
5–036
EWCA Civ 310; [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC; sub
12–046, 12–079, 12–082, 17–041, 22–003,
nom Islington LBC v Westdeutsche Landesbank
22–013, 22–014, 22–015, 22–017
Girozentrale; Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Sandwell BC [1996]
A.C. 669; [1996] 2 W.L.R. 802; [1996] 2 All E.R. 961;
[1996] 5 Bank. L.R. 341; [1996] C.L.C. 990; 95 L.G.R. 1;
(1996) 160 J.P. Rep. 1130; (1996) 146 N.L.J. 877; (1996)
140 S.J.L.B. 136 HL
Western Bank of Scotland v Addie; Addie v Western Bank of
9–106, 9–116
Scotland (1866–69) L.R. 1 Sc. 145 HL
Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith DC [1981] 2 All E.R. 204;
3–128, 3–134
77 L.G.R. 185 CA (Civ Div)
Western v Russell (1814) 3 C. & B. 187
Western Web Offset Printers Ltd v Independent Media Ltd
[1996] C.L.C. 77; (1995) 139 S.J.L.B. 212 CA (Civ Div)
Westerton, Re; sub nom Public Trustee v Gray [1919] 2 Ch. 104
Ch D
Westfalische Central-Genossenschaft GmbH v Seabirght Ltd
Unreported 22 July 1980
Westhoughton UDC v Wigan Coal & Iron Co Ltd [1919] 1 Ch.
159 CA
Westlake v Adams (1858) 5 C.B.(N.S.) 248
Westlaw Services Ltd v Boddy [2010] EWCA Civ 929; [2010] 6
Costs L.R. 934; [2011] P.N.L.R. 4; (2010) 160 N.L.J. 1153;
(2010) 154(31) S.J.L.B. 30
Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster (1992) 24
H.L.R. 572 CA (Civ Div)
Westminster City Council v Reema Construction (No.2) (1992)
24 Con.L.R. 26
Westway Homes Ltd v Moores (1992) 63 P. & C.R. 480; [1991]
2 E.G.L.R. 193 CA (Civ Div)
Wetherall v Jones; sub nom Wetherell v Jones (1832) 3 B. & Ad.
221
Wettern Electric Ltd v Welsh Development Agency [1983] Q.B.
796; [1983] 2 W.L.R. 897 QBD
WF Harrison & Co v Burke [1956] 1 W.L.R. 419; [1956] 2 All
E.R. 169 CA
WH Smith & Sons v Clinton (1909) 99 L.T. 840
Whaley v Norton (1687) 1 Vern. 483
Wharton v Mackenzie (1844) 5 Q.B. 606
10–045, 21–032
20–116
15–020, 15–026, 15–028
19–029
14–133
3–031
11–013
3–010, 3–015, 3–018, 3–033
8–045
4–013
11–003, 11–019
2–040, 2–047, 17–066
15–020
11–026
11–044
12–005, 12–006
Wharton v Walker (1825) 4 B. & C. 163
Wheeler v Quality Deep Ltd (t/a Thai Royale Restaurant); sub
nom Wheeler v Qualitydeep Ltd (t/a Thai Royale Restaurant)
[2004] EWCA Civ 1085; [2005] I.C.R. 265
Whincup v Hughes (1870–71) L.R. 6 C.P. 78 CCP
White v Bijou Mansions Ltd [1938] Ch. 351; [1938] 1 All E.R.
546 CA
White v Blackmore [1972] 2 Q.B. 651; [1972] 3 W.L.R. 296 CA
(Civ Div)
White v Bluett (1853) 23 L.J.Ex. 36
White v Bristol Rugby Ltd [2002] I.R.L.R. 204 QBD (Merc)
White v British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Co (1868–69)
L.R. 7 Eq. 394 Ct of Chancery
White v Garden (1851) 10 C.B. 919
White v John Warwick & Co [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1285; [1953] 2
All E.R. 1021 CA
White v Jones [1995] 2 A.C. 207; [1995] 2 W.L.R. 187; [1995] 1
All E.R. 691; [1995] 3 F.C.R. 51; (1995) 145 N.L.J. 251;
(1995) 139 S.J.L.B. 83; [1995] N.P.C. 31 HL
White v London Transport Executive [1971] 2 Q.B. 721; [1971]
3 W.L.R. 169 CA (Civ Div)
White v Riverside Housing Association Ltd; sub nom Riverside
Housing Association Ltd v White [2005] EWCA Civ 1385;
[2006] H.L.R. 15
15–003
11–114
19–016, 19–094, 19–097, 22–004
14–133
4–016, 7–037, 14–011
3–027, 3–046
4–006
11–027
9–090
7–034, 14–060
3–169, 9–038, 9–040, 14–016, 14–023,
14–046, 14–050, 14–052, 14–053, 14–
076, 14–094, 14–118, 20–021
14–130
3–098
White v Tyndall (1888) L.R. 13 App. Cas. 263 HL
13–003
White v White; Mighell v Reading; Evans v Motor Insurers
14–130
Bureau [2001] UKHL 9; [2001] 1 W.L.R. 481; [2001] 2 All
E.R. 43; [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1105; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 679; [2001] R.T.R. 25; [2001] 2 C.M.L.R. 1; [2001]
Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 493; [2001] P.I.Q.R. P20; (2001) 98(15)
L.S.G. 33; (2001) 151 N.L.J. 350; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 67
HL
White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] A.C. 413;
2–057, 20–132, 21–011, 21–012, 21–013,
[1962] 2 W.L.R. 17; [1961] 3 All E.R. 1178; 1962 S.C.
21–014, 21–015
(H.L.) 1; 1962 S.L.T. 9; (1961) 105 S.J. 1104 HL
White Arrow Express Ltd v Lamey’s Distribution Ltd [1995]
20–046, 22–012
C.L.C. 1251; (1996) 15 Tr. L.R. 69; (1995) 145 N.L.J. 1504
CA (Civ Div)
White Rosebay Shipping SA v Hong Kong Chain Glory
18–084, 18–085
Shipping Ltd [2013] EWHC 1355 (Comm); [2013] 2 All
E.R. (Comm) 449; [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 618; [2013] 2
C.L.C. 884
Whitecap Leisure Ltd v John H Rundle Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ
7–016, 18–090
429; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 216
Whitehall Court Ltd v Ettlinger [1920] 1 K.B. 680 KBD
19–058
Whitehead v Tuckett (1812) 15 East 400
16–026
Whitehill v Bradford [1952] Ch. 236; [1952] 1 All E.R. 115 CA
11–068, 11–073
Whiteley Ltd v Hilt [1918] 2 K.B. 808 CA
15–050, 21–018
Whitesea Shipping & Trading Corp v El Paso Rio Clara Ltda
14–038, 14–066
(The Marielle Bolten) [2009] EWHC 2552 (Comm); [2010]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648; [2009] 2 C.L.C. 596
Whiteside v Whiteside [1950] Ch. 65; [1949] 2 All E.R. 913 CA
8–072
Whitfield v Lord Le Despencer (1778) Cowp. 754
Whitmore v Farley (1881) 45 L.T. 99
Whittaker v Campbell [1984] Q.B. 318; [1983] 3 W.L.R. 676
CA
Whittaker v Kinnear [2011] EWHC 1479 (QB); [2011] 2 P. &
C.R. DG20
Whittingham v Murdy (1889) 60 L.T. 956
Whittington v Seale-Hayne (1900) 82 L.T. 49; 16 T.L.R. 181; 44
S.J. 229
Whittle Movers Ltd v Hollywood Express Ltd [2009] EWCA
Civ 1189; [2009] 2 C.L.C. 771
Whitwood Chemical Co v Hardman [1891] 2 Ch. 416 CA
Whurr v Devenish (1904) 20 T.L.R. 385
Whywall v Campion (1738) 2 Stra. 1083
Wibau Maschinefabrik Hartman SA v Mackinnon Mackenzie
(The Chanda) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 494 QBD (Comm)
Wickham & Burton Coal Co v Farmer’s Lumber Co 189, 179
N.W. 417 (1923)
Wickham Holdings v Brooke House Motors [1967] 1 W.L.R.
295; [1967] 1 All E.R. 117 CA
Wickman Ltd v Schuler AG. See L Schuler AG v Wickman
Machine Tool Sales Ltd
Wigan v English and Scottish Law Life Assurance Association
[1909] 1 Ch. 291 Ch D
Wigglesworth v Dallison (1779) 1 Doug. 201
Wigsell v School for the Indigent Blind Corp (1881–82) L.R. 8
Q.B.D. 357 QBD
Wilander v Tobin (No.2) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 293; [1997] 2
C.M.L.R. 346 CA (Civ Div)
Wild v Tucker [1914] 3 K.B. 36 KBD
Wildes v Dudlow (1874–75) L.R. 19 Eq. 198, Ct of Chancery
Wiles v Maddison [1943] 1 All E.R. 315 KBD
Wilkie v London Passenger Transport Board [1947] 1 All E.R.
258; 63 T.L.R. 115 CA
Wilkinson v Byers (1834) 1 A. & E. 106
Wilkinson v Clements (1872–73) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 96 CA in
Chancery
Wilkinson v Coverdale (1793) 1 Esp. 75
Wilkinson v Kerdene Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 44; [2013] 2
E.G.L.R. 163; [2013] 7 E.G. 98 (C.S.); [2013] 1 P. & C.R.
DG19
Wilkinson v Lloyd (1845) 7 Q.B. 27
William Brandt’s Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd [1905]
A.C. 454 HL
William Cory & Son Ltd v London Corp [1951] 2 K.B. 476;
[1951] 2 All E.R. 85 CA
William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2010] EWCA
Civ 283
William Hill Organisation Ltd v Tucker [1999] I.C.R. 291;
[1998] I.R.L.R. 313 CA (Civ Div)
William Lacey (Hounslow) Ltd v Davis [1957] 1 W.L.R. 932;
[1957] 2 All E.R. 712 QBD
1–008
11–046
2–002, 8–054, 9–089
5–011
12–018, 12–025
9–080, 9–081
2–085, 2–089, 22–021
21–056, 21–058
9–020
12–015
7–030, 7–032, 14–024
3–030
15–050
3–020, 3–042
6–027
20–041
11–103, 11–109
3–013
5–015
2–009
2–012, 4–028
3–103
21–047
3–169, 16–095
15–081
22–006
15–017
19–035
7–016
11–084, 17–054, 21–057, 21–059
2–013, 3–093, 22–021
William Page & Co Ltd v BNP Paribas Securities Services
Customer Bank Ltd [2008] EWHC 3077; [2009] L & T.R. 8
William Pickersgill & Sons Ltd v London and Provincial Marine
& General Insurance Co Ltd [1912] 3 K.B. 614 KBD
William Porter & Co Ltd, Re [1937] 2 All E.R. 361 Ch D
William Robinson & Co Ltd v Heuer [1898] 2 Ch. 451 CA
William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire CC [1994] 1 W.L.R.
1016; [1994] 3 All E.R. 932; 92 L.G.R. 121; [1993] E.G.
105 (C.S.); [1993] N.P.C. 82; Times, 8 June 1993 CA (Civ
Div)
William Thomas & Sons v Harrowing Steamship Co; sub nom
Harrowing Steamship Co v Thomas [1915] A.C. 58 HL
William Whiteley Ltd v R (1910) 101 L.T. 741
Williams, Re; sub nom Williams v Ball [1917] 1 Ch. 1 CA
Williams v Atlantic Assurance Co Ltd [1933] 1 K.B. 81; (1932)
43 Ll. L. Rep. 177 CA
Williams v Baltic Insurance Association of London Ltd [1924] 2
K.B. 282; (1924) 19 Ll. L. Rep. 126 KBD
Williams v Bayley (1866) L.R. 1 H.L. 200 HL
Williams v BOC Gases Ltd [2000] I.C.R. 1181; [2000] P.I.Q.R.
Q253 CA (Civ Div)
Williams v Carwardine (1833) 5 C. & P. 566; 4 B. & Ad. 621
Williams v CIR [1965] N.Z.L.R. 395
Williams v Greatrex [1957] 1 W.L.R. 31; [1956] 3 All E.R. 705
CA
Williams v Jordan (1877) L.R. 6 Ch. D. 517 Ch D
Williams v Logue, 122 So. 490 (1929)
Williams v Mercer [1940] 3 All E.R. 293
Williams v Moor (1843) 11 M. & W. 256
Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] 1 W.L.R. 830;
[1998] 2 All E.R. 577; [1998] B.C.C. 428; [1998] 1 B.C.L.C.
689; (1998) 17 Tr. L.R. 152; (1998) 95(21) L.S.G. 37; (1998)
148 N.L.J. 657; (1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 166 HL
Williams v Protheroe (1829) 5 Bing 309
Williams v Redcard Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 466
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1
Q.B. 1; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 1153; [1990] 1 All E.R. 512; 48
B.L.R. 69; (1991) 10 Tr. L.R. 12; (1990) 87(12) L.S.G. 36;
(1989) 139 N.L.J. 1712; CA (Civ Div)
Williams v Stern (1877) 2 App.Cas. 439
Williams v Stern (1879–80) L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 409 CA
Williams v Watson Luxury Coaches [1990] I.C.R. 536; [1990]
I.R.L.R. 164 EAT
Williams v Williams (Enforcability of Agreement) [1957] 1
W.L.R. 148; [1957] 1 All E.R. 305 CA
Williams Bros v Ed T Agius Ltd [1914] A.C. 510 HL
Williamson v Governor of the Bank of Scotland [2006] EWHC
1289; [2006] B.P.I.R. 1085 Ch D
Willis Management (Isle of Man) Ltd v Cable & Wireless Plc;
sub nom Cable & Wireless Plc v Valentine [2005] EWCA
Civ 806; [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 597
17–008
9–091, 9–150, 15–040
3–105
21–060
8–006, 8–016, 8–028, 9–012, 9–046, 9–
060, 9–072, 9–078, 9–126, 9–138, 9–
139, 19–121
17–037
10–011
15–018
15–013
14–082, 14–083
10–016
20–121
2–010, 2–050
15–025
18–103
5–020
9–114
19–043
12–029
14–017, 14–047
15–064
3–170, 5–008
3–002, 3–006, 3–007, 3–025, 3–046, 3–
048, 3–050, 3–051, 3–064, 3–088, 3–
097, 3–098, 3–101, 3–106, 3–115, 3–
174, 9–058, 10–005, 10–009, 17–037,
17–040
3–085, 3–089
3–085
19–023
3–043
20–048, 20–049
7–100
2–095
Willmott v Barber (1881) L.R. 17 Ch. D. 772 CA
Willson v Love [1896] 1 Q.B. 626 CA
Wilson v Avec Audio-Visual Equipment [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
81 CA (Civ Div)
Wilson v Best Travel Ltd [1993] 1 All E.R. 353 QBD
Wilson v Carnley [1908] 1 K.B. 729 CA
Wilson v Coupland (1821) 5 B. & Ald. 228
Wilson v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd
[1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 346 HC (Aus)
Wilson v General Iron Screw Colliery Co Ltd (1887) 47
L.J.Q.B. 239
Wilson v Kearse (1800) Peake Add. Cas. 196
Wilson v Kingsgate Mining Industries Ltd [1973] 2 N.S.W.L.R.
713
Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1088
Wilson v St Helens BC; sub nom British Fuels Ltd v Baxendale;
Meade v British Fuels Ltd; Baxendale v British Fuels Ltd
[1999] 2 A.C. 52; [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1070; [1998] 4 All E.R.
609; [1998] I.C.R. 1141; 1998] I.R.L.R. 706; (1999) 1
L.G.L.R. 123; [1999] B.L.G.R. 255 HL
Wilson v Tumman (1843) 6 Man. & G. 236
Wilson v United Counties Bank Ltd [1920] A.C. 102 HL
Wilson v Wilson (1857) 3 Jur.(N.S.) 810
Wilson v Wilson (Rectification of Deed) [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1470;
[1969] 3 All E.R. 945 Ch D
3–120, 3–150
20–130
16–092
6–035, 17–067
11–038
15–004
14–061
20–106
12–030
20–150
12–032
15–085
16–046
15–073, 20–092
21–048
8–064
Wilson & Sons v Pike [1949] 1 K.B. 176; [1948] 2 All E.R. 267
16–077
CA
Wilson Bowden Properties Ltd v Milner & Bardon [1996]
3–098
C.L.Y. 1229
Wilson Smithett & Cape (Sugar) v Bangladesh Sugar and Food
2–093, 4–021
Industries Corp [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 QBD (Comm)
Wilson Sons & Co v Balcarres Brook Steamship Co Ltd [1893]
13–005, 13–006
1 Q.B. 422 CA
Wilton Group Plc v Abrams; Abrams v Samuelson [1990]
21–033
B.C.C. 310; [1991] B.C.L.C. 315 Ch D
Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets LBC [1989] I.C.R. 493; [1989] 17–015, 17–045, 17–073, 18–013, 22–019,
I.R.L.R. 259; 88 CA (Civ Div)
22–023
Wimpey Construction (UK) Ltd v Poole (DV) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s
17–069
Rep. 499; 27 B.L.R. 58 QBD (Comm)
Wimpey (UK) Ltd v VI Construction Ltd. See George Wimpey
UK Ltd (formerly Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd) v VI
Construction Ltd (formerly VI Components Ltd)
Windhill Local Board of Health v Vint (1890) L.R. 45 Ch. D.
11–046
351 CA
Windle (A Bankrupt), Re; sub nom Tr Ex p. v Windle [1975] 1
14–133
W.L.R. 1628; [1975] 3 All E.R. 987 Ch D
Windsor Refrigerator Co v Branch Nominees [1961] Ch. 375;
3–173
[1961] 2 W.L.R. 196, C
Wings v Ellis [1985] A.C. 272; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 965; [1984] 3
20–087
All E.R. 577; (1985) 149 J.P. 33; 84 L.G.R. 577; [1985] Tr.
L.R. 66; (1984) 81 L.S.G. 3507 HL
Winkfield, The [1902] P. 42; [1900–03] All E.R. Rep. 346 CA
14–043
Winn v Bull (1877–78) L.R. 7 Ch. D. 29 Ch D
2–088
Winnetka Trading Corp v Julius Baer International Ltd [2011]
7–038
EWHC 2030 (Ch); [2012] 1 B.C.L.C. 588
Winson, The. See China-Pacific SA v Food Corp of India (The
Winson)
Winter v Irish Life Assurance Plc [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 274;
9–146
[1995] C.L.C. 722 QBD
Wintle v Nye; sub nom Wells, In the Estate of [1959] 1 W.L.R.
10–023
284; [1959] 1 All E.R. 552 HL
Wise, The. See Vitol SA v Esso Australia Ltd (The Wise)
WISE Underwriting Agency Ltd v Grupo Nacional Provincial
9–147
SA [2004] EWCA Civ 962; [2004] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 613
CA
Wiseman v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd [2006] EWHC 1566;
20–085
(2006) 103(29) L.S.G. 29 QBD
Wishart v National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
2–108, 21–036
[1990] I.C.R. 794; [1990] I.R.L.R. 393 CA (Civ Div)
With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch. 575 CA
9–141
Withers v Bircham (1824) 3 B. & C. 254
13–021, 13–026
Withers v General Theatre Co Ltd; sub nom Withers v General
20–069, 20–092
Theatre Corp Ltd [1933] 2 K.B. 536 CA
Withers v Reynolds (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 882
18–035, 18–037
WJ Alan & Co Ltd v El Nasr Export & Import Co [1972] 2 Q.B.
3–063, 3–084, 3–091, 3–113, 3–114, 3–
189; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 800; [1972] 2 All E.R. 127; [1972] 1
159
Lloyd’s Rep. 313; (1972) 116 S.J. 139 CA (Civ Div)
WJ Tatem Ltd v Gamboa [1939] 1 K.B. 132; (1938) 61 Ll. L.
19–079, 19–117, 19–120
Rep. 149 KBD
WL Thompson Ltd v R Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd [1955] Ch.
20–047, 20–058
177; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 185 Ch D
WN Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd; WN Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos
2–081, 2–095
Ltd (Quantum) (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 359; (1932) 147 L.T.
503 HL
Wolverhampton Corp v Emmons [1901] 1 Q.B. 515 CA
21–043
Wong Lai Ying v Chinachem Investment Co Ltd, 13 B.L.R. 81
19–051, 19–064, 19–073
PC (HK)
Wong Mee Wan v Kwan Kin Travel Services Ltd [1996] 1
6–039, 17–012, 17–013
W.L.R. 38; [1995] 4 All E.R. 745 PC (HK)
Wood v Baxter (1883) 49 L.T. 45
16–077
Wood v Roberts (1818) 2 Stark. 417
3–109
Wood v Scarth (1855) 2 K. & J. 33
8–056
Wood Preservation v Prior [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1077; [1969] 1 All
2–111
E.R. 364 CA
Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction 14–016, 14–017, 14–023, 14–032, 14–036,
UK Ltd [1980] 1 W.L.R. 277; [1980] 1 All E.R. 571; (1980)
14–043, 17–082, 18–038
124 S.J. 184 HL
Woodard v Woodard [1995] 3 All E.R. 980; [1992] R.T.R. 35
15–029
CA (Civ Div)
Woodford Land Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2011] EWHC
8–061, 8–065
984 (Ch); [2011] 17 E.G. 70 (C.S.)
Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing
3–063, 3–081, 3–090, 3–091, 3–113, 8–
Co Ltd; sub nom Woodhouse v Nigerian Produce Marketing
044, 16–017
Co Ltd [1972] A.C. 741; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 1090; [1972] 2 All
E.R. 271; [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 439; (1972) 116 S.J. 329
HL
Woolcott v Excess Insurance Co Ltd and Miles, Smith Anderson
9–146
& Game Ltd (No.1) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 231 CA (Civ Div)
Woolcott v Excess Insurance Co Ltd and Miles, Smith Anderson
9–146
& Game Ltd (No.2) [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 210 QBD
Woolcott v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd [1978] 1
9–146
W.L.R. 493; [1978] 1 All E.R. 1253 QBD
Woolf v Collis Removal Service [1948] 1 K.B. 11; [1947] 2 All
7–032
E.R. 260 CA
Woolfe v Horne (1876–77) L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 355 QBD
16–077, 18–103
Woolwich Equitable Building Society v IRC [1993] A.C. 70;
3–039, 8–022, 10–011
[1992] 3 W.L.R. 366; [1992] 3 All E.R. 737; [1992] S.T.C.
657; (1993) 5 Admin. L.R. 265; 65 T.C. 265; (1992) 142
N.L.J. 1196; (1992) 136 S.J.L.B. 230 HL
Worboys v Carter [1987] 2 E.G.L.R. 1; (1987) 283 E.G. 307 CA
16–029
(Civ Div)
Worcester Ex p. Agra Bank, Re (1867–68) L.R. 3 Ch. App. 555
15–020, 17–058
CA in Chancery
Workers Trust & Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd
20–148, 20–149, 20–150, 20–152
[1993] A.C. 573; [1993] 2 W.L.R. 702 PC
Working Men’s Mutual Society, Re (1882) L.R. 21 Ch. D. 831
3–045
Ch D
Workman Clark & Co v Lloyd Brasileno [1908] 1 K.B. 968; 77
21–007
L.J.K.B. 953; 99 L.T. 481; 11 Asp.M.L.C. 126 CA
World Navigator, The. See Kurt A Becher GmbH & Co KG v
Roplak Enterprises SA (The World Navigator)
World Online Telecom Ltd (formerly Localtel Ltd) v I-Way Ltd
5–036
[2002] EWCA Civ 413
World Symphony, The. See Chiswell Shipping and Liberian
Jaguar Transports Inc v National Iranian Tankers Co (The
World Symphony and The World Renown)
Wormell v RHM Agricultural (East) Ltd [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1091;
7–056
[1987] 3 All E.R. 75 CA (Civ Div)
WPM Retail Ltd v Lang [1978] I.C.R. 787; [1978] I.R.L.R. 243
18–005
EAT
Wragg v Lovett [1948] 2 All E.R. 968; [1948] W.N. 455 CA
16–008
Wrexham Association Football Club Ltd v Crucialmove Ltd
12–069
[2006] EWCA Civ 237; [2007] B.C.C. 139
Wright v Carter [1903] 1 Ch. 27 CA
10–023, 10–027
Wright v Colls (1848) 8 C.B. 149
22–005
Wright v Wright (1750) 1 Ves.Sen. 409
15–006
WRN Ltd v Ayris [2008] EWHC 1080 (QB); [2008] I.R.L.R.
3–047
889
Wroth v Tyler [1974] Ch. 30; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 405; [1973] 1 All 20–073, 20–074, 20–103, 20–113, 21–030,
E.R. 897; (1973) 25 P. & C.R. 138; (1972) 117 S.J. 90 Ch D
21–063
Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1
20–009, 20–013, 20–014, 20–015, 20–016,
W.L.R. 798; [1974] 2 All E.R. 321; (1974) 27 P. & C.R. 296;
20–017, 20–018
(1973) 118 S.J. 420 Ch D
WS Tankship II BV v Kwangju Bank Ltd [2011] EWHC 3103
3–095, 5–015, 5–023, 8–065, 9–154
(Comm); [2012] C.I.L.L. 3155
WT Lamb & Sons v Goring Brick Co Ltd [1932] 1 K.B. 710 CA
16–091
Wu Koon Tai v Wu Yau Loi [1997] A.C. 179; [1996] 3 W.L.R.
778 PC (HK)
Wuhan Ocean Economic & Technical Cooperation Co Ltd v
Schiffahrts-Gesellschaft Hansa Murcia mbH & Co KG
[2012] EWHC 3104 (Comm); [2013] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
1277; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 273
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife
Fund) v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc
[2007] EWCA Civ 286; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 445
Wyatt v Hertford (1802) 3 East 147
Wyatt v Kreglinger [1933] 1 K.B. 793 CA
15–025, 21–045
6–036, 18–086
20–014, 20–016
16–064
3–017, 3–154, 3–155, 4–013, 11–080, 11–
083, 11–085, 11–155, 21–059
3–024, 3–040, 3–088
Wyvern Developments, Re [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1097; [1974] 2 All
E.R. 535 Ch D
X (Minors) v Bedfordshire CC; M (A Minor) v Newham LBC; E
14–047
(A Minor) v Dorset CC (Appeal); Christmas v Hampshire
CC (Duty of Care); Keating v Bromley LBC (No.2) [1995] 2
A.C. 633; [1995] 3 W.L.R. 152; [1995] 3 All E.R. 353;
[1995] 2 F.L.R. 276; [1995] 3 F.C.R. 337; 94 L.G.R. 313;
(1995) 7 Admin. L.R. 705; [1995] E.L.R. 404; [1995] Fam.
Law 537; (1996) 160 L.G. Rev. 103; (1996) 160 L.G. Rev.
123; (1995) 145 N.L.J. 993 HL
Xantho, The. See Thomas Wilson Sons & Co v Owners of Cargo
of the Xantho
Xenos v Wickham (1866) L.R. 2 H.L. 296 HL
3–172
Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 1–004, 6–042, 9–068, 9–072, 9–159, 20–
111 (QB); [2013] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1321; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s
028
Rep. 526; [2013] 1 C.L.C. 662; [2013] B.L.R. 147; 146 Con.
L.R. 39; [2013] Bus. L.R. D53
Yango Pastoral Co Ltd v First National Chicago Australia Ltd
11–114
(1978) 139 C.L.R. 410
Yangtsze Insurance Association Ltd v Lukmanjee [1918] A.C.
14–124
585 PC (Cey)
Yanxilas, The. See Stinnes Interoil GmbH v A Halcoussis & Co
(The Yanxilas)
Yasin, The [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 45 QBD (Comm)
20–121
Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Co of Europe Ltd v Orion
18–018
Marine Insurance Underwriting Agency Ltd [1995] Q.B.
174; [1995] 2 W.L.R. 49; [1995] 3 All E.R. 211; [1995] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 525 QBD (Comm)
Yates v Freckleton (1781) 2 Dougl. 623
16–056
Yaxley v Gotts; sub nom Yaxley v Gott [2000] Ch. 162; [1999] 3
3–099, 3–123, 5–011
W.L.R. 1217; [2000] 1 All E.R. 711; [1999] 2 F.L.R. 941;
(2000) 32 H.L.R. 547; (2000) 79 P. & C.R. 91; [1999] 2
E.G.L.R. 181; [1999] Fam. Law 700; [1999] E.G. 92 (C.S.);
(1999) 96(28) L.S.G. 25; (1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 198; [1999]
N.P.C. 76; (1999) 78 P. & C.R. D33; CA (Civ Div)
Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 37;
3–167
[2010] Q.B. 1
Yeoman Credit v Apps [1962] 2 Q.B. 508; [1961] 3 W.L.R. 94;
6–044, 7–023, 7–027, 7–029, 22–010
[1961] 2 All E.R. 281; (1961) 105 S.J. 567 CA
Yeoman Credit v Latter [1961] 1 W.L.R. 828; [1961] 2 All E.R.
5–015
294; (1961) 105 S.J. 300 CA
Yeoman Credit v Odgers Vospers Motor House (Plymouth)
(Third Party) [1962] 1 W.L.R. 215; [1962] 1 All E.R. 789
CA
Yeoman Credit v Waragowski [1961] 1 W.L.R. 1124; [1961] 3
All E.R. 145 CA
Yetton v Eastwood Froy Ltd [1967] 1 W.L.R. 104; [1966] 3 All
E.R. 353 QBD
Yeung Kai Yung v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp
[1981] A.C. 787; [1980] 3 W.L.R. 950 PC (HK)
Yewbelle Ltd v London Green Developments Ltd [2007] EWCA
Civ 475; [2007] 23 E.G. 164
Yianni v Edwin Evans & Sons [1982] Q.B. 438; [1981] 3
W.L.R. 843; [1981] 3 All E.R. 592; (1981) 259 E.G. 969;
(1981) 125 S.J. 694 QBD
Yin (Chai Sau) v Sam (Liew Kwee) [1962] A.C. 304; [1962] 2
W.L.R. 765 PC (FMS)
Ymnos, The. See Compagnie Générale Maritime v Diakan Spirit
SA (The Ymnos (No.2))
Yona International Ltd v La Réunion Française SA
D’Assurances et de Réassurances [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 84
QBD (Comm)
Yonge v Toynbee [1910] 1 K.B. 215 CA
Yorkbrook Investments Ltd v Batten (1986) 18 H.L.R. 25;
(1986) 52 P. & C.R. 51 CA (Civ Div)
Yorkshire Bank Plc v Tinsley [2004] EWCA Civ 816; [2004] 1
W.L.R. 2380; [2004] 3 All E.R. 463; [2004] 2 F.L.R. 1079;
[2004] Fam. Law 719; [2004] 28 E.G. 176 (C.S.); (2004)
101(27) L.S.G. 32; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 822; [2004] 2 P. &
C.R. DG19
Yorkshire Railway Wagon Co v Maclure (1882) L.R. 21 Ch. D.
309 CA
Youell v Bland Welch & Co Ltd (No.1) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
127 CA (Civ Div)
Youell v Bland Welch & Co Ltd (No.2); sub nom Superhulls
Cover Case [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 431 QBD (Comm)
Young v Canadian Northern Ry Co [1931] A.C. 83 PC (Can)
Young v Evans-Jones [2001] EWCA Civ 732; [2002] 1 P. &
C.R. 14
Young v Kitchin (1878) 3 Ex.D. 127
Young v Ladies Imperial Club Ltd [1920] 2 K.B. 523 CA
Young v Purdy [1996] 2 F.L.R. 795; [1997] 1 F.C.R. 632 CA
(Civ Div)
Young v Robson Rhodes (A Firm) [1999] 3 All E.R. 524; [1999]
Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 641 Ch D
Young v Schuler (1882–83) L.R. 11 Q.B.D. 651 CA
Young v Timmins (1831) 1 C. & J. 331
Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd; sub nom Prior v
McManus Childs Ltd [1969] 1 A.C. 454; [1968] 3 W.L.R.
630; [1968] 2 All E.R. 1169; 67 L.G.R. 1; (1968) 112 S.J.
744 HL
Youngmin v Heath [1974] 1 W.L.R. 135; [1974] 1 All E.R. 461
14–006
18–073, 20–062
20–117
11–026, 16–069
2–100
9–029
11–119
2–044, 2–045, 2–047
16–078, 16–082, 16–106, 16–110
17–019
10–029
13–012
2–089, 6–023, 6–024, 7–015
3–081, 3–082, 3–084, 20–115, 20–126
6–049
11–068
15–040, 15–079
21–037
20–124
21–036, 21–038, 21–057
8–039
21–059
6–039, 6–044, 17–066, 17–068
19–058
CA (Civ Div)
Ypatia Halloussi, The. See Olympia Sauna Shipping Co SA v
Shinwa Kaiun Kaisha Ltd
Ypatianna, The. See Indian Oil Corp Ltd v Greenstone Shipping
Co SA (Panama) (The Ypatianna)
Yuen Kun Yeu v Att Gen of Hong Kong [1988] A.C. 175;
9–038
[1987] 3 W.L.R. 776; [1987] 2 All E.R. 705; [1987] F.L.R.
291; (1987) 84 L.S.G. 2049; (1987) 137 N.L.J. 566; (1987)
131 S.J. 1185 PC (HK)
Yukong Line Ltd of Korea v Rendsburg Investments Co of
17–091, 18–026, 18–084, 18–085, 18–087
Liberia [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 604
Z v Z (Financial Remedy: Marriage Contract) [2011] EWHC
11–049
2878 (Fam); [2012] 1 F.L.R. 1100; [2012] Fam. Law 136
Zambia Steel & Building Supplies Ltd v James Clark & Eaton
2–021
Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 225 CA (Civ Div)
Zamir v Secretary of State for the Home Department; sub nom
9–141
R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p.
Zamir [1980] A.C. 930; [1980] 3 W.L.R. 249; [1980] 2 All
E.R. 768; [1980] Crim. L.R. 647; (1980) 124 S.J. 527 HL
Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd [2000] 1
7–075, 9–061, 9–134
W.L.R. 2333; [2000] C.L.C. 735 QBD (Comm)
Zealander v Laing Homes Ltd (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 724 QBD
7–112
(TCC)
Zenovia, The. See IMT Shipping & Chartering GmbH v
Chansung Shipping Co Ltd (The Zenovia)
Zephyr, The. See General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp
Ltd v Tanter (The Zephyr)
Zeus Tradition Marine Ltd v Bell (The Zeus V) [2000] 2 All
18–053
E.R. (Comm) 769; [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 58 CA (Civ Div)
Zeus V, The. See Zeus Tradition Marine Ltd v Bell (The Zeus V)
Zieme v Gregory [1963] VR. 214
20–150
Zinnia, The. See Stag Line Ltd v Tyne Ship Repair Group Ltd
(The Zinnia)
Zockoll Group Ltd v Mercury Communications Ltd (No.2)
7–066
[1999] E.M.L.R. 385; [1998] I.T.C.L.R. 104 CA (Civ Div)
Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd
20–116
(The Kildare) [2010] EWHC 903 (Comm); [2011] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 360
Zouch v Parsons (1763) 3 Burr. 1794
12–003
Zucker v Tyndall Holdings Plc [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1127; [1993] 1
21–062
All E.R. 124; [1993] I.L.Pr. 434 CA (Civ Div)
Zuhal K, The and Selin, The [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 151; [1987]
9–149
1 F.T.L.R. 76 QBD (Comm)
Zuiho Maru, The. See Kawasaki Steel Corp v Sardoil SpA (The
Zuiho Maru)
ZYX Music GmbH v King [1997] 2 All E.R. 129; [1997] E.C.C.
11–016, 11–044, 11–150
477 CA (Civ Div)
TABLE OF STATUTES
1551 Sale of Offices Act (c.16)
1677 Statute of frauds (c.3)
s.4
s.9
Sunday Observance Act (c.7)
1710 Gaming Act (c.19)
s.1
1745 Marine Insurance Act (c.28)
s.1
1774 Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act (c.78)
s.83
Life Assurance Act (c.126)
s.1
1777 Grants of Life Annuities Act (c.26)
s.1
1809 Sale of Offices Act (c.126)
1828 Statute of Frauds Amendment Act (c.14)
s.6
1845 Real Property Act (c.106)
s.5
Gaming Act (c.109)
s.18
1855 Bills of Lading Act (c.111)
s.1
1856 Mercantile Law Amendment Act (c.97)
s.2
s.3
1858 Chancery Amendment Act (c.97) (Lord Cairns’ Act)
s.2
1867 Sales of Reversions Act (c.4)
Sale of Land by Auction Act (c.48)
s.5
Policies of Assurance Act (c.86)
1868 Marine Insurance Act (c.36)
1870 Apportionment Act (c.35)
s.2
s.5
s.7
1871 Trade Union Act (c.31)
s.3
1873 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (c.66)
s.25(6)
(7)
(11)
1874 Infants Relief Act (c.62)
s.1
11–057
5–013, 5–015, 5–016, 5–017, 5–018, 5–
019, 5–024
3–156, 5–011, 5–014, 11–006, 21–033
15–016
11–119
11–010
11–007
14–127
11–007, 11–136
22–013
11–057
9–048
14–132, 14–133
3–032, 3–157, 11–010
14–024, 14–072, 15–009
21–024
5–021
21–063
20–016, 21–061
10–044
2–008
15–009
15–009
17–032, 17–047, 19–106
17–035, 17–047
17–047
17–047
11–091
9–083, 13–010, 14–088, 15–009, 15–028,
15–030, 15–032, 15–033, 15–035, 20–
131
15–010
18–100
13–010, 14–088
12–030
1875 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (c.77)
1880 Employers’ Liability Act (c.42)
1882 Bills of Sale Act 1878 (Amendment)Act (c.43)
Bills of Exchange Act (c.61)
s.3
(1)
s.11
s.17(2)
s.27(1)(b)
(2)
s.29
(1)
s.30(2)
s.38(2)
s.40(1)
s.41(1)(a)
s.53(1)
s.62
ss.65–68
s.73
s.81A
s.83(1)
s.85(2)
Married Women’s Property Act (c.75)
s.11
1889 Factors Act (c.45)
1890 Partnership Act (c.39)
s.9
s.14(1)
s.17(3)
Directors Liability Act (c.64)
1893 Sale of Goods Act (c.71)
s.13
s.15
s.55
1894 Merchant Shipping Act (c.60)
s.57
1906 Marine Insurance Act (c.41)
s.4
(1)
(2)
s.14(2)
s.17
s.18(1)
(2)
s.20
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
s.22
s.24
9–083, 20–131
12–011
5–006
15–046
5–006
14–086
5–006
3–022,15–049
15–049
15–048
15–048
15–048, 15–049
15–048
17–002
17–002
15–018
3–061
16–033
15–046
15–046
15–046
13–004
14–125
16–030
13–004, 13–010
16–022
3–163
9–034
18–048
7–077
7–074
11–009
11–007, 9–015
11–010
11–007
11–007
14–128
9–145, 9–146, 9–152, 9–164
9–139
9–146
9–015
9–015
9–020
9–015
9–015
5–013
5–013
s.33(3)
s.46(1)
s.50
(1)
(2)
s.84
(1)
(2)
(3)
s.86
Sch.1 r.1
1911 Official Secrets Act (c.28)
1914 Deeds of Arrangement Act (c.47)
1924 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (c.22)
Sch
1925 Trustee Act (c.19)
s.13
Law of Property Act (c.20)
s.1(6)
s.40
s.41
s.47
s.49(2)
s.52
s.53(1)(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
s.54(2)
s.56
(1)
(2)
s.63(1)
s.74(1)
s.74A(2)
s.81
s.82
s.84
(7)
s.101
s.108
s.109
s.119
s.136
(1)
s.137(3)
s.146
s.174
s.196(3)
s.199(1)(i)
s.205(1)(ii)
7–032, 18–007, 18–008
7–032
15–015, 15–020
15–009
9–091, 15–013
19–106, 22–003
9–096
19–106
9–096
16–049
8–003
20–011
3–109
14–050
3–014
14–132
12–018
3–123, 5–008, 5–009, 5–011, 21–033
18–100, 18–101
14–128, 19–063
11–047, 20–150, 20–154
5–005
16–016
14–082
5–025,15–016
15–016
5–005
14–017, 14–131, 14–132
14–131, 14–132, 14–133
14–131
8–077
3–170
3–172
13–022
8–077
11–101
3–015
21–040
14–128
16–003
13–004, 13–022
15–015, 15–020
14–102, 15–010, 15–011, 15–014, 15–015,
15–021, 15–037
15–023
18–065
10–044
2–038
5–005
5–030
(xx)
(xxi)
Land Charges Act (c.22)
s.13(2)
Administration of Estates Act (c.23)
s.21A
Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act (c.72)
1927 Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Act (c.12)
Landlord and Tenant Act (c.36)
s.18
1930 Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act (c.25)
s.1
Road Traffic Act (c.43)
s.36(4)
1933 Children and Young Persons Act (c.12)
s.18
1934 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (c.41)
s.1(1)
(2)(a)
s.3
1938 Inheritance (Family Provision) Act (c.71)
1939 Trading with the Enemy Act (c.89)
1943 Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act (c.40)
s.1
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(5)
s.2(3)
(4)
(5)(a)
(b)
(c)
1944 Validation of Wartime Leases Act (c.34)
1945 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act (c.28)
1947 Crown Proceedings Act (c.44)
1957 Occupiers’ Liability Act (c.31)
s.3
1960 Corporate Bodies Contracts Act (c.46)
1961 Suicide Act (c.60)
1963 British Museum Act (c.24)
s.3(4)
Children and Young Persons Act (c.37)
s.37
1964 Hire Purchase Act (c.53)
s.27
14–132
3–014
3–015
13–015
11–057
11–102
20–039
14–130, 16–059
14–130
14–126
12–011
13–010
15–071
19–101
14–022
11–059
2–067, 8–002, 8–030, 14–119, 17–032,
19–048, 19–075, 19–106, 19–107, 19–
108, 19–109, 19–110, 19–111, 19–112,
19–113, 19–123, 22–025
19–106
19–123
19–095, 19–098, 19–101, 19–104, 19–105
19–100, 19–101, 19–102, 19–103, 19–104,
19–105, 19–106, 22–025
19–098, 19–104
19–103
19–098, 19–100
19–107
19–106
19–109
19–110
19–107, 19–111, 19–113
11–146
9–028, 20–122, 20–123
15–067
23–082
14–045, 14–073
12–082
11–030
12–082
12–011
8–039
(2)
1965 Carriage of Goods by Road Act (c.37)
Sch. art.14(2)
art.16(3)
1967 Misrepresentation Act (c.7)
s.1
(a)
(b)
s.2
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
s.3
Criminal Law Act (c.58)
s.1
s.4(1A)
s.5(1)
s.13(1)
(2)
s.14(1)
(2)
Abortion Act (c.87)
1968 Trade Descriptions Act (c.29)
s.35
Theft Act (c.60)
s.4(1)
1969 Auctions (Bidding Agreement) Act (c.31)
Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act (c.37)
Family Law Reform Act (c.46)
s.1
s.9
s.11
s.19(1)
Law of Property Act (c.59)
s.28
7–054
16–037
16–037
9–017, 9–028, 9–042, 9–050, 9–054, 9–
079, 9–086, 9–100, 9–102, 9–103, 9–
104, 9–141, 9–166, 11–126, 14–119,
16–078, 23–002
9–100
6–018, 9–099, 9–100, 9–119, 9–130, 18–
092
9–103
4–005, 9–003, 9–45, 9–063
7–075, 8–010, 8–068, 9–009, 9–024, 9–
028, 9–036, 9–042, 9–043, 9–044, 9–
045, 9–046, 9–047, 9–048, 9–049, 9–
061, 9–062, 9–066, 9–068, 9–072, 9–
076, 9–077, 9–078, 9–080, 9–113, 9–
140, 9–166, 12–080
9–059, 9–061, 9–077, 9–078, 9–080, 9–
087, 9–100, 9–101, 9–104, 9–166, 12–
043, 18–059, 18–092
9–078
9–045, 9–063
9–045
7–050, 7–072, 7–074, 7–075, 7–090, 9–
027, 9–123, 9–126, 9–123, 9–124, 9–
125, 9–126, 9–127, 9–128, 9–129, 9–
130, 9–131, 9–132, 9–133, 9–134, 9–
135, 9–166, 23–064
15–058
3–045, 11–046
11–011
3–045, 11–011, 11–046
11–012, 15–002, 15–058
15–058
11–012, 15–002
11–012, 11–030, 11–032, 15–002, 15–058
11–030
11–019
11–019
12–041
11–102
6–043
12–001
12–001
12–016
14–125
11–101
1970 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (c.33)
s.1
s.2
1971 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (c.19)
s.1
s.3
Sch
art.III.8
art.4 bis
art.IV.4
art.IV.5
Powers of Attorney Act (c.27)
s.4
s.5(1)
(3)
s.6
s.7(1)
1972 Defective Premises Act (c.35)
s.1(1)
(b)
s.4
s.6(3)
s.11(b)
European Communities Act (c.68)
s.2
1972 Local Government Act (c.70)
s.123(2)
1973 Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act (c.13)
ss.8–11
s.8
ss.9–11
s.10
(2)
(3)
s.11A
Matrimonial Causes Act (c.18)
Pt II
ss.23–25
s.34
1974 Consumer Credit Act (c.39)
s.8(1)
s.9
s.15
s.37
s.55(1)
s.56
(2)
(3)
s.57(3)
s.61(1)
(a)
11–038
11–038
7–032, 14–050
14–066
17–066
14–066
7–049, 7–091
14–061
7–032
7–032, 7–091, 14–072
16–113
16–113
16–078
16–113
16–113
16–074
14–029
7–058
14–045
14–045, 14–073
7–058
14–073
11–106
3–014
7–027,23–002
6–043, 18–047
7–060
7–060
17–066
7–060, 7–068
7–060, 7–068
18–057
11–049
9–142
3–154, 3–156, 11–006, 11–048, 11–155
5–007, 7–115, 9–160, 10–047, 13–012,
14–006, 15–080, 16–006, 20–144
5–007
5–007
5–007
14–129
5–007
6–016
14–006, 16–006
16–006
16–006
5–007
5–007
(b)
(c)
s.62
s.63
(3)
s.64(2)
(5)
s.65(1)
ss.67–68
s.67
s.69(1)(ii)
(6)
(7)
s.75
(1)
s.86
s.87
s.88
s.89
s.90
s.94
s.95
s.99
s.100
(1)
(3)
s.102(1)
Pt VIII
s.105
s.113(1)
(2)
(7)
s.114(2)
s.125
s.127
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
s.129
s.136
s.140A(1)
(c)
(2)
ss.140A-140C
s.170(1)
s.173
s.175
s.176A
Solicitors Act (c.47)
5–007
5–007
5–007
5–007
5–028
5–028
5–007
5–007
10–046
7–126
2–058
16–006
2–058
14–006
9–045
7–126
7–126, 11–144
18–065
18–065
11–144
7–126
7–126
7–126
7–126
7–115,20–144
7–115,20–144
16–006
5–018
5–007
13–012
13–012
13–012
12–032
15–048
5–018
5–007
5–007
5–007
5–007
5–007
5–007
7–105
7–105
10–047
9–160
10–047
10–047
12–032
7–126
16–006
5–028
s.37
1975 Inheritance (Provisions for Family and Dependants) Act
(c.63)
s.1(3)
s.10(2)(b)
(5)(b)
s.11(2)(c)
1976 Police Pensions Act (c.35)
s.9
Bail Act (c.63)
s.9
1977 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act (c.32)
s.3(7)
s.6
(1)
s.12
(5)
s.13
(1)(a)
Sch.1
Rent Act (c.42)
s.57
s.95
s.125
Protection from Eviction Act (c.43)
s.1(1)
Unfair Contract Terms Act (c.50)
Pt I
s.1(1)
(a)
(2)
(3)
s.2
14–129
14–022
3–015
3–014
3–014
3–014
15–069
11–011, 11–046
16–039
16–039
16–039
16–037, 16–039
16–039
16–037, 16–039
16–039
16–037, 16–039
11–045, 11–133
11–133
11–133
11–133
20–001
7–001, 7–002, 7–016, 7–023, 7–027, 7–
049, 7–050, 7–051, 7–052, 7–053, 7–
054, 7–055, 7–056, 7–057, 7–058, 7–
060, 7–062, 7–071, 7–072, 7–073, 7–
074, 7–075, 7–076, 7–079, 7–080, 7–
081, 7–084, 7–085, 7–086, 7–087, 7–
090, 7–091, 7–092, 7–095, 7–096, 7–
097, 7–098, 7–099, 7–100, 7–101, 7–
104, 7–107, 7–111, 7–112, 7–113, 7–
114, 7–115, 7–116, 7–117, 7–121, 7–
122, 7–125, 9–028, 9–128, 9–129, 9–
131, 9–132, 9–133, 14–057, 14–112,
14–119, 14–120, 16–089, 18–058, 18–
059, 19–075, 19–107, 20–063, 20–137,
20–140, 23–001, 23–002, 23–007, 23–
028, 23–029, 23–045, 23–046, 23–059,
23–061, 23–062, 23–064, 23–065, 23–
067, 23–083, 23–084
9–123
7–058, 7–063
7–086, 7–121, 14–120
7–087
7–050, 7–053, 7–061, 7–068, 7–069, 7–
070, 7–089, 23–064
7–002,7–33,7–051, 7–056, 7–058, 7–069,
(1)
(2)
(3)
ss.2–7
s2B
s.3
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
s.4
(1)
s.5
(1)
(2)(b)
(3)
s.6
(1)
(1A)
(2)
(3)
(4)
s.7
(1A)
(2)
(3)
(3A)
(4)
s.8
s.9
(1)
(2)
s.10
s.11
(1)
(2)
(3)
7–070, 7–071, 7–084, 7–086, 7–087,
7–088, 7–089, 9–126, 12–011, 14–120,
23–059, 23–067
7–058, 7–058, 7–063, 7–070, 7–071, 7–
088, 7–089, 7–097, 7–121, 9–037, 14–
120
7–063, 7–070, 7–074, 7–088, 7–089, 7–
121, 9–128, 9–132, 14–120
23–082
7–092
7–058
7–064, 7–080, 7–084, 7–087, 7–088, 7–
111, 7–113, 7–121, 12–011, 14–119,
14–120, 23–064
7–086, 7–097
7–067, 7–074, 7–080, 9–128, 9–132
7–064
4–020, 7–020, 7–056, 7–066, 7–067, 7–
090, 7–111, 18–063, 19–107, 20–063
7–069, 7–070, 7–071, 7–087, 7–088, 7–
090, 7–099
7–074
7–056, 7–059
7–059, 7–097
7–059
7–059
7–056, 7–058, 7–059, 7–068, 7–070, 7–
075, 7–079, 7–086
7–060, 7–068, 7–075, 7–086
7–056, 7–068, 7–074, 7–075
7–056, 7–060, 7–068, 7–076, 7–084, 7–
121
7–056, 7–060, 7–068, 7–074, 7–075, 7–
080
7–050, 7–060, 7–086, 23–064
7–056, 7–058, 7–059, 7–061, 7–068, 7–
070, 7–079, 7–086, 7–088
7–074
7–061, 7–076
7–068, 7–074
7–061, 7–068
7–061, 7–068, 7–074
7–072, 7–086
7–023, 7–083
7–083
7–083
7–084, 12–081,23–084
23–071
7–074, 7–075, 7–077, 7–104, 9–123, 9–
133, 23–070
7–079, 9–133
7–051, 7–077, 7–097, 23–071
(4)
(5)
s.12
(1)(a)
(b)
(c)
(1A)
(2)
s.13
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
s.14
s.26
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
s.27(1)
(2)
s.29
(1)(a)
(b)
Sch.1
para.1
(a)
(d)
para.2
(c)
para.3
para.4
Sch.2
1978 Interpretation Act (c.30)
Sch.1
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act (c.47)
s.1(1)
s.2
(1)
s.3
s.7(1)
1979 Estate Agents Act (c.38)
s.3
s.13(1)(a)
s.18(2)(a)
s.21
Merchant Shipping Act (c.39)
s.17
Sch.4
7–077, 7–078, 7–097, 7–121, 9–133
7–062
7–054
7–054, 7–101
7–054, 7–060
7–054
7–054
7–054, 7–101, 18–058
7–111,9–123
7–056, 7–067, 7–084, 9–037, 9–126, 23–
028, 23–029, 23–045, 23–046, 23–061,
23–062
7–055
7–054, 7–112, 18–059
7–055
7–055,7–084,7–112
7–053, 7–058, 7–089
9–124
7–090
7–090
7–090
7–090
7–092, 7–122
7–085, 7–122
7–059, 7–091
7–115, 19–107
7–116
7–087
7–087
7–107
7–117
7–088
7–091
7–088
7–087, 7–089, 7–117, 12–011
7–079
5–028
15–065
13–019
15–065
13–007, 16–076
13–007
16–089
16–097
16–008
16–089
16–097
14–050
14–050
Sale of Goods Act (c.54)
s.2(1)
s.3(2)
(3)
s.6
s.7
s.8(2)
s.9(1)
s.10(1)
s.11
(2)
(3)
(4)
s.12
(1)
(2)
(3)
ss.12–15
s.13
ss.13–14
ss.13–15
s.14
(2)
(2D)
(2E)(a)
(3)
s.15
s.15A
(1)
(b)
(2)
(3)
s.18
s.20(1)
(4)
s.20A(1)
(2)
s.25
s.27
s.28
s.29(5)
s.30(1)
(2)
(2A)
(5)
s.31(1)
(2)
s.35
(1)
(2)
2–086, 2–092, 2–096, 7–121, 9–098, 18–
007, 18–056, 18–057, 18–061, 21–007,
21–025, 21–027, 23–002, 23–014
12–041
12–008, 12–058, 12–060, 12–062
12–008
8–010
19–010, 19–014, 19–111, 19–112
2–018,2–086,22–020
2–096
17–024
8–051
18–082
18–007, 18–044, 18–060
18–090
7–060, 11–017
18–047, 18–057
18–047
18–047
6–043, 18–047
8–015, 18–047, 18–057, 23–002
18–062
7–060
17–066, 18–047, 18–057
7–054, 7–060, 7–068
4–004
17–066
6–044, 7–068
18–047, 18–057
18–056, 18–057, 18–058, 18–109
18–057
18–057
18–057
18–057
2–108, 12–031, 19–014, 21–013
19–014
19–014
21–025
21–025
9–095
21–007
17–018, 21–007
17–004
17–033, 17–043, 18–034, 18–047, 19–028
17–033, 18–047
17–033, 18–034, 18–109
17–033
17–039
17–033, 18–034
18–090, 19–119, 23–021
9–119
9–119
(4)
(5)
s.35A
s.48(3)
(4)
Pt 5A
s.48A
(1)(b)
(2)(a)
(b)
ss.48A–48C
ss.48A–48F
s.48B
(2)(a)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(4)
s.48C
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(b)
s.48D(1)
(2)(a)
s.48E
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
s.48F
s.49
(1)
(2)
s.50(3)
s.51(3)
s.52
s.53(1)(a)
(2)
(3)
s.57(2)
s.61(1)
(5A)
s.62(2)
s.63
Sch.2 para.2
1980 Limitation (Amendment) Act (c.24)
s.10
9–119,18–090
9–119,18–090
18–091
18–107
18–001, 18–022
18–056, 18–058
18–058, 18–062, 18–093, 22–005
18–058
18–058, 21–027
18–062
18–058
9–100
18–058, 18–093, 21–027
18–093
18–058
21–027
21–027
21–027
18–058
18–058, 18–062, 21–027, 22–005
20–053
18–042
18–058, 18–062, 18–093
18–058, 20–053
18–093
18–058, 18–093
18–058, 18–093
18–058
21–027
18–058, 18–062, 21–027
18–058, 18–062, 21–027
22–005
18–058, 18–062, 18–093
21–007,21–023
21–007, 21–009, 21–013
21–007
20–054, 20–071
20–044, 20–048, 20–071
21–023, 21–024, 21–025, 21–026, 21–027,
21–028
18–042
20–051, 20–052
9–065, 18–042, 20–040, 20–050, 20–072
2–008
8–010, 18–042, 18–060, 18–061, 19–113,
21–023, 21–025
18–042, 18–058, 21–027
18–061
19–111
19–111
13–015
Limitation Act (c.58)
s.2
s.14A
s.29(5)
(7)
s.30(1)
s.32(1)
1981 Public Passenger Vehicles Act (c.14)
s.29
Senior Courts Act (c.54)
s.35A
(1)
(3)
(4)
s.36(4)
s.49
(1)
(2)
(3)
s.50
1982 Supply of Goods and Services Act (c.29)
Pt I
s.1
(2)(e)
ss.2–5
s.4
(2B)
s.5A
ss.7–10
s.9
(4)
s.12(3)(a)
s.13
ss.13–14
s.15(1)
s.16(3)(a)
Administration of Justice Act (c.53)
s.4
1983 Mental Health Act (c.20)
Pt VII
s.96
1984 Occupiers’ Liability Act (c.3)
s.2
County Courts Act (c.28)
s.69
1985 Companies Act (c.6)
s.4
s.14
s.34
s.35A
(1)
s.35B
3–022
9–048
9–048
3–022
3–022
3–022
9–048
7–049
20–064
20–064, 20–065
19–101, 20–064
20–064
20–065
3–045
21–061
13–010, 14–088
14–038
14–038
21–061
7–059, 17–067, 18–050, 23–002
23–002
23–002
7–068
6–043, 7–061, 18–047
17–066
4–004
18–057
6–043,7–061,18–047
17–066
11–061
17–068
17–067
6–043, 18–050
2–018, 2–086, 22–020
17–067
15–071
12–056
12–056
7–053
20–064
12–066
14–012
11–152
12–069
12–069
16–027
s.36A(4)
s.36C
(1)
s.341
s.711A(1)
Enduring Powers of Attorney Act (c.29)
Insolvency Act (c.65)
s.235
Sch.10 Pt III
Housing Act (c.68)
s.82
Landlord and Tenant Act (c.70)
s.4
s.11
s.12
1986 Insolvency Act (c.45)
Pt I
s.8
s.44
(1)(a)
(b)
(c)
(3)
s.45
s.178
s.216(3)
s.238
Pt VIII
s.281(7)
s.283(1)
(a)
s.306
s.307
s.310(1)
(2)
(3)
(7)
s.311
(4)
s.315
s.339
s.344
s.345(1)
(2)
(4)
s.423
s.436
s.439(2)
Sch.B1
Sch.10 Pt III
Company Directors Disqualification Act (c.46)
s.1
3–170
16–048
16–073
11–019
16–027
16–114
3–109
3–109
9–094
7–124
5–002
7–124
7–124
3–109
16–003
15–084, 21–040
16–003, 16–075
16–075
16–092
16–092
16–075
15–084
11–023
3–014
3–060, 3–109
13–015
15–074
15–075
15–074
15–073, 15–074
15–075
15–075
15–075
15–075
15–073
15–076
15–084
3–014, 3–156
15–016
17–058, 18–035
17–058, 18–035
13–005
3–014
15–074
3–109
16–003
3–109
11–116
1987 Minors’ Contracts Act (c.13)
s.1(a)
s.2
s.3
(1)
(2)
s.4
(2)
Consumer Protection Act (c.43)
Pt I
s.3
s.4
s.5
(2)
s.7
(1)
Pt II
s.41
1988 Landlord and Tenant Act (c.26)
s.1(3)(a)
Road Traffic Act (c.52)
s.65(1)
(4)
s.75(7)
s.148(7)
s.149
ss.151–153
s.158
s.159
1989 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (c.34)
s.1
(1)(b)
(2)
(2A)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(4)
(7)
(8)
s.2
(1)
(1)–(3)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
12–036, 12–045
12–030
13–012
12–036, 12–040
12–031, 12–036, 12–037, 12–039, 12–041,
12–042, 12–044, 12–045, 12–046, 12–
051
12–036, 12–045, 12–048
13–012
12–030
14–048, 16–005
14–054, 17–066
17–066
17–066
7–058, 17–066
14–048
7–049, 7–059
7–058
20–001
20–001
21–013
11–122
11–122
11–12
14–126
7–049
14–130
16–041
16–041
4–019, 5–011, 12–067
13–022
3–170
3–170
3–170
3–170
3–170
3–170
3–170
13–022
13–022, 16–074, 21–033
4–019, 5–008, 5–009, 5–010, 5–011, 5–
012, 5–032, 16–016
3–099, 4–010, 5–008, 5–009, 5–030, 5–
031, 6–021, 21–033
3–123
5–008
4–010, 5–008
5–009
3–122, 4–019, 5–008, 5–011
5–008, 5–030
s.3
s.4
Sch.1
Sch.2
Companies Act (c.40)
s.108(1)
s.142
s.164
Children Act (c.41)
s.1(1)
s.2(1)
(1A)
(2A)
(3)
(4)
(9)
s.3
s.4(1)
(b)
(3)
s.15
1990 Contracts (Applicable Law) Act (c.36)
s.2
(1)
Sch.1
art.16
1990 Courts and Legal Services Act (c.41)
s.58
(1)
(2)(a)
(3)
(4)(c)
s.58A
(1)
(4)
s.61
1991 Road Traffic Act (c.40)
s.48
Sch.4
Child Support Act (c.48)
s.1(1)
s.9
1992 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act (c.12)
s.51(2)
Cheques Act (c.32)
Museums and Galleries Act (c.44)
s.11(2)
Sch.8 para.5
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (c.50)
s.2
(1)(a)
(4)
20–118
16–074, 21–033
13–022, 16–074
16–074, 21–033
12–066
16–027
16–027
15–084
11–040
11–040
11–040
11–040
11–040
11–040
11–040
11–040
11–040
11–040
11–040
12–009
7–085
11–060
7–085
11–060
11–013, 11–030
11–013
11–013
11–013
11–013
11–013, 11–030
11–013
11–013
11–036
14–130
14–130
12–009
11–040, 11–048
20–067
15–046
12–082
12–082
14–024, 14–114, 15–009, 15–085
4–003, 14–060, 14–072, 15–028
15–085
14–024, 14–043
s.3
(1)(a)
(3)
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act
(c.52)
s.1
s.11
s.62(7)
s.63
s.117
s.122(1)
s.128
s.137(1)(a)
s.138(1)(a)
s.140
s.174(3)
ss.174–177
s.178(1)
(2)
s.179(1)
(2)
(3)
s.226
s.234A
s.235A
s.236
s.245
1993 Trade Union and Employment Rights Act (c.19)
s.14
s.22
European Communities (Amendment) Act (c.32)
Criminal Justice Act (c.36)
s.63(2)
1994 Insolvency Act (c.7)
s.2
Sale and Supply of Goods Act (c.35)
Pt I
s.2(1)
s.3(2)
s.4(2)
s.7(1)
Sch.2
para.4
para.6
1995 Merchant Shipping Act (c.21)
s.34(1)(c)
s.38(1)
s.185
Sch.7 Pt I
Pensions Act (c.26)
s.91
Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act (c.28)
4–003, 14–060
15–085
15–085
4–022, 11–091
11–091
11–091
4–025
11–054
11–091
11–091
11–091
1–008
1–008
1–008
11–091
1–008, 11–091, 21–036
4–022
4–022
4–022
4–022
4–022
21–036
17–073
21–036
21–036
4–025
11–091
21–036
11–106
11–122
15–084
16–075, 21–040
18–056
9–138
18–090
18–090
18–034
11–017, 17–066, 18–057
11–017
18–057
17–066, 18–057
15–067
17–038
14–050
14–050
15–069
21–025
s.1(3)
s.2(a)
(d)
Landlord and Tenants (Covenants) Act (c.30)
s.3
s.5
s.6
s.13(1)
Child Support Act (c.35)
s.18
1996 Police Act (c.16)
s.25(1)
Employment Rights Act (c.18)
s.1
ss.2–4
s.14(4)
s.64
Pt VIII
s.86
Pt X
s.94
s.97(1)
ss.113–117
s.123(4)
s.129(9)
s.130
s.203
Arbitration Act (c.23)
s.1(b)
s.4
s.5(1)
s.7
s.9(4)
s.30(1)(a)
s.40(2)(b)
s.41
(2)
(3)
s.45
(1)
s.69
(1)
(2)
(3)
s.81(1)(c)
s.82(1)
s.87
ss.89–91
s.91
Sch.1
Family Law Act (c.27)
21–025
21–025
19–113
15–080
15–077
15–077
13–004
11–048
3–046
21–036
5–002
5–002
15–067
19–023
21–036
1–006
20–083
17–073
18–007
21–036
20–120
21–036
21–036
11–053
7–101, 11–050, 11–051, 11–052, 14–098,
14–119
11–051
11–050
11–050, 11–052
18–019
11–050
11–112
18–095
18–095
2–005
2–005, 2–044
11–052
11–052
11–052
11–052
11–052
11–052
11–051, 11–053
11–052
7–112
7–101
7–112,11–050
11–050
11–038
s.33(1)(b)
s.62(3)(e)
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act (c.47)
s.2(6)
Sch.2
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act (c.53)
Pt II
1997 Local Government (Contracts) Act (c.65)
1998 Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act (c.20)
s.1(1)
(2)
s.2(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(7)
s.3
(3)
s.4
s.5
s.5A
s.7(2)
s.8(1)
(3)
(4)
(5)
s.9
s.10(1)
s.11
s.14
(2)
(3)
National Minimum Wage Act (c.39)
s.31
s.49
Competition Act (c.41)
Pt I Ch.1
Ch.2
s.2
(1)
(2)(a)
(4)
(8)
s.4
s.6
s.9(1)
s.18
s.36(3)
s.39
s.47A
s.47B
11–038
11–038
12–018
12–018
2–045
12–072
20–06, 20–064, 20–065
20–063,20–064
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063, 20–064
20–065
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
20–063
7–064
20–063
1–006
20–001
1–006
11–024, 11–105, 11–106, 15–054
11–106
11–108
11–106
11–106
11–106
11–106
11–106
11–106
11–106
11–106
11–108
11–024
11–107
11–106
11–106
s.50
(1)
(2)
(5)
s.60
Human Rights Act (c.42)
s.1
s.6
s.12
Sch.1 Pt I
art.1
art.2
art.5
art.11
Pt II
1999 Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act (c.3)
s.18(2)
Access to Justice Act (c.22)
s.27
Employment Relations Act (c.26)
Welfare Reform and Pensions Act (c.30)
s.11
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (c.31)
s.1
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
15–054
11–106
11–106
11–106
11–106
1–008
1–008, 11–061
11–061
21–035
11–061
11–061
21–037
11–061
1–008
11–113
16–041
11–013
1–006
15–074
3–026, 7–084, 13–036, 14–002, 14–003,
14–005, 14–012, 14–015, 14–017, 14–
036, 14–044, 14–049, 14–058, 14–059,
14–060, 14–061, 14–062, 14–068, 14–
069, 14–072, 14–075, 14–077, 14–084,
14–090, 14–091, 14–092, 14–094, 14–
096, 14–099, 14–100, 14–103, 14–114,
14–116, 14–117, 14–118, 14–119, 14–
120, 14–121, 14–122, 14–123, 14–125,
14–134, 15–003, 15–004, 15–017, 16–
056, 16–062, 16–066, 16–057, 16–099,
17–008, 17–012, 21–022, 21–046, 21–
050, 21–051
14–094, 14–098, 14–113, 14–114, 14–115,
14–117, 14–118, 14–119, 14–120, 14–
122
14–058, 14–090, 14–091, 14–094, 14–095,
14–097, 14–106, 14–114, 14–116, 14–
133, 16–056, 16–062
14–036, 14–061, 14–091, 14–095, 15–004
14–061, 14–085, 14–091, 14–092, 14–093,
14–094, 14–095, 15–004
13–036, 14–058, 14–085, 14–092, 14–093,
14–095, 14–105, 14–133, 15–004, 16–
062
14–036, 14–058, 14–094, 14–095, 14–133,
16–046, 16–057, 16–062
14–096, 16–066
14–097, 14–103, 14–119, 21–046, 21–051
14–058, 14–071, 14–091, 14–092, 14–095,
(7)
s.2
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)(a)
(b)
(3)(a)
(b)
(4)
(b)
(5)
(6)
s.3
(1)
(2)
(b)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
s.4
s.5
s.6
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
s.7(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
s.8
(1)
(2)
s.10(2)
(3)
2000 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act (c.6)
s.130
s.143
Electronic Communications Act (c.7)
s.7
s.8
(2)(c)
14–098, 14–112
14–090, 15–003
14–003, 14–015, 14–058, 14–084, 14–091,
14–093, 14–117, 14–125
14–101, 14–104, 14–105, 14–106, 14–117
14–102
14–103
14–103, 14–107
14–102
14–102
14–106
14–106
14–107
14–107
14–107
14–107
14–003, 14–058, 14–091, 14–108, 14–117
14–108, 14–117
14–068, 14–075, 14–109, 14–110, 14–111,
14–112, 14–118, 16–066
15–003
14–110
14–036, 14–097, 14–111
14–110, 14–111
14–097, 14–112, 14–119
14–003, 14–036, 14–121, 21–050
14–122
14–003
14–003, 14–114
14–003, 14–012
14–003, 14–115
14–115
14–003, 14–061, 14–114
14–114
14–003, 14–005, 14–058, 14–075, 14–077,
14–091, 14–093, 14–116, 14–117, 14–
123, 15–004
14–120
14–119
14–097, 14–119
14–002, 14–097, 14–114, 14–119
14–098
14–098
14–003
14–003
20–001
11–150
5–028
5–028
5–028
Financial Services and Markets Act (c.8)
s.20
(2)(b)
s.22
s.26(1)
(2)
ss.26–30
s.27(1)
(1A)
(2)
s.28(3)–(6)
(7)
s.32
s.80
s.81
ss.87A–87B
s.87G
s.90
s.90A
s.102B
Limited Liability Partnerships Act (c.12)
s.1
(2)
(3)
(5)
s.2
s.4
s.5
(1)(a)
(c)
(2)
s.6(1)
(2)
(3)(a)
(b)
Learning and Skills Act (c.21)
s.95
Postal Services Act (c.26)
s.89
s.90
s.91
2002 Land Registration Act (c.9)
s.91
(5)
Sch.3 para.2
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (c.15)
s.166
ss.167–170
Employment Act (c.22)
s.7
Education Act (c.32)
s.122
9–160, 11–122, 11–133
3–156
11–006
11–010
11–020, 11–119, 11–122, 11–133
11–122, 11–133
3–156
11–122, 11–133
11–020
11–122, 11–133
11–122, 11–133
11–122
11–119
9–160
9–141
9–160
9–141
9–029, 9–034, 9–039, 9–048, 9–158
9–039, 9–160
2–014
2–074,12–071,16–107
12–020
12–071, 16–003, 16–066
2–074, 12–071
12–071
12–071
12–020
12–020
14–013
14–013
16–066, 22–024
16–003
16–027
16–022
16–027
15–052
1–008
1–008
1–008
3–170, 5–028
5–008
3–170
5–005
17–002
18–065
1–006
21–036
1–007
Adoption and Children Act (c.38)
s.92
s.95
s.96
Enterprise Act (c.40)
s.18
s.19
Pt 8
s.211
s.212
s.214
s.219
ss.224–227F
s.248(1)
(2)
2003 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act (c.1)
ss.401–404
Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards)
Act (c.43)
s.150
2004 Higher Education Act (c.8)
s.20
s.46
Employment Relations Act (c.24)
Human Tissue Act (c.30)
s.32
Civil Partnership Act (c.33)
s.70
2005 Mental Capacity Act (c.9)
s.2(1)
(2)–(4)
s.3
(2)–(4)
ss.5–8
s.7
(2)
s.9(1)
(2)
s.10
s.11
s.13(2)
(3)
(4)
(6)(a)
(b)
(c)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(11)
s.14(5)
s.15
11–040
11–040
11–040
7–125
11–106
11–106
7–125, 23–086
7–125
7–125
7–125
7–125
7–125
16–003
16–003
20–065
16–041
11–054
11–054
1–006
11–011
14–125
12–053, 12–056, 14–107, 16–114
12–053, 14–107
12–053
12–053
12–053
16–032
12–058, 12–059, 12–060
12–058
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–114
16–078
12–056
ss.15–19
s.16(4)(a)
s.18(1)
s.19(6)
s.23
s.33
s.37
Pt 2
s.66
Sch.1
Sch.4
Gambling Act(c.19)
s.3
s.6
s.9
s.10
s.12(1)
s.14
s.15
s.33
(1)
(2)
s.37
(1)
(2)
s.46
s.48
s.58
s.81(2)(a)
s.83
(1)(b)
s.177(2)(a)
Pt 17
s.334
s.335(1)
(2)
s.336
(2)
2006 Consumer Credit Act (c.14)
s.15
Fraud Act (c.35)
s.4
Companies Act (c.46)
s.8
s.15
s.17
s.28
Pt 3 Ch.3
s.31(1)
s.33
(1)
12–056
12–056
12–056
12–056, 16–003
16–114
11–010
11–010
12–056
16–114
16–114
16–114
3–032, 11–010, 11–011, 11–122, 11–167
11–010
11–010
11–010
11–010
11–010
11–010
11–010
11–010
11–167
11–167
11–010
11–167
11–167
11–011, 11–122
11–133
11–133
11–167
11–133
11–122
11–167
11–010
3–157
3–157, 11–010
11–010
11–010
11–010
5–007, 5–018, 10–047
5–007
12–049, 16–097
2–071, 3–172, 12–065, 12–066, 13–012,
14–012, 16–027, 16–047
12–067
12–067
12–067, 12–069, 14–012, 16–027
12–067
12–067
12–067
14–115
14–012
s.39
(1)
(2)
s.40
(1)
(2)(a)
(b)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
s.41
s.42
s.44(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
s.45(1)
s.46(1)
(2)
s.51
(1)
Pt 10
s.154
s.171
(a)
s.172(3)
s.180(5)
ss.182–187
s.190
s.213(2)
s.257
s.544(1)
s.593
s.655
s.740
s.755
s.756
s.1295
Sch.16
2008 Employment Act (c.24)
2010 Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act (c.10)
s.1(3)
ss.4–7
s.9(5)
Equality Act (c.15)
s.42(1)
s.57
s.66
s.83(2)(b)
12–073
2–071, 12–068, 13–012, 16–047
2–071, 13–012, 16–047
12–069, 12–073, 22–024
2–071, 12–069, 12–070, 13–012, 16–027,
16–047, 16–081
12–069
12–069, 13–012, 16–027
12–069
2–071, 2–073, 12–070
12–069
2–071, 13–012, 16–047
2–071, 12–069, 13–012, 22–024
2–071, 12–068, 13–012, 16–047
5–008
3–170
3–170
16–027
3–170
3–170
3–172
16–048, 16–066
16–073
12–067
16–003
12–069
16–047
11–024
11–024
16–097
3–014
11–006, 11–019
12–067, 12–069, 16–027
15–015
3–014
9–033
21–018
2–014
2–014
11–152, 16–027
11–152, 16–027
1–006
14–130
14–130
14–130
14–130
1–008, 11–090, 11–166, 19–023
4–025
11–091
1–006
4–025
s.101
Pt 9
s.124
s.142(1)
s.143
s.144
Bribery Act (c.23)
s.1
s.2
s.3(2)
(3)
s.4
s.5(1)
(2)
s.6
s.7
s.8
2011 Postal Services Act (c.5)
Charities Act (c.25)
s.197(2)
2012 Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act
(c.6)
s.1
s.2
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
s.3(5)
s.4(1)(b)
(3)
s.5
s.6
(2)
s.9
s.10
s.11(2)(a)
(c)
Sch.1
para.2
para.9(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
para.17
Sch.2
Protection of Freedoms Act (c.9)
s.56
Sch.4
2013 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act (c.30)
21–037
21–062
21–036
11–006, 11–011
11–166
11–053
11–058
11–058, 16–098
11–058, 16–098
11–058
11–058
11–058
11–058
11–058
11–058
16–098
16–098
2–030
3–014
9–015, 9–092, 9–097, 9–145, 9–151, 16–
011
9–015, 9–092, 9–151, 16–011
9–151
9–015, 9–152
9–141, 9–151
9–152
9–145, 9–146, 9–164
9–015
9–024, 9–092
9–092
9–092
9–021
9–148
16–011
9–021, 9–096
9–139,9–146
9–015
19–106, 22–003
9–092
9–092
9–092
9–092
9–092
9–092
9–092
9–096
16–011
20–138
20–138
s.11(3)
Sch.3
2015 Insurance Act (c.4)
Pt 2
s.3(1)
(3)(b)
(c)
(4)
(5)
ss.4–6
s.7(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
s.8(1)
Pt 3
s.9
(2)
s.10(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)(a)
s.11
s.12(1)
s.14(1)
(3)(a)
(b)
s.16(1)
(2)
s.21(2)
s.22(2)
s.23(2)
Sch.1
para.2
para.4
para.5
para.6
para.7
para.9(2)
(8)
para.12
Consumer Rights Act (c.15)
14–125
14–125
9–020, 9–093, 9–097, 9–139, 9–140, 9–
145, 9–148, 9–152, 9–160, 9–164, 9–
165, 14–130, 18–007, 18–008, 18–051
9–015
9–152
9–152
9–015
9–152
9–152
9–152
9–152
9–015, 9–152
9–152
9–020
9–024, 9–093
18–008, 18–023
9–021
9–148
18–008
17–073, 18–008
18–008
18–008
18–008
18–008
18–008
18–008
9–165
9–152
9–145, 9–146, 9–164
9–145, 9–146, 9–164
9–021
9–096
9–015, 9–146
9–021
9–015, 9–021, 9–093, 9–145, 18–008
22–003
9–093, 9–097
9–093
9–093
9–093, 9–097
9–097
9–097
9–097
9–096
3–018, 6–043, 6–046, 7–001, 7–002, 7–
050, 7–056, 7–058, 7–068, 7–072, 7–
083, 7–094, 7–095, 7–112, 7–125, 9–
051, 9–125, 9–135, 11–106, 14–057,
17–033, 17–066, 17–067, 17–068, 18–
042, 18–047, 18–050, 18–056, 18–057,
Preamble
Pt 1
s.1(1)
(2)
(4)
(5)
s.2(2)
(3)
(5)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Pt 1 Ch.2
s.3
(1)
(3)
(d)
(5)
(6)
s.4
s.5
s.6
s.7
s.8
s.9
(1)
(2)–(7)
(8)
ss.9–11
s.10
(1)
(3)
(5)
s.11
(1)
(4)
(5)
s.12
18–058, 18–090, 18–093, 10–053, 21–
027, 23–001, 23–002, 23–003, 23–004,
23–005, 23–007, 23–013, 23–014, 23–
018, 23–021, 23–026, 23–027, 23–031,
23–036, 23–043, 23–044, 23–047, 23–
050, 23–053, 23–058, 23–059, 23–060,
23–063, 23–065, 23–066, 23–072, 23–
074, 23–086
23–001
4–004, 4–005, 6–043, 7–050, 7–054, 7–
059, 7–060, 7–061, 7–068, 7–095, 9–
100, 9–119, 14–006, 17–066, 17–067,
18–042, 18–047, 18–050, 18–056, 18–
058, 18–062, 18–093, 20–053, 21–023,
21–027, 23–001, 23–002, 23–003, 23–
004, 23–005, 23–064
7–050,23–005,23–064
23–005
23–005
23–005
23–006, 23–066
9–002, 10–048, 23–007
23–012
23–006
23–008
23–009
23–001, 23–002, 23–011, 23–021, 23–030
7–059
23–011
23–011
3–170
23–011
23–012
23–017
23–011
23–011
23–011
23–011
23–015, 23–027
23–015
23–015
23–015
23–018
6–044, 23–015, 23–027
23–015
23–015
23–015
8–015, 23–002, 23–027
23–015
23–012, 23–015, 23–016
23–012, 23–015
23–012, 23–020, 23–027
(2)
(3)
s.13
(2)
s.14
(2)
s.15
(1)
s.16
(1)
s.17
(1)
(2)–(7)
(8)
s.18(1)
(2)
s.19
(1)
9–051, 23–016
23–016
23–015, 23–018, 23–027
23–015
23–018, 23–027
23–015
23–018, 23–019, 23–027
23–015
23–009, 23–015, 23–018, 23–027, 23–037
23–015
23–017, 23–027
23–017, 23–020
23–017
23–017
23–015
23–015
23–018, 21–023
23–016, 23–018
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(e)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
s.20
(1)–(6)
(4)
(7)–(19)
(9)–(19)
(21)
s.21
s.22
(1)
(2)
(3)
(6)–(8)
ss.22–24
s.23
(2)(a)
(b)
(3)(a)
(b)
23–018
23–019, 23–058
23–019
23–019
23–019
23–020
23–020
23–019, 23–020
23–026
23–026
23–026
23–026
18–047, 23–026
18–047, 23–021, 23–025, 23–026, 23–043
23–019
23–019
23–019, 23–020, 23–021
23–021
23–021
23–021
23–021
23–021
19–119, 23–021
23–019, 23–021
23–021
23–021, 23–028
23–021
23–021
23–018
23–019
23–021, 23–022
23–022
23–022
23–022
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
s.24
(1)–(4)
(5)
(8)
(8)–(15)
s.25
(1)
(2)
(3)
(8)
s.26
(3)–(5)
(6)
23–022
23–022
23–022
23–022
23–022
23–019
23–021
23–021
22–005
23–021
23–019, 23–023
23–023
23–023
23–023
23–023
18–034, 23–019, 23–020, 23–024
23–024
23–024
(7)
s.28
(1)–(12)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
s.29
s.30
(3)
s.31
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
s.32
(1)
(2)
(3)
Pt 1 Ch.3
s.33
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(8)
s.34
(1)
(2)–(7)
(8)
23–024
23–012, 23–027
23–025
23–025
23–025
23–025
23–025
23–025
23–025
19–014, 23–012, 23–013 ,23–027
3–018, 4–005, 14–006 ,23–013
23–013
23–086
23–027, 23–029
23–028
23–029
23–028
23–027
23–027
23–030
23–030
23–030
23–030
23–001, 23–032, 23–044
23–044
23–032
23–032
23–032, 23–038
23–031
23–042
23–033, 23–044
23–033
23–033
23–033
ss.34–36
s.35
(1)
(3)
(5)
s.36
(1)
(3)
(4)
s.37
(2)
(3)
s.38(1)
(2)
s.39
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
23–036
23–033, 23–044
23–033
23–033
23–033
8–015, 23–044
23–033
23–033, 23–034
23–033
23–038, 23–044
9–051, 23–034
23–034
23–033
23–033
23–036
23–033
23–033
23–033
23–033
s.40
(1)
(3)
s.41
(1)
(a)
(b)
s.42(1)
(2)(a)
(b)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
s.43(2)
(3)(a)
(b)
(4)
(5)
s.44(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)–(6)
s.45(1)
(2)
(3)–(5)
s.46
(1)
(2)
23–036
23–033
23–034
23–044
23–038
23–035
23–035
23–034, 23–036
23–037
23–037
23–037
23–038
23–038
23–039, 23–043
23–039, 23–043
23–043
23–037
23–037
23–039
23–039
23–039
23–039
23–039
23–040
23–040
23–040
23–040
23–041
23–041
23–041
23–042
23–042
23–042
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
s.47
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Pt 1 Ch.4
s.48(1)
(2)
(5)
s.49
(1)
s.50
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
23–042
23–042
23–042
23–042
23–044, 23–086
23–044, 23–046
23–045
23–046
23–045
23–001, 23–048, 23–052
23–048
23–048
23–048
23–059, 23–060
23–049
23–053, 23–055, 23–059, 23–060
4–005, 6–005, 9–051, 23–050, 23–051
23–050, 23–059
23–050
23–050
s.51
(2)
(3)
s.52
(1)
(2)
(3)
s.53(1)
(2)
s.54(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
ss.54–56
s.55(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
s.56
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)–(6)
s.57
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
23–060
2–086, 23–051
23–051
18–097, 23–060
23–049
23–049
23–049
23–052
23–052
23–058
23–053
23–054
23–055
23–055
23–058
23–058
23–058
23–056
23–056
23–056
23–056
20–046
23–057
23–057
23–057
23–057
23–086
23–059, 23–062
23–059
23–060, 23–062
23–061
23–062
(6)
s.58
(5)
(6)
s.59(2)
Pt 2
s.61(1)
(2)
(4)
(5)
(8)
s.62
(1)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
s.63(1)
(2)
(3)–(5)
(6)
(7)
s.64
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
s.65
(1)
(3)
(4)
(5)
s.66(1)(a)
(b)
(2)
(4)
23–061
23–018, 23–036, 23–053
23–021
23–021
23–025, 23–043, 23–058
7–050, 7–054, 7–056, 7–058, 7–059, 7–
060, 7–061, 7–062, 7–063, 7–064, 7–
069, 7–072, 7–074, 7–075, 7–076, 7–
080, 7–084, 7–085, 7–087, 7–094, 7–
095, 7–111, 7–121, 9–125, 9–128, 9–
129, 9–135, 11–090, 16–089, 17–021,
17–033, 17–039, 17–043, 18–059, 18–
068, 18–090, 18–091, 19–075, 19–107,
20–146, 20–155, 23–001, 23–002, 23–
003, 23–004, 23–005, 23–026, 23–044,
23–060, 23–064, 23–065, 23–067, 23–
068, 23–074, 23–076, 23–084, 23–085
7–050,23–005,23–064, 23–066
23–066
23–067
23–067
23–067
9–125, 23–027, 23–044, 23–074, 23–076
23–078, 23–079
23–078, 23–079
23–069
23–070
23–071
23–071
23–064
23–074
23–074
23–074
23–075
23–075
23–074, 23–076, 23–077
23–076, 23–077
23–076, 23–077
23–077, 23–080
23–077
23–077
23–074, 23–076
7–058, 7–069, 23–064, 23–067, 23–074,
23–082, 23–083, 23–086
23–082
23–082
23–082
23–082
23–083
23–083
23–083
23–083
s.68
(1)
(2)
s.69(1)
(2)
s.71(2)
(3)
s.72
(2)
(3)(a)
(b)
(4)
s.73
(1)
s.74
(1)
(2)
s.75
s.76(2)
Pt 3
Ch.2
Ch.3
Ch.4
Ch.5
s.97(1)
s.100(1)
(5)
(6)
Sch.1 para.10
para.12
para.13(2)
para.15
para.18
para.24
para.27
para.39
para.40
para.53
Sch.2
Pt 1
para.1
para.5
para.6
para.8
para.12
para.14
Pt 2 paras 21–22
para.24
Sch.3
Sch.4
para.3
para.4
23–086
23–080
23–080
23–081
23–082
23–069
23–069
23–084
23–084
23–084
23–084
23–084
23–074
23–068
23–085
23–085
23–085
7–050, 23–064
23–066
23–001
23–001
23–001
23–001
23–001
7–094, 23–003
23–003
7–094, 23–003
7–094, 23–003
18–090
23–002
4–004
18–056
17–021
18–090, 23–021
18–056
23–002
4–004
7–059, 18–056
23–074
23–074, 23–076
23–074
20–146, 20–155, 23–074
23–074
18–068, 19–075
23–074
23–074
23–074
23–074
23–031, 23–047, 23–063, 23–081
7–050, 23–064
7–060, 7–061, 7–072
7–063
para.6
para.7
para.8
(2)
para.9
(2)
para.11
para.24(2)
Sch.8
7–069
7–056, 7–059
7–074
7–068
7–074
7–068
7–053
7–085
11–106
TABLE OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
1983 Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations (SI
1983/1553)
1991 Estate Agents (Provision of Information) Regulations (SI
1991/859)
1992 Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours
Regulations (SI 1992/3288)
reg.10(1)
reg.12
1993 Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations (SI
1993/3053)
reg.2(1)
(i)–(iii)
(2)
reg.3(1)
(2)(a)
reg.7(1)(b)
(2)
reg.8
reg.9
reg.10(1)
(2)
(4)
reg.15
reg.16
reg.17
(3)(a)
(4)
(7)
(8)
reg.18
(a)
(b)
reg.19
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) (Amendment)
Regulations (SI 1993/3173)
1994 Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order
(SI 1994/1900)
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (SI
1994/3159)
reg.3(2)(b)
Sch.2
1998 Commercial Agents (Council Directive) (Amendment)
Regulations (SI 1998/2868)
Civil Procedure Rules (SI 1998/3132)
r.12.8
r.19.2(1)
(2)(a)
Pt 36
1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (SI
5–002
16–089
7–066
19–017
7–066
16–012, 16–090, 19–108, 16–109
16–012
16–012
16–012
16–096
16–094
16–086
16–086
16–086
16–087
16–090
16–090
16–090
16–109
16–098
16–109, 19–108
19–108
19–108
19–108
16–109
19–108
16–109
16–109
19–108
16–012, 16–109, 19–108
7–085
7–093,7–117
7–108
7–106
16–012, 19–108
13–007
13–005
13–006, 14–091
3–034
7–001, 7–002, 7–049, 7–050, 7–062, 7–
1999/2083)
reg.3(1)
(2)
reg.4(1)
(2)(a)
(b)
reg.5(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
reg.6(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
reg.7
(1)
(2)
reg.8
(1)
(2)
reg.10
(5)
reg.12
reg.13(2)
(3)
Sch.1 Pt I
Pt II
Sch.2
para.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
066, 7–093, 7–094, 7–095, 7–096, 7–
097, 7–098, 7–099, 7–100, 7–101, 7–
102, 7–103, 7–104, 7–106, 7–107, 7–
108, 7–110, 7–112, 7–113, 7–114, 7–
115, 7–116, 7–117, 7–118, 7–121, 7–
122, 7–125, 9–135, 12–011, 14–057,
16–089, 17–021, 18–059, 18–068, 18–
068, 19–075, 19–107, 20–146, 20–155,
23–001, 23–002, 23–004, 23–007, 23–
064, 23–065, 23–066, 23–067, 23–068,
23–070, 23–072, 23–073, 23–074, 23–
076, 23–077, 23–086
7–097, 7–100, 7–101, 7–116
7–118
7–097, 7–099, 7–100, 7–101, 7–106, 20–
155
7–115, 19–107
7–116
7–097, 7–099, 7–104, 7–106, 20–155, 23–
069, 23–073
7–102, 7–107, 20–146
7–102
7–102
7–110, 17–021, 18–068, 20–155
7–098, 7–104, 23–066, 23–070
7–098, 7–107, 7–108, 7–109, 23–076, 23–
077
20–146, 23–076
7–108, 7–108, 7–109, 23–076
7–118
7–118
7–118
7–121
7–093, 7–097, 7–119, 17–021, 18–068,
20–155
7–120
7–125
7–125
7–118, 7–125
7–125
7–125
7–125
7–125
7–098, 7–099, 7–108, 7–110, 7–111, 7–
112, 7–113, 7–114
23–074
7–111,7–119,7–121
7–111,7–119,7–121
4–020, 7–067, 7–113, 7–114
7–099, 7–113, 7–114, 7–119, 20–155
7–099, 7–113, 20–146
7–111
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
para.2(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
para.3(g)
Sch.3
Arbitration Agreements (Specified Amounts) Order (SI
1999/2167)
Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations (SI 1999/3312)
reg.18
2001 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (Amendment)
Regulations (SI 2001/1186)
2002 Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations (SI
2002/1674)
reg.2(4)
Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Rate of Interest)
(No.3) Order (SI 2002/1675)
Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations (SI
2002/2013)
reg.11
(2)(a)
Maternity and Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations
(SI 2002/2789)
reg.3
reg.12
Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations (SI
2002/3045)
reg.2
reg.4
reg.5
reg.15
(1)
(2)
Regulatory Reform (Removal of 20 Member Limit in
Partnerships, etc.) Order (SI 2002/3203)
2004 Competition Act 1998 (Land Agreements Exclusion and
Revocation) Order (SI 2004/1260)
Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications)
Order (SI 2004/3236)
2005 Prospectus Regulations (SI 2005/1433)
2006 Public Contracts Regulations (SI 2006/5)
7–111,18–068, 19–075
7–099, 7–114, 7–119
7–114,7–120
7–111
7–107, 7–111
7–099, 7–108, 7–114, 7–120
7–111
7–111
7–114,17–021, 19–107
7–114
7–107, 7–112
7–111
7–111
7–111
7–111
7–119
20–155
7–112, 11–050
21–036
7–093
20–063
20–063, 20–146
5–028
2–016
2–034
21–036
21–036
3–018, 7–059, 14–006, 18–056, 21–027,
23–002
7–059
19–014
9–100, 18–058, 20–053, 21–027
3–018, 14–006
4–005, 7–059, 23–013
7–059
11–008
11–106
5–028
9–029, 9–034, 9–039, 9–158
2–013
Utilities Contracts Regulations (SI 2006/6)
2–013
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)
Regulations (SI 2006/246)
reg.4(1)
15–052, 15–085
(2)
15–085
(7)
15–052
Taxation of Pension Schemes (Consequential
15–074
Amendments) Order (SI 2006/745 art.15(1)
(3)
15–074
2007 Lasting Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney
16–114
and Public Guardian Relations (SI 2007/1953)
2008 Business Protection from Misleading Marketing
9–002
Regulations (SI 2008/1276)
2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (SI 7–125, 9–002, 9–003, 9–063, 10–048, 23–
2008/1277)
006
reg.2(1)
9–002, 10–048
reg.3(4)(d)
2–009
reg.5
9–002, 10–048
reg.7
9–002, 10–048
Pt 4A
9–045
reg.27A
2–004, 10–048
(4)
9–002, 10–048
(6)
9–002, 10–048
regs 27A–27B
9–002
reg.27C
9–002
reg.27D
9–002
reg.27E(1)
9–002
(4)
9–002
(10)
9–002
regs 27E–27H
9–002, 10–048
reg.27I
9–002, 10–048
(1)(a)
9–002
(b)
9–002
reg.27J
9–002, 10–048
(1)(a)
10–048
(b)
10–048
(4)
9–002, 10–048
(5)
9–002, 10–048
reg.27L(1)
9–003, 10–048
(2)
9–003, 10–048
Sch.1 para.6
2–009
Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or
7–101
Place of Work etc. Regulations (SI 2008/1816)
2009 Limited Liability Partnership (Application of Companies
Act 2006) Regulations (SI 2009/1804)
reg.7
16–066
2010 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Liability of
9–039,9–160
issuers) Regulations (SI 2010/1192)
Competition Act 1998 (Land Agreements Exclusion
11–106
Revocation) Order (SI 2010/1709)
2013 Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations (SI
20–063
2013/395)
Late Payment of Commercial Debts (No.2) Regulations
(SI 2013/908)
Consumer Protection (Information, Cancellation and
Additional Charges) Regulations (SI 2013/3134)
reg.1(a)
reg.5
reg.9
reg.10
reg.11
reg.13
reg.28
reg.29
(1)
reg.30
regs 34–36
Sch.1
para.(a)
para.(j)
para.(k)
Sch.2
para.(a)
para.(v)
para.(w)
2014 Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations (SI
2014/870)
reg.5
2015 Public Contracts Regulations (SI 2015/12)
Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Amendment)
Regulations (SI 2015/1336)
20–063
2–039, 6–043, 23–004, 23–065
2–039
2–039
23–016, 23–034, 23–050
23–016, 23–034, 23–050
23–050
23–016,23–034
2–039
10–046
2–039
2–039
2–039
23–015, 23–016
23–033, 23–034
23–033, 23–034
23–033, 23–034
23–015, 23–016
23–033, 23–034
23–033, 23–034
23–033, 23–034
6–043, 9–002, 10–048
9–003, 9–045
2–013
20–063
TABLE OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
Treaties and Conventions
1957 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community
(EC Treaty)
art.28
art.39
art.43
art.49
art.81
art.86
1968 Hague–Visby Rules
art.III.8
art.IV(5)
1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods
art.16(2)
art.50
2009 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
art.34
art.45
art.49
art.56
art.101
(1)
(a)
(2)
(3)
art.102
11–109
11–109
11–109
11–109
11–106
11–108
14–050
14–066
7–032
3–161
3–161
20–053
11–109
11–109
11–109
11–109
11–106, 11–107, 11–128
11–106
11–106
11–106
11–106
11–107, 11–108
Regulations
2003 Reg.1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on
competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the
Treaty
[2003] OJ L1/1
art.3(1)
(2)
2008 Reg.593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual
obligations [2008] OJ L177/6 (Rome I)
art.6(2)
art.8(1)
art.9(2)
art.21
2010 Reg.330/2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to
categories of vertical agreements and concerted
practices [2010] OJ L102/1
Directives
1968 Dir.68/151 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the
11–106, 11–107
11–107
11–107
7–085, 7–122, 11–060, 23–030
7–085,23–030
7–085
7–085,23–030
11–060
11–106
protection of the interests of members and others, are
required by Member States of companies within the
meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the
Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards
equivalent throughout the Community [1968] OJ
L65/8
art.9
1986 Dir.86/653 on the coordination of the laws of the Member
States relating to self-employed commercial agents
[1986] OJ L382/17
1993 Dir.93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts [1993]
OJ L95/29
Recital 1
Recital 4
Recital 10
Recital 11
Recital 16
Recital 19
art.4(2)
art.5
1999 Dir.1999/44 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer
goods and associated guarantees [1999] OJ L171/12
art.7
2000 Dir.2000/31 on certain legal aspects of information
society services, in particular electronic commerce, in
the Internal Market [2000] OJ L178/1 (Electronic
Commerce Directive)
Recital 36
art.6.5(d)
art.9
art.9.1
art.9.2(a)
(b)
(c)
Dir.2000/35 on combating late payment in commercial
transactions [2000] OJ L200/35
2002 Dir.2002/65 concerning the distance marketing of
consumer financial services [2002] OJ L271/16
(Distance Marketing Directive)
2004 Dir.2004/109 on the harmonisation of transparency
requirements in relation to information about issuers
whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated
market [2004] OJ L390/38 (Transparency Obligations
Directive)
2005 Dir.2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer
commercial practices in the internal market [2005] OJ
L149/22 (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive)
art.3(2)
art.6
art.7
art.8
2011 Dir.2011/7 on combating late payment in commercial
12–067
16–012
7–093, 7–095, 7–098, 7–103, 7–106, 7–
117, 23–004, 23–065, 23–072
7–098
7–093
7–117
7–118
7–106
7–107
7–109
7–109
7–059, 18–058, 20–053, 21–027, 23–002,
23–004
7–059
5–028, 7–126
5–028
5–028
5–028
5–028
5–028
5–028
5–028
20–063
23–075
9–160
9–002, 10–048
9–002, 10–048
9–002
9–002
10–048
20–063
transactions [2011] OJ L48/1 (Late Payments
Directive)
Dir.2011/83 on consumer rights [2011] OJ L304/64
(Consumer Rights Directive)
art.2(3)
23–004, 23–005, 23–009, 23–065
23–008
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Contract as enforceable agreement. A contract is an agreement
giving rise to obligations which are enforced or recognised by law. The
factor which distinguishes contractual from other legal obligations is
that they are based on the agreement of the contracting parties. This
proposition remains generally true, even though it is subject to a
number of important qualifications.
1–001
The objective principle.1 The first such qualification is that the law is
often concerned with the objective appearance, rather than with the
actual fact, of agreement: a person is bound “whatever [his] real
intention may be”, if “a reasonable man would believe that he was
assenting to the terms proposed by the other party and that other party
upon that belief enters into a contract with him”.2 This objective
principle is based on the needs of commercial convenience.
Considerable uncertainty would result if A, after inducing B
reasonably to believe that he (A) had agreed to certain terms, could
then escape liability merely by showing that he had no “real intention”
to enter into that agreement. The principle is an important one; but it
would be wrong to say that the law of contract has no concern at all
with actual agreement. This would put too much emphasis on the
exceptional situation; for in most cases, the appearance corresponds
with the fact of agreement. And the principle is not purely objective: A
is not bound merely because “a reasonable man would believe that he
was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party”. In particular,
there will be no contract if (in spite of the objective appearance of
agreement) B actually knows that A in fact has no intention to contract
with him, or to contract on the terms alleged.3
A subjective element thus qualifies the objective principle; and this
follows from the purpose of that principle, which is to protect B from
the prejudice which he might suffer as a result of relying on a false
appearance of agreement. There is clearly no need in this way to
protect a party who knows that the objective appearance does not
correspond with reality.4 It also follows from the purpose of the
1–002
objective principle that it will not apply where A’s apparent assent is
based on a mistake induced by B’s negligence.5 More generally, it may
be said that the objective principle applies only where serious
inconvenience would be caused by allowing a party to rely on his “real
intention”. In the interests of convenience the law may sometimes hold
that there is a contract although there was not even the objective
appearance of an agreement.6 It does not follow that the law is not
concerned with any sort of agreement at all: to allege that this was the
position “would introduce into the law of contract a novel heresy”.7
Standards of behaviour imposed on the parties. The idea that
contractual obligations are based on agreement must, secondly, be
qualified because contracting parties are normally expected to observe
certain standards of behaviour. These are the result of terms implied by
law8 into certain types of contract, for example, into contracts for the
sale of goods or of employment. The parties may be able to vary or
exclude some such terms by contrary agreement; but unless they do so
they are bound by many duties to which they have not expressly
agreed and of which they may have never thought. Agreement is not
the sole factor which determines the legal effects of a contract once it
is shown to exist. But it remains an important factor. For example, the
intention of the parties (objectively ascertained) determines whether a
statement made at the time of contracting has contractual force or is a
mere representation;9 and it determines whether a term which is not
expressly stated in the contract should be implied in fact, i.e. because
the parties must have intended to incorporate it.10
It has been suggested that in such cases the courts only say that the
intention of the parties is the determining factor, but really apply rules
based on various considerations of policy unconnected with that
intention.11 But a bare assertion that the relevant judgments do not
mean what they say should not be accepted unless it is supported by
argument. Such an argument can, perhaps, be based on the history of
the doctrine of frustration, under which contracting parties may be
discharged from liability by supervening events,12 e.g. where such
events make performance impossible. The doctrine was at one time
justified by saying that the parties had impliedly agreed to be
discharged in such circumstances; but many lawyers now prefer to say
that the parties are discharged by operation of law, whether they would
have agreed to discharge or not. This may be true; but the intention of
1–003
the parties cannot for that reason be wholly disregarded. Before
holding that parties are discharged, the court must find out what they
contracted about: they may have deliberately taken the risk of
supervening impossibility. The court must decide whether the parties
contracted about a certainty or about a possibility; and it does so by
ascertaining, as best it can, their intentions in the matter.13
A standard of good faith? A recent controversy (at least in the courts)
is the extent to which the parties, in the performance of the contract,
are required to adhere to a standard of “good faith”.14 No such general
standard is imposed by law in contracts generally,15 though many of
the interventions of law referred to below may be said to have an
underpinning of “good faith”. It has, however, recently been said that
there is “no difficulty, in implying such a duty in any ordinary
commercial contract based on the presumed intention of the parties.”16
Since the methodology is that of implying a term in fact, this
development is considered in more detail in a later chapter.17 It may
only be noted here that, even if such a term is implied, it begs the
question of what is meant by “good faith”. It must be an ordinary
incident of any contract (i.e. a term implied by law) that the parties
will perform their obligations honestly but it has been said that “good
faith” may extend “beyond” honesty and require that the parties will
perform in a way which is “commercially acceptable”.18 This of course
rather begs the question, in turn, of what is meant by “commercially
unacceptable”. It is ultimately a process of construction of the contract
which is therefore “sensitive to context”,19 but a key feature of the
“context” is the adherence of English law to the principle of freedom
of contract and the normal requirement that the parties, if they wish to
protect their interests, should do so expressly.20
1–004
The scope of freedom of contract. The idea that contractual
obligations are based on agreement must, thirdly, be qualified in
relation to the scope of the principle of freedom of contract.21 In the
nineteenth century, judges took the view that persons of full capacity
should in general be allowed to make what contracts they liked: the
law only interfered on fairly specific grounds such as
misrepresentation, undue influence or illegality.22 It did not interfere
merely because one party was economically more powerful than the
other and so able to drive a hard bargain. This attitude became
1–005
particularly important when the courts recognised the validity of
standard form contracts23 drawn up by one party on terms designed to
protect its interests at the expense of those of the other. This practice of
contracting on standard terms is now very common; and it is arguable
that a customer who contracts on such standard terms has them
imposed on him, and does not really “agree” to them at all. This
argument is particularly strong where standard terms are used by a
monopoly supplier, or where all suppliers in a particular field use the
same standard terms. The customer’s only choice may then be one of
accepting those terms or doing without the goods or services in
question; and often he cannot in practice do without. On the other
hand, exact equality of bargaining power is probably rare; and there
can be much dispute as to the precise degree of pressure which makes
the difference between consent reluctantly given and a state of mind
which cannot properly be described as consent at all. The amount of
pressure which can be brought to bear on the customer does not
depend solely on the respective wealth and power of the parties, but
also on market conditions. In a buyer’s market, an insistent private
customer may be able to induce a normally powerful supplier to
modify his standard terms, rather than lose a sale; while in a seller’s
market a customer may be ready to agree to any terms which the seller
puts forward, or be willing to take his chance on the contents of any
document put forward by the seller. A person may also agree to
contract on a set of terms although he does not know in detail what
they provide, e.g. where parties contract on terms settled by a trade
association, or where a person takes employment on terms negotiated
between employers and a trade union.24 In such cases the parties would
not deny that they had agreed to the terms, whatever they might be.
Legislative interventions. Important inroads on the principle of
freedom of contract have been made by legislation passed to redress
some real or supposed imbalance of bargaining power. For example,
the contents of many contracts of employment are now regulated in
some detail by legislation.25 Under other statutes, terms are
compulsorily implied into contracts and cannot be excluded by
contrary agreement;26 and legislation has further entrenched many of
the rights and remedies conferred on “consumers” when contracting
with “traders”.27 In all these cases the main relationship between the
parties is still based on agreement, but many of the obligations arising
1–006
out of it are imposed or regulated by law.
Doubtful cases. There are cases in which the law plays so large, and
the agreement of parties so small, a part that it becomes doubtful
whether the relationship can still be called contractual. The agreement
of the parties may create a status, such as marriage, the main legal
incidents of which are fixed by law and cannot be varied by the parties
at all.28 Sometimes, the terms on which a person is employed
(especially in the public service) are governed in part by legislation;
and in one such case it was said that a claim under the “statutory
scheme of employment”29 could not “be dealt with as though it were
an ordinary master and servant claim in which the rights of the parties
were regulated solely by contract”.30 Similarly, a member of the armed
forces is not in any contractual relationship with the Crown, even if he
enlists voluntarily.31 In a number of further borderline cases, the fact
that many of the terms of the relationship are settled by law has not of
itself been regarded as decisive. Thus on the one hand the relationship
between a general medical practitioner and the health authority in
whose area he worked under the National Health Service is not a
contractual one.32 On the other hand, it has been said that a consultant
appointed to a post at a hospital under the National Health Service,
works under “an ordinary contract between master and servant,”
although it is one with a “strong statutory flavour”,33 as it is governed
by regulations made under statutory powers and having the force of
law.
1–007
Freedom not to contract. In the cases so far considered the parties are
free to decide whether or not to enter into the relationship (though the
law may fix some or all of its incidents); but there are other cases in
which the law to some extent restricts even this freedom. Injunctions
may be granted and damages awarded against persons whose
withholding of supplies from, for example, distributors, amounts to an
abuse of a dominant position, contrary to EC or UK competition law.34
A person may be forbidden to refuse to contract by legislation aimed to
prevent discrimination on grounds of age, disability, gender
reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity,
race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation.35 It is unlawful to
refuse a person employment “because he is, or is not, a member of a
trade union”;36 and compensation is payable to a person who is
1–008
excluded from a trade union (except on one of a number of specified
grounds).37 In these cases a relationship which results from some
degree of legal compulsion may nevertheless be regarded as
contractual, because the parties still have considerable freedom to
regulate its incidents. But there are other cases in which a relationship
created by legal compulsion is clearly not contractual. A person whose
property is compulsorily acquired against his will does not make a
contract with the acquiring authority even though he receives
compensation;38 a patient who is treated in a hospital under the
National Health Service is not considered to make a contract with the
hospital authority;39 nor does one to whom medicines are supplied
under the Service make a contract to buy them, even if he pays a
prescription charge;40 at common law, a person who posted a letter or
parcel did not make a contract with the Post Office;41 and the relations
that now arise between such a person and a “universal [postal] service
provider” appears similarly to be governed, not by contract, but by a
scheme made under statute.42 The borderline between the two classes
of cases is by no means clearly defined: it is, for example, doubtful
whether there is a contract between a patient and his doctor or dentist
under the National Health Service.
Two key questions: agreement and enforceability. In spite of the
above qualifications, it remains broadly true that the law of contract is
concerned with the circumstances in which agreements are legally
binding. Thus it deals mainly with the two questions of agreement and
legal effects or enforceability. The rules relating to offer and
acceptance,43 for instance, deal with the process of reaching
agreement. Those relating to consideration and contractual intention44
concern the requirements which must normally be satisfied before an
agreement will be legally enforced; while the rules relating to
misrepresentation, duress, undue influence and illegality45 deal with
the effect of special factors on account of which the law may refuse to
enforce agreements which would, apart from such factors, be binding.
The rules which limit the contractual capacity of certain individuals46
are based partly on the view that certain classes of persons cannot form
the requisite contractual intention, and partly on the view that it is
undesirable to enforce agreements against them. The rules relating to
mistake are based partly on the view that there is no agreement when
the parties are at cross-purposes on a fundamental point,47 and partly
1–009
on the view that an agreement has no legal effect if both parties were
under a fundamental mistake as to the subject-matter.48 The rules
relating to the contents of a contract, performance, breach and
frustration49 are again partly based on the agreement between the
parties, and partly on rules of law which determine the precise legal
effect of that agreement.
Other topics. The bulk of the law of contract is concerned with the
questions of agreement and legal enforceability; but a number of other
topics also call for discussion. Thus the rules relating to plurality, third
parties, assignment and agency50 determine who is bound by, and
entitled to the benefit of, a contract. The rules relating to remedies51
assume the existence of an enforceable agreement, and deal with the
methods of, and limits on, enforcement. These are in principle
determined by law. Thus the agreement of the parties does not
determine whether a contract is to be enforced specifically, or only by
an award of damages; though the agreement may be relevant in
determining the precise amount of damages which will be awarded for
a breach of contract.
1–010
Remedies: protection of the “expectation” interest. Remedies for
breach of contract are discussed in Chs 20 and 21; but one
fundamental point relating to them must be made at this stage. Such
remedies might attempt to do one of two things. First, they might
attempt to put the injured party into the position in which he would
have been if the contract had never been made. This would require the
party in breach to restore anything that he had received under the
contract, and also to compensate the injured party for any loss that he
had suffered by acting in reliance on the contract. Such remedies are
said to protect the injured party’s restitution and reliance interests.52
But remedies for breach of contract go beyond the pursuit of these
objectives. Their distinguishing feature is that they seek to put the
injured party into the position in which he would have been if the
contract had been performed.53 If, for example, a seller agrees to sell
goods for less than they are worth, and then fails to deliver them, he
must compensate the buyer for not having received goods which are
worth more than he had agreed to pay for them. Conversely, if a buyer
contracts to buy goods for more than they are worth, and then fails to
pay for them, he is liable for the agreed price:54 it is quite immaterial
1–011
that the value of the goods with which the seller has parted was lower
than that price. What the law does in these cases is to protect the
injured party’s “expectation” or “performance” interest.55 Sometimes it
does so directly, by actually ordering the party in breach to perform his
part of the contract.56 Sometimes it does so indirectly by ordering him
to pay the injured party damages for loss of his bargain.
The result of awarding damages on this basis is to compensate the
injured party, not because he is worse off than he was before the
contract was made, but because the other party has failed to make him
better off.57 The law of contract takes this position in response to the
needs of commercial certainty. The protection of the expectation
interest promotes stability and furthers one of the central purposes of
the law of contract in providing the legal framework required for
commercial relations.
A European law of contract. The account which is given in this book
is an account of the English law of contract, but the content of that law
is, in some respects, EU law, as a result of its implementation in
accordance with the Treaty obligations of the UK. There have also
been a number of projects aimed at developing common principles of
European contract law,58 but thus far they have resulted only in the
adoption of an optional instrument.59 The prospect of a European
Contract Code of general application still seems unlikely.
1
Friedmann 119 L.Q.R. 68.
Smith v Hughes (1871) L.R. 6 QB 597 at 607; see below, para.8–047; Howarth 100 L.Q.R. 265;
Vorster 103 L.Q.R. 274; Howarth 103 L.Q.R. 527.
3 e.g. below, paras 2–002—2–003, 8–050.
4 For the further question whether the objective principle protects the “other party” where he has
no view on the question whether the objective appearance corresponds with reality, see below,
para.2–003.
5 e.g. below, para 8–052; cf. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd v Price [1934] A.C. 455
at 463.
6 See below, para.2–055.
7 The Hannah Blumenthal [1983] 1 A.C. 854 at 916–917.
8 See below, para.6–043 et seq.
9 See below, para.9–050.
10 See below, para.6–033.
11 Atiyah, An Introduction to the Law of Contract, 5th edn (Oxford University Press, 1995),
pp.20–21. (The point was more emphatically put in the 1st edn at pp.13, 103, and is somewhat
less emphatically put in the 6th edn (by Smith) at p.16.)
2
1–012
12
See below, Ch.19.
Much confusion has no doubt occurred from the use of the word “intention” without
distinguishing between the subjective element and its objective meaning, i.e. what is
“conventionally called the intention of the parties”: Spencer v Secretary of State for Defence
[2012] EWHC 120 (Ch); [2012] L. & T.R. 21 at [62] (affd. [2012] EWCA Civ 1368; [2013] 1 P.
& C.R. 5).
14
An agreement to negotiate in good faith, without more, remains unenforceable: para.2–090.
15
Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB); [2013] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 526 at [131]. It has long been recognised that a duty of good faith is implied by law as an
incident of certain categories of contract, e.g. employment contracts (see para.6–043).
16 Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 at [131].
17 See para.6–042.
18 Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB); [2013] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 526 at [138]; Bristol Groundschool Ltd v Intelligent Data Capture Ltd [2014] EWHC 2145
(Ch) at [196](v).
19
Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd [2013] EWCA
Civ 200; [2013] B.L.R. 265 at [150] per Beatson LJ.
20 Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd [2013] EWCA
Civ 200; [2013] B.L.R. 265 at [105] per Jackson LJ. The Court of Appeal was concerned with the
scope and meaning of an express obligation of good faith.
21 For an historical account, see Atiyah, The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (1995).
22 See below, Chs 9–11.
23 See below, Ch.7.
24 See below, para.7–005.
25 See, e.g. Employment Rights Act 1996 s.86; National Minimum Wage Act 1998; Employment
Relations Act 1999; Employment Act 2002; Employment Relations Act 2004; Employment Act
2008.
26
e.g. Equality Act 2010 ss.66, 144; cf. National Minimum Wage Act 1998 s.49.
27
See below, Chs 7, 23.
28 The parties “contract into the package which the law of the land lays down”: Radmacher v
Granatino [2010] UKSC 42; [2011] 1 A.C. 534 at [132].
29 Barber v Manchester Regional Hospital Board [1958] 1 W.L.R. 181 at 196.
30 Barber v Manchester Regional Hospital Board [1958] 1 W.L.R. 181; for the effect of this
distinction on remedies, see below, para.21–037. See also: Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] UKHL
13; [2003] 1 A.C. 518 (below, para.20–082); Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41; [2010]
I.R.L.R. 1073.
31 See Grant v S of S for India (1877) 2 C.P.D. 445; Leaman v R. [1920] 3 K.B. 663; dicta in
Owners of SS Raphael v Brandy [1911] A.C. 413 at 415 perhaps suggest the contrary.
32 Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practice Committee [1992] 1 A.C.
624.
33 Barber v Manchester Regional Hospital Board [1958] 1 W.L.R. 181; cf. the position of school
teachers under Education Act 2002 s.122.
34 Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board [1984] A.C. 130; below, para.11–108.
35 See, generally, the Equality Act 2010. For detailed consideration of the potential impact of the
Human Rights Act 1998 Act on the law of contract, see Beale (ed.), Chitty on Contracts 31st edn,
Vol.1, paras 1–054—1–086.
36 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.137(1)(a); cf. Trade Union and
13
Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.138(1)(a); under s.140 the remedy (in the last resort)
is by way of compensation; cf. Human Rights Act 1998 s.1 and Sch.1 Pt I art.11.
37
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ss.174–177.
38
See Sovmots Investments Ltd v S of S for the Environment [1977] Q.B. 411 at 443, affirmed
[1979] A.C. 144 without reference to this point. If a price is agreed after notice to treat, there is
said to be a “statutory contract”: Munton v GLC [1976] 1 W.L.R. 649. Even where this is not the
case, the transaction may be regarded as a contract for the purpose of a particular statute: Ridge
Nominees v IRC [1962] Ch. 376.
39 Allen v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1993] 1 All E.R. 651.
40 See Pfizer Corp v Ministry of Health [1965] A.C. 512; Appleby v Sleep [1968] 1 W.L.R. 948;
Re Medicaments Reference [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1339.
41
Whitfield v Lord Le Despencer (1778) Cowp. 754 at 764.
42
Postal Services Act 2000 s.89; for exclusion and limitation of liability, see Postal Services Act
2000 ss.90, 91.
43 See below, Ch.2.
44
See below, Chs 3, 4.
45
See below, Chs 9–11.
46 See below, Ch.12.
47 See below, Ch.8, para.8–033 et seq.
48 See below, Ch.8, para.8–002 et seq.
49 See below, Chs 6, 17, 18, 19.
50 See below, Chs 13–16.
51 See below, Chs 20–21.
52 See below, para.20–026 et seq.
53 See below, para.20–021 et seq.
54 Assuming that the conditions stated at paras 21–005—21–015, below, are satisfied.
55 See below, para.20–021 et seq.
56 See below, para.21–016 et seq.
57 South Australian Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997] A.C. 191 at 216.
58 See, e.g. Lando and Beale, Principles of European Contract Law Parts I and II; Study Group
on a European Civil Code and Research Group on EC Private Law (Acquis Group), Principles,
Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference;
Whittaker (2007) European Review of Contract Law 381; Whittaker (2009) 125 L.Q.R. 616;
Jansen & Zimmerman [2010] C.L.J. 98; Whittaker 2011/3 European Review of Contract Law 1.
59 Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law Com (2011) 635 final; Whittaker
(2012) 75 M.L.R. 578.
CHAPTER 2
AGREEMENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Offer
(a) Offer Defined
(b) Offer Distinguished from Invitation to Treat
(c) Where and When an Offer Takes Effect
Acceptance
(a) Acceptance Defined
(b) Communication of Acceptance
(i) General rule
(ii) Exceptional cases
(iii) Acceptance by post
(c) Prescribed Method of Acceptance
(d) Acceptance by Silence
(e) Acceptance in Ignorance of Offer
(f) Acceptance in Unilateral Contracts
Termination of Offer
(a) Withdrawal
(b) Rejection
(c) Lapse of Time
(d) Occurrence of Condition
(e) Death
(f) Supervening Incapacity
Special Cases
Certainty
(a) Vagueness
(b) Incompleteness
(i) Agreement in principle only
(ii) Agreements “subject to contract”
(iii) Execution of formal document required
(iv) Terms left open
(v) Facts to be ascertained
(vi) Agreement to negotiate
Conditional Agreements
(a) Classification
2–002
2–002
2–006
2–015
2–016
2–016
2–024
2–024
2–025
2–029
2–040
2–043
2–048
2–051
2–058
2–058
2–062
2–064
2–066
2–067
2–070
2–075
2–078
2–079
2–084
2–085
2–088
2–089
2–090
2–097
2–098
2–102
2–102
(b)
Degrees of Obligation
2–104
The first requisite of a contract is that the parties should have reached
agreement. Generally speaking, an agreement is made when one party
accepts an offer made by the other. Further requirements are that the
agreement must be certain and final; and special problems arise from
conditional agreements.
2–001
1. OFFER
(a) Offer Defined
The objective test. An offer is an expression of willingness to contract
on specified terms, made with the intention that it is to become binding
as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed.1 Under
the objective test of agreement,2 an apparent intention to be bound may
suffice, i.e. the alleged offeror (A) may be bound if his words or
conduct3 are such as to induce a reasonable person to believe that he
intends to be bound, even though in fact he has no such intention.4
This was, for example, held to be the case where a solicitor who had
been instructed by his client to settle a claim for $155,000 by mistake
offered to settle it for the higher sum of £150,000.5 Similarly, if A
offers to sell a book to B for £10 and B accepts the offer, A cannot
escape liability merely by showing that his actual intention was to
offer the book to B for £20, or that he intended the offer to relate to a
book different from that specified in the offer.6
2–002
The offeree’s state of mind. Whether A is actually bound by an
acceptance of his apparent offer depends on the state of mind of the
alleged offeree (B); to this extent, the test is not purely objective.7 With
regard to B’s state of mind, there are three possibilities. First, B
actually believes that A intends to be bound: here the objective test is
satisfied so that B can hold A to his apparent offer even though A did
not, subjectively, have the requisite intention.8 The general view is that
there is no further requirement that A must also be aware of B’s state
of mind.9 Secondly, B knows that, in spite of the objective appearance,
A does not have the requisite intention: here A is not bound; the
objective test does not apply in favour of B as he knows the truth about
A’s actual intention.10 Thirdly, B has simply not formed any view about
2–003
A’s intention, so that B neither believes that A has the requisite
intention nor knows that A does not have this intention: this situation
has given rise to a conflict of judicial opinion. One view is that A is
not bound: in other words, the objective test is satisfied only if A’s
conduct is such as to induce a reasonable person to believe that A had
the requisite intention and if B actually held that belief.11 The opposing
view is that (in our third situation) A is bound: in other words, the
objective test is satisfied if A’s words or conduct would induce a
reasonable person to believe that A had the requisite intention, so long
as B does not actually know that A does not have any such intention.12
This latter view no doubt facilitates proof of agreement, but it is hard
to see why B should be protected in the situation to which it refers.
Where B has no positive belief in A’s (apparent) intention to be bound,
he cannot be prejudiced by acting in reliance on it; and the purpose of
the objective test is simply to protect B from the risk of suffering such
prejudice.13 The test embodies a principle of convenience; it is not
based on any inherent superiority of objective over subjective criteria.
It is therefore submitted that the objective test should not apply to our
third situation since in it B’s state of mind is such that there is no risk
of his suffering any prejudice as a result of the objective appearance of
A’s intention.14
Conduct as an offer. An offer may be addressed either to an
individual, or to a group of persons, or to the world at large; and it may
be made expressly or by conduct. At common law, a person who had
contracted to sell goods and tendered different goods (or a different
quantity) might be considered to make an offer by conduct to sell the
goods which he had tendered.15 It seems that an offer to sell can still be
made in this way, though by legislation against “inertia selling” the
dispatch of goods without any prior request from the recipient may
amount to a gift to him, rather than to an offer to sell.16
2–004
Inactivity as an offer by conduct. A number of cases raise the further
question whether the “conduct” from which an offer may be inferred
can take the form of inactivity. The issue in these cases was whether an
agreement to submit a dispute to arbitration could be said to have been
“abandoned” where, over a long period of time, neither party had
taken any steps in the arbitration proceedings.17 Such a question could
also arise in the context of the alleged abandonment of some other type
2–005
of right or remedy.18 The arbitration cases indicate that, when
inactivity is combined with other circumstances (such as destruction of
relevant files),19 it may, on the objective test, amount to an offer of
abandonment, even though those other circumstances would not, of
themselves, constitute evidence from which an offer could be inferred.
But when inactivity stands alone, it is unlikely20 to have this effect, for
it is equivocal and explicable on other grounds, such as inertia or
forgetfulness, or the simple tactical consideration that the party alleged
to have made the offer does not wish to re-activate his opponent’s
counter claims.21 Consequently, it will not normally suffice to induce a
reasonable person in the position of the other party to believe that an
offer is being made;22 and the mere fact that the other party
nevertheless had this belief cannot suffice to turn the former party’s
inactivity into such an offer.23
(b) Offer Distinguished from Invitation to Treat
A test of intention. When parties negotiate with a view to making a
contract, many preliminary communications may pass between them
before a definite offer is made. One party may simply respond to a
request for information (e.g. by stating the price at which he might be
prepared to sell a house),24 or he may make such a request (e.g. where
he asks a prospective supplier whether he can supply goods suitable
for his purpose).25 That party is then said to make an “invitation to
treat”: he does not make an offer but invites the other party to do so.26
The question whether a statement is an offer or an invitation to treat
depends primarily on the intention with which it was made. It follows
from the nature of an offer as described above27 that a statement is not
an offer if it in terms negatives the maker’s intention to be bound on
acceptance: for example, if it expressly provides that he is not to be
bound merely by the other party’s notification of assent, but only when
he himself has signed the document in which the statement is
contained.28 Apart from this type of case, the wording is not
conclusive. A statement may be an invitation to treat, although it
contains the word “offer”;29 as, for example, in Datec Electronic
Holdings Ltd v United Parcels Service Ltd30 where an “offer” of
carriage subject to certain restrictions was regarded as an invitation to
treat. Had it been regarded as an offer in the strict sense, there would
have been no contract when the shipper tendered goods that did not
2–006
comply with the restrictions. The correct analysis was that the shipper
made the offer which was accepted by conduct by the carrier and the
non-conformity of the goods affected the nature of the contractual
regime, e.g. the carrier was entitled to refuse to collect the goods, or to
suspend carriage, neither of which it did prior to the loss of the goods.
Conversely, a statement may be an offer although it is expressed to be
an “acceptance”,31 or requests the person to whom it is addressed to
make an “offer”.32
Prima facie rules of law. The distinction between an offer and an
invitation to treat is often hard to draw as it depends on the elusive
criterion of intention. But there are certain stereotyped situations in
which the distinction is determined, at least prima facie, by rules of
law. It may be possible to displace these rules by evidence of contrary
intention, but in the absence of such evidence they will determine the
distinction between offer and invitation to treat, and they will do so
without reference to the intention (actual or even objectively
ascertained) of the maker of the statement. The most commonly
encountered examples are discussed in the following paragraphs.
2–007
Auction sales. At an auction sale, the general rule is that the offer is
made by the bidder and accepted by the auctioneer when he signifies
his acceptance in the customary manner, e.g. by fall of the hammer.33
Before acceptance the bidder may withdraw his bid and the auctioneer
may withdraw the goods. It seems, moreover, that the offer made by
each bidder lapses34 as soon as a higher bid is made. Thus if a higher
bid is made and withdrawn the auctioneer can no longer accept the
next highest.
When property is put up for auction subject to a reserve price, there
is no contract if the auctioneer by mistake purports to accept a bid
lower than the reserve price.35 Where the auction is without reserve,
there is no contract of sale between the highest bidder and the owner
of the property if the auctioneer refuses to accept the highest bid. But it
has been held that the auctioneer is in such a case liable on a separate,
or collateral, contract between him and the highest bidder that the sale
will be without reserve.36 Although a mere advertisement of an auction
is not an offer to hold it,37 the actual request for bids seems to be an
offer by the auctioneer that he will on the owner’s behalf accept the
highest bid; and this offer is accepted by the bidding.38
2–008
Shop display. The general rule is that a display of price-marked goods
in a shop window39 or on the shelves of a self-service shop40 is not an
offer to sell goods but is an invitation to a customer to make an offer to
buy which the retailer may accept or reject. Similar principles would
seem to apply where a supplier of goods or services indicates their
availability on a website: that is, the offer would seem to come from
the customer (e.g. when he clicks the appropriate “button”) and it is
then open to the supplier to accept or reject that offer.41 There is
judicial support for the view that an indication of the price at which
petrol is to be sold at a filling station is likewise an invitation to treat,42
the offer to buy being made by the customer and accepted by the
seller’s conduct in putting the petrol into the tank,43 but in the now
more common situation in which the station operates a self-service
system, it seems more likely that the seller is making an offer which is
accepted by the customer when he fills up his tank.44
The general rule relating to shop and similar displays is well
established, but the reasons given for it are not entirely convincing.
One argument is that if the display were regarded as an offer, the
retailer might be exposed to many actions for damages if more
customers purported to accept than his stock could satisfy.45 But such
an offer could be construed as one which automatically expired when
the retailer’s stock was exhausted: this would probably be in keeping
with the common expectation of both retailer and customer. It has also
been said that, if a display in a self-service shop were an offer, the
undesirable result would follow that the customer would be bound to
buy as soon as he picked up the goods to examine them.46 But if the
display were an offer, it could be argued that there was no acceptance
until the customer did some less equivocal act, such as presenting the
goods for payment.47
It may be asked whether the general rule might sometimes cause
injustice. Customers may be induced by a window display to believe
that they will be able to buy goods at exceptionally low prices and to
wait outside the shop for many hours in reliance on that belief. Is it
right to allow the retailer to go back on such a statement at the very
moment when the customer demands the goods? It seems that the
special terms of a display, or the circumstances in which it is made,
may be evidence of intention to be bound and so displace the prima
facie rule that the display is not an offer: thus in one case a notice in a
shop window stating that “We will beat any TV … price by £20 on the
2–009
spot” was described as “a continuing offer”.48 The customer might,
indeed, still lose his bargain since the offer could be withdrawn at any
time before it was accepted;49 but if it is so withdrawn the person
displaying the notice may incur criminal liability under legislation
passed for the protection of consumers.50
Advertisements of unilateral contracts. Advertisements of rewards
for the return of lost or stolen property, or for information leading to
the arrest or conviction of the perpetrator of a crime,51 are invariably
treated as offers: the intention to be bound is inferred from the fact that
no further bargaining is expected to result from them. The same is true
of other advertisements of unilateral contracts.52 Thus in Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co,53 an advertisement promising to pay £100 to
any user of a carbolic smoke ball who caught influenza was held to be
an offer. The intention to be bound54 was made particularly clear by the
statement that the advertisers had deposited £1,000 in their bank
“shewing our sincerity”. A case nearer the borderline was Bowerman v
Association of British Travel Agents Ltd55 where a package holiday had
been booked with a tour operator who was a member of the defendant
association (ABTA). A notice displayed on the tour operator’s
premises stated, inter alia, that in the event of the financial failure of
an ABTA member before commencement of the holiday, “ABTA
arranges for you to be reimbursed the money you have paid for your
holiday”. A majority of the Court of Appeal held that these words
constituted an offer from ABTA since, on the objective test,56 they
would reasonably be regarded as such by a member of the public
booking a holiday with an ABTA member.
2–010
Advertisements of bilateral contracts. Such advertisements are not
usually held to be offers since they often lead to further bargaining,
and since the advertiser may legitimately wish, before becoming
bound, to assure himself that the other party is able to perform his part
of any contract which may result. Thus a newspaper advertisement that
goods are for sale is not an offer;57 an advertisement that a scholarship
examination will be held is not an offer to a candidate;58 and the
circulation of a price-list by a wine merchant is only an invitation to
treat.59 The same is probably true of a menu displayed, or handed to a
customer, in a restaurant.60 On the other hand, a notice at the entrance
to an automatic car park may be an offer which can be accepted by
2–011
driving in61 and a display of deck chairs for hire has been held to be an
offer.62 No useful purpose is served by attempting to reconcile all the
cases on this subject, since the question is one of intention in each
case.63
Timetables and passenger tickets. There is a remarkable diversity of
views on the question just when a contract is made between a carrier
and an intending passenger. It has been said that rail carriers make
offers by issuing advertisements stating the times at and conditions
under which trains would run;64 and that a road carrier makes offers to
intending passengers by the act of running buses.65 Such offers could
be accepted by an indication on the part of the passenger that he
wished to travel, e.g. by applying for a ticket or getting on the bus.
Another view is that the carrier makes the offer at a later stage, by
issuing the ticket; and that this offer is accepted by the passenger’s
retention of the ticket without objection,66 or (even later) by claiming
the accommodation offered in the ticket.67 On this view the passenger
makes no more than an invitation to treat when he asks for the ticket to
be issued to him; and the offer contained in the ticket may be made to,
and accepted by, the passenger even though the fare is paid by a third
party (e.g. the passenger’s employer).68 Where the booking is made in
advance, through a travel agent, yet a third view has been expressed:
that the contract is concluded when the carrier indicates, even before
issuing the ticket, that he “accepts” the booking69 or when he issues the
ticket.70 On this view, it is the passenger who makes the offer. The
authorities yield no single rule: one can only say that the exact time of
contracting depends in each case on the wording of the relevant
document and on the circumstances in which it was issued.
2–012
Tenders. At common law, a statement that goods are to be sold by
tender is not normally an offer, so that the person making the statement
is not bound to sell to the person making the highest tender.71 Similarly
a statement inviting tenders for the supply of goods or for the
execution of works is not normally an offer.72 The offer comes from
the person who submits the tender and there is no contract until the
person asking for the tenders accepts73 one of them. The preparation of
a tender may involve considerable expense; but the tenderer normally
incurs this at his own risk. The position is different where the person
who invites the tenders states in the invitation that he binds himself to
2–013
accept the highest offer to buy74 (or, as the case may be, the lowest
offer to sell or to provide the specified services).75 In such cases, the
invitation may be regarded either as itself an offer or as an invitation
to submit offers coupled with an undertaking to accept the highest (or,
as the case may be, the lowest) offer; and the contract is concluded as
soon as the highest offer to buy (or lowest offer to sell, etc.) is
communicated.76 There is also an intermediate possibility. This is
illustrated by a case77 in which an invitation to submit tenders was sent
by a local authority to seven selected parties; the invitation stated that
tenders submitted after a specified deadline would not be considered.
It was held that the authority was contractually bound to consider
(though not to accept)78 a tender submitted before the deadline.
The common law position stated above is in some situations
modified by legislation, for example by regulations79 which give effect
to EC Council Directives, the object of which is to prevent
discrimination in the award of major contracts for public works,
supplies and services in one Member State against nationals of another
Member State. These regulations restrict the freedom of the body
seeking tenders to decide which tender it will accept and provide a
remedy in damages for a person who has made a tender and is
prejudiced by breach of the rules.
Sales of shares. A company which, in commercial language,80 makes
an “offer to the public”, asking them to subscribe for shares in it, does
not in law offer to sell the shares. It invites members of the public to
apply for them, reserving the right to decide how many (if any) to allot
to each applicant.81 But where a company makes a “rights” issue of
shares to its existing shareholders, entitling each shareholder to buy a
number of new shares in proportion to the shares he already holds, the
letter informing the shareholder of his rights is regarded as an offer.82
This letter will set out the precise rights of each shareholder, thus
showing an intention on the part of the company to be bound, if the
shareholder takes up his rights.
2–014
(c) Where and When an Offer Takes Effect
In one sense an offer cannot take effect until it is received, for until the
offeree knows about it he can take no action in reliance on it. But for
the purpose of determining whether a contract can be sued on in a
2–015
particular court it has been held that an offer sent through the post was
made where it was posted.83 The question when such an offer was
made may also arise for the purpose of determining whether the offer
has expired by lapse of time84 before it was accepted. In Adams v
Lindsell85 an offer to sell wool was made by a letter which was
misdirected. The letter reached the offerees two days late; and they
immediately posted an acceptance which was held binding because the
delay arose “entirely from the mistake of the [offerors]”.86 From this
emphasis on the offerors’ fault, it seems that the decision might have
gone the other way if the delay had been due to some other factor, e.g.
to an accident in the post. In such a case the time for acceptance
probably runs from the moment at which the letter would, but for such
accident, have reached the offeree’s address. Even where the delay is
due to the offeror’s fault, the offer may have lapsed before its receipt
by the offeree. Obviously, the offer could not be accepted if it reached
the offeree only after the date expressly specified in it as the last date
for acceptance. The position is probably the same where it is clear to
the offeree that there has been such a long delay in the transmission of
the offer as to make it obvious to the offeree that the offer was “stale”
when it reached him.
2. ACCEPTANCE
(a) Acceptance Defined
An objective test. An acceptance is a final and unqualified expression
of assent to the terms of an offer. The objective test of agreement
applies to an acceptance no less than to an offer.87 On this test, the
mere acknowledgment that an offer has been received would not be an
acceptance; nor would a person to whom an offer to sell goods had
been made accept it merely by replying that it was his “intention to
place an order”88 or by asking for an invoice.89 But an
“acknowledgment” may by its express terms or, in a particular context
by implication, contain a statement that the sender agreed to the terms
of the offer and that he was therefore accepting it: this might, for
example, be the effect of an “acknowledgment” of a customer’s order
in website trading.90 Where the offer makes alternative proposals, the
reply must make it clear to which of them the assent is directed. In one
case an offer to build a freight terminal was made by a tender quoting
2–016
in the alternative a fixed price and a price varying with the cost of
labour and materials. The offeree purported to accept “your tender”
and it was held that there was no contract as there was no way of
telling which price term had been accepted.91
Continuing negotiations. When parties carry on lengthy negotiations,
it may be hard to say exactly when an offer has been made and
accepted. As negotiations progress, each party may make concessions
or new demands and the parties may in the end dispute whether they
had ever agreed at all. The court must then look at the whole
correspondence and decide whether, on its true construction, the
parties had agreed to the same terms.92 If so, there is a contract even
though both parties, or one of them, had reservations not expressed in
the correspondence.93 In Allianz Insurance Co (Egypt) v Aigaion
Insurance Co SA94 an insurance slip was emailed by the reinsured
without a warranty that the parties had previously agreed, but the
appearance of “finality” in the reinsurer’s e-mailed reply meant that it
took effect as an acceptance and there was a contract which omitted
the warranty.95
The court will be particularly anxious to conclude that there was a
contract where the performance which was the subject-matter of the
negotiations has actually been rendered. In one such case, a building
sub-contract was held to have come into existence (even though the
parties had not yet reached agreement when the contractor began the
work) as during its progress outstanding matters were resolved by
further negotiations.96 The contract may then be given retrospective
effect so as to cover acts done before the final agreement was
reached.97
Businessmen do not, any more than the courts, find it easy to say
precisely when they have reached agreement, and may continue to
negotiate after they appear to have agreed to the same terms. The court
will then look at the entire course of the negotiations to decide whether
an apparently unqualified acceptance did in fact conclude the
agreement.98 If it did, the fact that the parties continued negotiations
after this point will not normally affect the existence of the contract;99
it will do so only if the continuation of the negotiations can be
construed as an agreement to rescind the contract. A fortiori, the
binding force of an oral contract is not affected or altered merely by
the fact that, after its conclusion, one party sends to the other a
2–017
document containing terms significantly different from those which
had been orally agreed.100
Acceptance by conduct. An offer may be accepted by conduct, e.g. by
supplying or despatching goods in response to an offer to buy them,101
or by beginning to render services in response to an offer in the form
of a request for them.102 Similarly, an offer to supply goods (made by
sending them to the offeree) can be accepted by using them.103
Conduct will, however, only have this effect if the offeree did the act
with the intention (ascertained in accordance with the objective
principle)104 of accepting the offer.105 Thus a buyer’s taking delivery of
goods after the conclusion of an oral contract of sale will not amount
to his acceptance of written terms which differ significantly from those
orally agreed and which are sent to him by the seller after the making
of that contract but before taking delivery.106 That conduct is then
referable to the oral contract rather than to the attempted later
variation. Nor is a company’s offer to insure a car accepted by taking
the car out on the road, if there is evidence that the driver intended to
insure with another company.107 A fortiori, there is no acceptance
where the offeree’s conduct clearly indicates an intention to reject the
offer. This was the position in a Scottish case where a notice on a
package containing computer software stated that opening the package
would indicate acceptance of the terms on which the supply was made,
and the customer returned the package unopened.108
Where it is alleged that an offer has been made, or accepted, by
conduct it is often hard to say exactly what terms have been agreed.
The difficulty may be so great as to lead to the conclusion that no
agreement was reached at all.109 But the court has considerable power
to resolve uncertainties. If the offer is silent as to the rate of payment
the court may imply a term that a reasonable amount should be paid.110
Or the court may import into the contract the terms of another contract
between the parties, or of a draft agreement between them,111 or even
of a contract between one of them and a third party.112
2–018
Acceptance must be unqualified. A communication may fail to take
effect as an acceptance because it attempts to vary the terms of the
offer. Thus an offer to sell 1,200 tons of iron is not accepted by a reply
asking for 800 tons;113 an offer to pay a fixed price for building work is
not accepted by a promise to do the work for a variable price;114 an
2–019
offer to supply goods is not accepted by an “order” for their “supply
and installation”.115 Nor, generally, is an offer accepted by a reply
which varies one of its other terms (e.g. that specifying the time of
performance)116 or by a reply which is intended to introduce an entirely
new term.117 Such replies are not acceptances but counter-offers118
which the original offeror can accept or reject.
The requirement that the acceptance must be unqualified does not,
however, mean that there must be precise verbal correspondence
between offer and acceptance.119 An acceptance could be effective
even though it departed from the wording of the offer by making
express some term which the law would in any case imply.120 And a
reply which adds some new provision by way of indulgence to the
offeror (e.g. one allowing him to postpone payment) may be an
acceptance. Conversely, an acceptance in which the acceptor asks for
extra time to pay may be effective, so long as he makes it clear that he
is prepared to perform in accordance with the terms of the offer even if
his request is refused. The question is whether what has been
introduced would have been regarded by a reasonable offeror as
introducing a new term into the bargain rather than acceptance of the
offer.121 It is also possible for a communication which introduces a new
term to amount at the same time to a firm acceptance and also to a
further offer relating to the same subject-matter but emanating from
the original offeree.122 In such a case, there will be a contract on the
terms of the original offer, but none on the terms of the new offer
unless that is, in turn, accepted.123
After parties have reached agreement, the offer and acceptance may
be set out in formal documents. The purpose of such documents may
be merely to record the agreed terms;124 and where one of the
documents performs this function accurately while the other fails to do
so, the discrepancy between them will not prevent the formation of a
contract. In such a case, the court can rectify125 the document which
fails to record the agreed terms, and a contract will be on those
terms.126
The battle of forms. The prevalent use of printed contract forms by
one or both parties has given rise to problems with regard to the rule
that the acceptance must correspond to the offer. Two situations call
for discussion.
First, A may make an offer to B by asking for a supply of goods or
2–020
services. B may reply that he is willing to supply the goods or services
on B’s terms. Prima facie, B’s statement is a counter-offer which A is
free to accept or reject, and he may accept it by accepting the goods or
services. If he does so, there is a contract between A and B which is
governed by B’s terms.127
Secondly, each party may purport to contract with reference to his
own set of standard terms and these terms may conflict. In BRS v
Arthur V Crutchley Ltd128 the claimants delivered a consignment of
whisky to the defendants for storage. Their driver handed the
defendants a delivery note purporting to incorporate the claimants’
“conditions of carriage”. The note was stamped by the defendants:
“Received under [the defendants’] conditions”. It was held that this
amounted to a counter-offer which the claimants had accepted by
handing over the goods, and the contract therefore incorporated the
defendants’ and not the claimants’ conditions.
The “last shot” doctrine. The decision in Crutchley gave some
support to the so-called “last shot” doctrine: i.e. to the view that, where
conflicting communications are exchanged, each is a counter-offer so
that if a contract results at all (e.g. from an acceptance by conduct) it
must be on the terms of the final document in the series leading to the
conclusion of the contract.129 But this view requires some modification
in the light of Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp
(England) Ltd.130 In that case sellers offered to supply a machine for a
specified sum. The offer was expressed to be subject to certain terms
and conditions, including a “price-escalation clause”, by which the
amount payable by the buyers was to depend on “prices ruling upon
date of delivery”. In reply, the buyers placed an order for the machine
on a form setting out their own terms and conditions, which differed
from those of the sellers in containing no price-escalation clause and in
various other respects.131 It also contained a tear-off slip to be signed
by the sellers and returned to the buyers, stating that the sellers
accepted the order “on the terms and conditions stated therein”. The
sellers did so sign the slip and returned it with a letter saying that they
were “entering” the order “in accordance with” their offer. This
communication from the sellers was held to be an acceptance of the
buyers’ counter-offer132 so that the resulting contract was on the
buyers’ terms, and the sellers were not entitled to the benefit of the
price-escalation clause. The sellers’ reply to the buyers’ order did not
2–021
prevail (though it was the “last shot” in the series) because the
reference in it to the original offer was not made for the purpose of
reiterating all the terms of that offer, but only for the purpose of
identifying the subject-matter.133 It would, however, have been possible
for the sellers to have turned their final communication into a counteroffer by explicitly referring in it, not only to the subject-matter of the
original offer, but also to all its other terms. In that case no contract
would have been concluded, since the buyers had made it clear before
the machine was delivered that they did not agree to the “priceescalation” clause.134
Thus it is possible by careful draftsmanship to avoid losing the
battle of forms, but not (if the other party is equally careful) to win it.
In the Butler Machine Tool case, for example, the sellers’ conditions
included one by which their terms were to “prevail over any terms and
conditions in Buyer’s order”; but this failed (in consequence of the
terms of the buyers’ counter-offer) to produce the effect desired by the
sellers. The most that the draftsman can be certain of achieving is the
stalemate situation in which there is no contract at all, or no contract
on either parties’ terms.135 Such a conclusion will often be
inconvenient,136 though where the goods are nevertheless delivered it
may lead to a liability on the part of the buyers to pay a reasonable
price.137
Acceptance of tenders. The submission of a tender normally amounts
to an offer,138 and the effect of an “acceptance” of the tender depends
on the interpretation of the documents. Where, for example, a tender is
submitted for the construction of a building, acceptance will normally
create a binding contract unless it is expressly stipulated that there is to
be no contract until certain formal documents have been executed.139
But where a tender is made for an indefinite amount, e.g. for the
supply of “such quantities (not exceeding 1,000 tons) as you may
order” the person to whom the tender is submitted does not incur any
liability merely by “accepting” it. He becomes liable only when he
places an order for the goods;140 and he is not bound to place any order
at all (unless he has expressly or by necessary implication141 indicated
in his invitation for tenders that he would do so).142 Once an order has
been placed, the party who has submitted the tender is bound to fulfil
it.143 Whether he can withdraw before an order has been placed, or
avoid liability with regard to future orders, depends on the
2–022
interpretation of the tender. If it merely means “I will supply such
quantities as you may order” he can withdraw before a definite order is
placed.144 But he will not be entitled to withdraw if the tender means “I
hereby bind myself to execute any orders which you may place”, and
if there is some consideration for this undertaking.145
Acceptance by tender. An invitation for tenders may, exceptionally,
amount to an offer, e.g. where the person issuing the invitation binds
himself to accept the highest tender to buy (or the lowest tender to
sell).146 The acceptance then takes the form of the submission of a
tender; but difficulties can arise where several tenders are made and
one (or more) of them takes the form of a so-called “referential bid”.
In Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd147 an
invitation for the submission of “offers” to buy shares was addressed
to two persons; it stated that the prospective sellers bound themselves
to accept the “highest offer”. One of the persons to whom the
invitation was addressed made a bid of a fixed sum while the other
submitted a “referential bid” undertaking to pay either a fixed sum or a
specified amount in excess of the bid made by the other, whichever
was the higher amount. It was held that this “referential bid” was
ineffective and that the submission of the other bid had concluded the
contract. The House of Lords stressed that the bids were, by the terms
of the invitation, to be confidential, so that neither bidder would know
the amount bid by the other. In these circumstances the object of the
invitation, which was to ascertain the highest amount which each of
the persons to whom it was addressed was willing to pay, would have
been defeated by allowing it to be accepted by a “referential bid”.
2–023
(b) Communication of Acceptance
(i) General rule
Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. The general rule
is that an acceptance has no effect until it is communicated to the
offeror.148 One reason for this rule is the difficulty of proving an
uncommunicated decision to accept “for the Devil himself knows not
the intent of a man”.149 But this is not the sole reason for the rule,
which applies even where the fact of acceptance could be proved with
perfect certainty,150 e.g. where a company resolves to accept an
2–024
application for shares, records the resolution, but does not
communicate it to the applicant;151 where a person decides to accept an
offer to sell goods to him and instructs his bank to pay the seller, but
neither he nor the bank gives notice of this fact to the seller;152 or
where a person communicates the acceptance only to his own agent.153
The main reason for the rule is that it could cause hardship to an
offeror if he were bound without knowing that his offer had been
accepted. It follows that there can be a contract if the offeror knows of
the acceptance although it was not brought to his notice by the
offeree.154 However, there will be no contract if the communication is
made by a third party without the authority of the offeree in
circumstances indicating that the offeree’s decision to accept was not
yet regarded by him as irrevocable.155
For an acceptance to be “communicated” it must normally be
brought to the notice of the offeror. Thus if an oral acceptance is
“drowned by an aircraft flying overhead” or is spoken into a telephone
after the line has gone dead, or is so indistinct that the offeror does not
hear it, there is no contract.156 The requirement of “communication”
may, however, sometimes be satisfied even though the acceptance has
not actually come to the notice of the offeror: e.g. where a written
notice of acceptance is left at his address.157
In a number of cases, contrary to the general rule, an acceptance is,
or may be, effective although it is not communicated to the offeror.
(ii) Exceptional cases
Communication to offeror’s agent. The effect of giving an
acceptance to the agent of the offeror depends on the nature of the
agent’s authority.158 If the agent has authority to receive the acceptance,
it takes effect as soon as it is communicated to him, e.g. if acceptance
of an offer made by a company is communicated to its managing
director. But if the agent is only authorised to transmit the acceptance
to the offeror, it may not take effect until the offeror receives it, e.g. if
a written acceptance is given to a messenger.
2–025
Offeror’s fault. An offeror may be precluded from denying that he
received the acceptance if “it is his own fault that he did not get it”,
e.g. “if the listener on the telephone does not catch the words of
acceptance, but nevertheless does not … ask for them to be
2–026
repeated”;159 or if the acceptance is sent during business hours by telex
but is simply not read by anyone in the offeror’s office when it is there
transcribed on his machine.160 If such a message is received out of
business hours, it probably takes effect at the beginning of the next
business day.161
Communication waived by the terms of the offer. An offer may
expressly or impliedly waive the requirement that acceptance must be
communicated.162 This is often the case where an offer invites
acceptance by conduct. Thus where an offer to sell goods is made by
sending them to the offeree, it may be accepted by simply using them
without communicating this fact to the offeror.163 Similarly, it seems
that, where an offer to buy goods is made by asking the seller to supply
them, it may be accepted by simply despatching the goods to the
buyer.164 And a tenant can accept an offer of a new tenancy by simply
staying on the premises.165
2–027
Unilateral contracts. Communication of acceptance is scarcely ever
required in the case of an offer of a unilateral contract.166 Thus in
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co,167 the court rejected the argument
that the claimant should have notified the defendants of her acceptance
of their offer before starting to use the smoke ball. Similarly, where a
reward is offered for the return of lost property the finder need not
notify the owner in advance of his acceptance: he can accept by
finding and returning the thing; and once he has found it the owner
probably cannot withdraw.168 Again, the contract which arises169
between a bank which has issued a credit card to one of its customers
and the retailer to whom the customer presents the card has been
described as unilateral,170 so that the bank’s offer can be accepted by
the retailer’s dealing with the customer even before that acceptance is
communicated to the bank.171
2–028
(iii) Acceptance by post172
There are many possible solutions to the problem: when does a posted
acceptance take effect? Such an acceptance could take effect when it is
actually communicated to the offeror, when it arrives at his address,
when it should, in the ordinary course of post, have reached him, or
when it is posted. As the following discussion will show, each of these
2–029
solutions is open to objections on the grounds of convenience or
justice.173 This is particularly true where the acceptance is lost or
delayed in the post.174
The posting rule. What is usually175 called the general rule is that a
postal acceptance takes effect when the letter of acceptance is
posted.176 For this purpose a letter is posted when it is in the control of
the Post Office,177 or of one of its employees authorised to receive
letters: handing a letter to a postman authorised to deliver letters is not
posting.178
2–030
Reasons for the posting rule. Various reasons for the rule have been
suggested. One is that the offeror must be considered as making the
offer all the time that his offer is in the post, and that therefore the
agreement between the parties is complete as soon as the acceptance is
posted.179 But this does not explain why posting has any significance at
all: any other proof of intention to accept would equally well show that
the parties were in agreement. Another suggested reason for the rule is
that, if it did not exist
2–031
“no contract could ever be completed by the post. For if the [offerors] were not bound by
their offer when accepted by the [offerees] till the answer was received, then the [offerees]
ought not to be bound till after they had received the notification that the [offerors] had
received their answer and assented to it. And so it might go on ad infinitum”.180
But it would be perfectly possible to hold that the acceptance took
effect when it came to the notice of the offeror, whether the offeree
knew of this or not. Such a rule would not result in an infinity of
letters. Yet another suggested reason for the rule is that the Post Office
is the common agent of both parties, and that communication to this
agent immediately completes the contract.181 But the contents of a
sealed letter cannot realistically be said to have been communicated to
the Post Office, which in any case is at most an agent to transmit the
acceptance, and not to receive it.182 Finally, it has been suggested that
the rule minimises difficulties of proof: it is said to be easier to prove
that a letter has been posted than that it has been received. But this
depends in each case on the efficiency with which the parties keep
records of incoming and outgoing letters.183
The rule is in truth an arbitrary one, little better or worse than its
competitors. When negotiations are conducted by post, one of the
parties may be prejudiced if a posted acceptance is lost or delayed; for
the offeree may believe that there is a contract and the offeror that
there is none, and each may act in reliance on his belief. The posting
rule favours the offeree, and is sometimes justified on the ground that
an offeror who chooses to start negotiations by post takes the risk of
delay and accidents in the post; or on the ground that the offeror can
protect himself by expressly stipulating that he is not to be bound until
actual receipt of the acceptance.184 Neither justification is wholly
satisfactory, for the negotiations may have been started by the
offeree;185 and the offer may be made on a form provided by the
offeree,186 in which case he, and not the offeror, will for practical
purposes be in control of its terms. The rule does, however, serve a
possibly useful function in limiting the offeror’s power to withdraw his
offer at will:187 it makes a posted acceptance binding although that
acceptance only reaches the offeror after a previously posted
withdrawal reaches the offeree.188
Must be reasonable to use post. The posting rule only applies when it
is reasonable to use the post as a means of communicating acceptance.
Generally an offer made in a letter sent by post may be so accepted;
but it may be reasonable to accept by post even though the offer was
not sent in this way. In Henthorn v Fraser189 the mere fact that the
parties lived at a distance justified acceptance by post of an oral offer.
It would not normally be reasonable to reply by a posted letter to an
offer made by telex,190 email or telephone. Nor would it be reasonable
to accept by post if the acceptor knew that the postal service was
disrupted.191
2–032
Terms of the offer. The posting rule can be excluded by the terms of
the offer. This may be so even though the offer does not expressly
provide when the acceptance is to take effect. In Holwell Securities Ltd
v Hughes192 an offer to sell a house was made in the form of an option
expressed “to be exercisable by notice in writing to the Intending
Vendor …”. Such a notice was posted but did not arrive. It was held
that there was no contract of sale as the terms of the offer, on their true
construction, required the acceptance to be actually communicated.
2–033
Instantaneous and electronic communications.193 The posting rule
does not apply to acceptances made by some instantaneous mode of
2–034
communication, e.g. by telephone or by telex.194 Such acceptances are
therefore governed by the general rule that they must have been
communicated to the offeror.195 The reason why the rule does not apply
in such cases is that the acceptor will often know at once that his
attempt to communicate was unsuccessful,196 so that it is up to him to
make a proper communication. But a person who accepts by letter
which goes astray may not know of the loss or delay until it is too late
to make another communication. Fax messages seem to occupy an
intermediate position. The sender will usually know at once if his
message has not been received at all, and where this is the position the
message should not amount to an effective acceptance. But if the
message is received in such a form that it is wholly or partly illegible,
the sender is unlikely to know this at once, and it is suggested an
acceptance sent by fax might well be effective in such
circumstances.197 The same principles should apply to other forms of
electronic communication such as email198 or web-site trading:199 here
again the effects of unsuccessful attempts to communicate should
depend on whether the sender of the message knows (or has the means
of knowing) at once of any failure in communication.
Applications of the posting rule. Discussions of this subject
sometimes start by stating the “general rule” that an acceptance takes
effect when posted, and then proceed to deduce various
“consequences” from this rule. In fact few, if any, judges or writers
have been prepared to follow all these deductions to their logical
conclusions; and it would be more accurate to admit that there is no
single or universal rule which determines the effect of a posted
acceptance.200 The effect of such an acceptance has to be considered as
against various competing factors, such as withdrawal of the offer, loss
or delay of the acceptance, subsequent revocation of the acceptance,
previous rejection of the offer and so forth. Obviously, a rule laid
down in a case concerning the effect of a posted acceptance as against
a withdrawal of the offer is no real guide to the solution of the problem
whether such an acceptance is effective as against a subsequent
revocation of the acceptance. The English cases in fact only support
three “consequences” of the posting rule. The first (and probably the
most important201 is that a posted acceptance prevails over a previously
posted withdrawal of the offer which had not yet reached the offeree
when the acceptance was posted.202 A second, and more
2–035
controversial,203 application of the rule is that an acceptance takes
effect on posting even though it never reaches the offeror because it is
lost through an accident in the post,204 and the same rule probably
applies where the acceptance is merely delayed through such an
accident.205 Thirdly, the contract is taken to have been made at the time
of posting so as to take priority over another contract affecting the
subject-matter made after the original acceptance had been posted but
before it had reached the offeror.206 Whether a posted acceptance
should take effect against other competing factors is a question of
policy and convenience.207 The posting rule will not apply where it
would lead to “manifest inconvenience and absurdity”.208 Its scope is
determined by practical considerations rather than by “deductions”
from a “general” rule.
Misdirected acceptance. A letter of acceptance may be lost or delayed
because it bears a wrong, or an incomplete, address. Normally, such
misdirection will be due to the carelessness of the offeree and the
posting rule should not apply to such cases.209 Even if an offeror can be
said to take the risk of accidents in the post, it would be unreasonable
to impose on him the further risk of the offeree’s carelessness. It does
not follow that a misdirected acceptance should necessarily take effect
when received. For such a rule may actually favour the careless
acceptor, e.g. when an offer is made to sell “at the market price
prevailing when this offer is accepted,” and the market falls after the
misdirected acceptance has been posted. Moreover, the misdirection
may be due to the fault of the offeror himself,210 e.g. if he makes the
offer in a letter on which his own address is incompletely or illegibly
written, or if he uses an out-of-date letter-head.211 The better rule,
therefore, seems to be that a misdirected acceptance takes effect (if at
all) at the time which is least favourable to the party responsible for
the misdirection.212
2–036
Garbled messages. A message may be garbled as a result of some
inaccuracy in transmission for which the sender is not responsible.
This problem used to arise in the case of telegraphed messages and
could still arise from the use of now more common modes of
communication: e.g. where an electronic message was corrupted in
transmission without any fault on the part of the sender; and the
discussion of garbled telegraphic messages in (and arising from) the
2–037
older authorities may provide some guidance to the solution of such
problems. In one such case, it was held that an offeror was not bound
by a telegraphed offer which was garbled so as to indicate that he was
placing an order for a different quantity of goods from that which he
wished to buy.213 But there is no English authority on the question
whether an offeror would be bound where it was the acceptance rather
than the offer which was garbled in this way. It is submitted that if the
offeree sends a message of acceptance in words corresponding to the
offer, then (so long as it was reasonable for the offeree to accept in this
way), the offeror would be bound by the acceptance and would not be
entitled to treat it as a counter-offer. If an offeror takes the risk of such
accidents in the post as loss or delay, he should similarly take the risk
of errors in the transmission of a message; for in each case the offeree
will have no means of knowing that something has gone wrong until it
is too late to make another, proper, communication.214
Revocation of posted acceptance. An offeree may, after posting an
acceptance, attempt to revoke it by a later communication which
reaches the offeror before, or at the same time as, the acceptance.
There is no English authority on the effectiveness of such a revocation.
One view is that the revocation has no effect, since, once a contract has
been concluded by posting of the acceptance, it cannot be dissolved by
the unilateral act of one party.215 But this argument has little to
commend it if (as has been suggested above) it is undesirable to
resolve what are really issues of policy by making “logical” deductions
from some “general” rule as to the effect of posted acceptances. As a
matter of policy, the issue is whether the offeror would be unjustly
prejudiced by allowing the offeree to rely on the subsequent
revocation. On the one hand, it can be argued that the offeror cannot be
prejudiced by such revocation as he had no right to have his offer
accepted and as he cannot have relied on its having been accepted
before he knew of the acceptance. Against this, it can be argued that,
once the acceptance has been posted, the offeror can no longer
withdraw his offer,216 and that reciprocity demands that the offeree
should likewise be held to his acceptance. For if the offeree could
revoke the acceptance he would be able, without risk to himself, to
speculate at the expense of the offeror.217 He could post his acceptance
early in the morning of a working day and could, if the market moved
against him, revoke his acceptance the same afternoon, while the
2–038
offeror had no similar freedom of action. It has been suggested218 that
the offeror should take this risk just as much as he takes the risk of loss
or delay; but here again it is submitted that while the offeror may take
the risk of accidents in the post, he should not have to take risks due
entirely to the conduct of the offeree.
So far, it has been assumed that it is in the offeror’s interest to
uphold the contract. But to hold the acceptance binding as soon as it
was posted, in spite of an overtaking communication purporting to
revoke it, might cause hardship to the offeror. This is particularly true
where he had acted in reliance on the revocation. Suppose that A offers
to sell B a car. After posting a letter of acceptance, B sends an
overtaking email, telling A to ignore that letter. On receipt of the
email, A sells the car to C. Could B change his mind yet again, and
claim damages from A? There are several ways of avoiding such an
unjust result. The first is to say that there had once been a contract but
that it was later rescinded by mutual consent: B’s email was an offer to
release A, which A accepted by conduct; communication of such
acceptance could be deemed to have been waived. The second is to
regard B’s email as a repudiation amounting to a breach of contract;
and to say that, by “accepting” the breach, A has put an end to his
obligations under the contract.219 This analysis is preferable from A’s
point of view if the sale to C is for a lower price than that to B, for it
would enable A to claim the difference from B as damages.220
Consumer’s right to cancel distance contracts. While not strictly a
matter of revoking an acceptance, it should be noted that a contract
made by (for example) exchange of letters, faxes or emails or by
website trading may fall within the definition of a “distance contract”
under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and
Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.221 The Regulations do not
specify when such a contract is made; but if it has been made, they
give the consumer the right to cancel it222 by notice within a
cancellation period specified in the Regulations.223 Cancellation “ends
the obligations of the parties to perform the contract”,224 but the parties
come under obligations which are intended to restore any benefits
received under the contract, e.g. reimbursement of any payment, return
of goods, etc.225 The effect of the exercise of the right to cancel is
therefore not the same as the effect of saying that no contract has been
concluded by (e.g.) exchange of letters under the common law rules of
2–039
offer and acceptance discussed above; on the contrary, the very
concept of the consumer’s “right to cancel” is based on the assumption
that, as a matter of common law, a contract has come into existence.
(c) Prescribed Method of Acceptance
Offeror not generally bound by another method. Where an offer
states that it can only be accepted in a specified way,226 the offeror is
not, in general, bound unless acceptance is made in that way. Thus if
the offeror asks for the acceptance to be sent to a particular place an
acceptance sent elsewhere will not bind him;227 nor, if he asks for an
acceptance in writing, will he be bound by one that is oral.228 The rule
is particularly strict where the offer is contained in an option.229 The
offeror will, however, be bound if he acquiesces in the different mode
of acceptance and so waives the stipulated mode. Alternatively, a
contract may be concluded if the purported acceptance (which is
ineffective as such for failure to comply with the stipulated method)
can be regarded as a counter-offer and if that counter-offer is then
accepted by the counter-offeree.230 Since such acceptance may be
effected by conduct,231 the contract may be concluded without any
further communication between the parties after the original,
ineffective, acceptance.
2–040
Equally effective alternative method. Where the offeror prescribes a
method of acceptance, he usually does so with some particular object
in view, e.g. to secure a speedy acceptance, or one which will prevent
disputes from arising as to the terms of the agreement. An acceptance
which accomplishes that object just as well as, or better than, the
stipulated method may, by way of exception to the general rule, bind
the offeror.232 For the purpose of this exception, it must first be
determined what object the offeror had in view. If he says “reply by
letter sent by return of post” this may simply mean “reply quickly”: the
words may “fix the time for acceptance and not the manner of
accepting.”233 If so, a reply by email would suffice. But such a reply
would not suffice if the offer meant “reply quickly and by letter, I do
not like emails as they are often obscure”.
2–041
Prescribed method waived. An offeror can waive any requirement as
to the form of acceptance if the stipulation as to form is solely for its
2–042
benefit.234 But if the stipulation is for the benefit of both parties it must
be clear that both parties have waived the stipulation.235 Stipulations as
to the mode of acceptance may also be made for the protection and
benefit of the offeree, e.g. where a customer submits a proposal to
enter into a hire-purchase agreement; or where an offer is made on a
form of tender provided by the offeree. If the offeree accepts in some
other way, this will often be evidence that he has waived the
stipulation; and it is submitted that the acceptance ought to be treated
as effective unless it can be shown that failure to use the stipulated
mode has prejudiced the offeror.236
(d) Acceptance by Silence
Offeree generally not bound. An offer may specify, not that it must,
but that it may, be accepted in a particular way. In cases of this kind,
particular difficulty arises from provisions to the effect that the offeree
may accept by silence. As a general rule, an offeree who simply does
nothing on receipt of an offer which states that it may be accepted by
silence is not bound. In Felthouse v Bindley237 an uncle offered to buy
his nephew’s horse by a letter in which he said: “If I hear no more
about him, I shall consider the horse mine.” Later, the horse was, by
mistake, included in an auction sale of the nephew’s property. The
uncle sued the auctioneer for damages for the conversion of the horse.
It was held that, at the time of the auction, there was no contract for
the sale of the horse to the uncle because: “The uncle had no right to
impose upon the nephew the sale of his horse … unless he chose to
comply with the condition of writing to repudiate the offer …”.238 The
reason for the rule is that it is, in general, undesirable to impose the
trouble and expense of rejecting an offer on an offeree who does not
wish to accept it.239
The question whether silence can amount to an acceptance binding
the offeree has also arisen in the cases, already discussed, in which the
issue was whether an agreement to abandon an earlier agreement to
submit a claim to arbitration could be inferred from inactivity, in the
form of long delay in prosecuting the claim.240 In these cases, it had
been held that, even if one party’s inactivity could be regarded as an
offer to abandon the arbitration, the mere silence or inactivity241 of the
other did not normally amount to an acceptance. For one thing, such
inactivity was often242 equivocal,243 being explicable on other grounds
2–043
(such as forgetfulness). For another, acceptance could not, as a matter
of law, be inferred from silence alone244 “save in the most exceptional
circumstances”.245
Offeree exceptionally bound? As the above reference to “exceptional
circumstances” suggests, there may be exceptions to the general rule
that an offeree is not bound by silence. If the offer has been solicited
by the offeree, the argument that he should not be put to the trouble of
rejecting it loses much of its force,246 especially if the offer is made on
a form provided by the offeree247 and that form stipulates that silence
may amount to acceptance.248 Again, if there is a course of dealing
between the parties, the offeror may be led to suppose that silence
amounts to acceptance: e.g. where a retailer’s offers to buy goods from
a wholesaler have in the past been accepted as a matter of course by
the despatch of the goods in question.249 In such a case it may not be
unreasonable to require the offeree to give notice of his rejection of the
offer, especially if the offeror, in reliance on his belief that the goods
would be delivered in the usual way, had forborne from seeking an
alternative supply. On a somewhat similar principle, one party’s
wrongful repudiation of a contract may be accepted by the other
party’s failure to take such further steps in the performance of that
contract as he would have been expected to take, if he were treating
the contract as still in force.250
There may also be “an express undertaking or implied obligation to
speak”251 arising out of the course of negotiations between the parties,
e.g. “where the offeree himself indicates that an offer is to be taken as
accepted if he does not indicate the contrary by an ascertainable
time”,252 particularly if the parties are “sorting out details against the
background of a concluded contract.”253 Failure to perform such an
“obligation to speak” could enable the offeror to treat that failure as an
acceptance by silence. But it is not normally open to the offeree to treat
his own silence (in breach of his “duty to speak”) as an acceptance.254
This course would be open to him only in situations such as that in
Felthouse v Bindley,255 in which the offeror had indicated (usually in
the terms of the offer) that he would treat silence as an acceptance.
There is also the possibility that silence may constitute an
acceptance by virtue of the custom of the trade or business in
question.256
2–044
Alternative liability of the offeree. Even where silence of the offeree
does not amount to an acceptance, it is arguable that he might be liable
on a different basis. In Spiro v Lintern it was said that:
2–045
“If A sees B acting in the mistaken belief that A is under some binding obligation to him
and in a manner consistent only with such an obligation, which would be to B’s
disadvantage if A were thereafter to deny the obligation, A is under a duty to B to disclose
the non-existence of the supposed obligation.”257
Although this statement was made with reference to wholly different
circum-stances,258 it could also be applied to certain cases in which an
offeror had, to the offeree’s knowledge,259 acted in reliance on the
belief that his offer had been accepted by silence. The liability of the
offeree would then be based on a kind of estoppel.260 The application
of this doctrine to cases of alleged acceptance by silence gives rise to
the difficulty that an estoppel can only arise out of a “clear and
unequivocal”261 representation, and that such a representation cannot
generally be inferred from mere inactivity.262 But this general rule does
not preclude the application of the doctrine of estoppel to exceptional
cases of the kind here under discussion, in which there are special
circumstances which give rise to a “duty to speak”, and in which it
would be unconscionable for the party under that duty to deny that a
contract had come into existence.263
If the offeror, to the offeree’s knowledge, actually performs in
accordance with his offer and so confers a benefit on the offeree, the
solution in this type of case may be to make the offeree restore the
benefit rather than to hold him to an obligation to perform his part of a
contract to which he had never agreed.264
Offeror bound? There is some authority for saying that the offeror
cannot, any more than the offeree, be bound where the offeree simply
remains silent in response to the offer,265 and the case is not one of the
exceptional ones discussed above266 in which an offer can be accepted
by silence. But the object of the general rule laid down in Felthouse v
Bindley267 is to protect the offeree from having to incur the trouble and
expense of rejecting the offer so as to avoid being bound. No such
argument can normally be advanced for protecting the offeror. He may
indeed be left in doubt on the question whether his offer has been
accepted; but this is not a matter about which he can legitimately
complain where he has drawn up his offer in terms which permit (and
2–046
even encourage) acceptance by silence.268 Thus the uncle in Felthouse
v Bindley might have been bound if the nephew had resolved to accept
the offer and had, in reliance on its terms, forborne from attempting to
dispose of the horse elsewhere. This possibility has been judicially
doubted,269 but in the case in which the doubt was raised it was not an
express term of the offer that silence would be regarded as acceptance.
Where the offeror has expressly formulated his offer in such terms, it
is submitted that the offeree’s silence in response to the offer should be
capable of binding the offeror.
It is settled that a creditor can accept his debtor’s offer to give
additional security for a debt by simply forbearing to sue for the
debt.270 If such forbearance can be regarded as silence, this rule
supports the view that acceptance by silence can bind the offeror.
Another possible explanation of the rule is that a creditor who forbears
accepts by conduct271 rather than by silence.
Silence and conduct. In Roberts v Hayward272 a tenant accepted his
landlord’s offer of a new tenancy at an increased rent by simply
staying on the premises. It was held that he had accepted the landlord’s
offer by silence; but it seems better to say that he accepted by conduct
and that the landlord waived notice of acceptance.273 Similarly an offer
made to a landowner to occupy land under a licence containing
specified terms may be accepted by the landowner’s permitting the
offeror to occupy the land.274 An offeree is not, for the present purpose,
“silent” merely because his acceptance is not expressed in words.275
The possibility of acceptance by conduct is, yet again, illustrated by
the arbitration cases already mentioned,276 according to which, an offer
of abandonment can be accepted by reacting to it, not merely by
inactivity,277 but also by some further conduct: e.g. by closing or
disposing of relevant files.278 It also appears to be accepted that, in
context, “conduct can take the form of forbearance”.279
In Rust v Abbey Life Ins Co280 the claimant applied and paid for a
“property bond” which was allocated to her on the terms of the
defendants’ usual policy of insurance. After having retained this
document for some seven months, she claimed the return of her
payment, alleging that no contract had been concluded. The claim was
rejected on the ground that her application was an offer which had
been accepted by issue of the policy. But it was further held that, even
if the policy constituted a counter-offer, this counter-offer had been
2–047
accepted by “the conduct of the [claimant] in doing and saying nothing
for seven months …”.281 Thus mere inaction was said to be sufficient
to constitute acceptance; and it seems to have amounted to no more
than silence in spite of having been described as “conduct”. The
conclusion that it amounted to acceptance can, however, be justified in
the circumstances. The negotiations had been started by the claimant282
(the counter-offeree), and in view of this fact it was reasonable for the
defendants to infer from her long silence that she had accepted the
terms of the policy which had been sent to her and which she must be
“taken to have examined”.283 The case thus falls within one of the
suggested exceptions284 to the general rule that an offeree is not bound
by silence.
(e) Acceptance in Ignorance of Offer
Generally ineffective. The general view is that acceptance in
ignorance of an offer cannot create a contract since the parties must
reach agreement: it is not enough that their wishes happen to coincide:
the act or promise constituting the acceptance must be “given in
exchange for the offer”.285 The same reasoning applies where a person
once knew of the offer but had at the time of the alleged acceptance
forgotten it.286 On this basis, a person who gives information for which
a reward has been offered cannot claim the reward unless at the time of
giving it he knew of the offer of reward. The English case of Gibbons
v Proctor287 is sometimes thought to support the contrary view, but can
be explained on the ground that the claimant did know of the offer of
reward by the time the information was given on his behalf to the
person named in the advertisement.
In the “reward case”, it is hard to see what prejudice the offeror
would suffer if he had to pay the reward to someone who had complied
with the terms of the offer without being aware of it.288 The reasons for
holding that there is no contract in such a case seem to be largely
doctrinal; but more practical difficulties can arise where the acts
alleged to amount to an acceptance can not only confer rights on the
actor, but also deprive him of rights289 or impose duties on him. This
last possibility may be illustrated by reference to Upton Rural DC v
Powell290 where the defendant, whose house was on fire, telephoned
the Upton police and asked for “the fire brigade”. He was entitled to
the service of the Pershore fire brigade free of charge as he lived in its
2–048
district; but the police called the Upton fire brigade, in the belief that
the defendant lived in that district. The latter fire brigade for a time
shared this belief and thought “that they were rendering gratuitous
services in their own area”. It was held that the defendant was
contractually bound to pay for these services. But even if the
defendant’s telephone call was an offer, it is hard to see how the Upton
brigade’s services, given with no thought of reward, could be an
acceptance. It would have been better to give the claimants a
restitutionary remedy than to hold that there was a contract.291 The case
was concerned only with the rights of the fire brigade, but the fire
brigade could also have owed more extensive duties as contractors
than as volunteers. It may well be hard to subject a person who
reasonably thinks that he is a volunteer to the more stringent duties of
a contractor.292
Cross-offers. The requirement that the offeree must know of the offer
at the time of the alleged acceptance also accounts for the rule that
there is no contract if two persons make identical cross-offers, neither
party knowing of the other’s offer when he makes his own, e.g. if A
writes to B offering to sell B his car for £5,000 and B simultaneously
writes to A offering to buy the car for £5,000. If no further
communication took place in such a case, the parties might well be in
doubt as to whether there was indeed a contract between them; and the
view that “cross offers are not an acceptance of each other”293 can be
supported on the ground that it tends to promote certainty.
2–049
Relevance of motive for acceptance. A person who knows of the
offer may do the act required for acceptance with some motive other
than that of accepting the offer. In Williams v Carwardine294 the
defendant offered a reward of £20 to anyone who gave information
leading to the conviction of the murderers of Walter Carwardine. The
claimant knew of the offer, and, thinking that she had not long to live,
signed a “voluntary statement to ease my conscience, and in hopes of
forgiveness hereafter”. This statement resulted in the conviction of the
murderers. It was held that the claimant had brought herself within the
terms of the offer and was entitled to the reward. Patteson J said: “We
cannot go into the (claimant’s) motives”.295 Similarly, in Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co296 the claimant recovered the £100, although
her predominant motive in using the smoke ball was (presumably) to
2–050
avoid catching influenza. But in the Australian case of R. v Clarke297 a
reward had been offered for information leading to the arrest and
conviction of the murderers of two police officers. Clarke, who knew
of the offer and was himself suspected of the crime, gave such
information. He admitted that he had done so to clear himself of the
charge, and with no thought of claiming the reward. His claim for the
reward failed as he had not given the information “in exchange for the
offer”.298 It seems that an act which is wholly motivated by factors
other than the existence of the offer cannot amount to an acceptance,299
but if the existence of the offer plays some part, however small, in
inducing a person to do the required act, there is a valid acceptance of
the offer.
(f) Acceptance in Unilateral Contracts
An offer of a unilateral contract is made when one party promises to
pay the other a sum of money300 if the other will do (or forbear from
doing) something without making any promise to that effect: e.g. when
one person promises to pay another £100 if he will walk from London
to York,301 or give up smoking for a year.302 The contract which arises
in these cases is called “unilateral” because it arises without the
offeree’s having made any counter-promise to perform the required act
or forbearance; it is contrasted with a bilateral contract, in which each
party undertakes an obligation and in which acceptance, as a general
rule, takes the form of a communication by the offeree of his counterpromise. The distinction between the two types of contract sometimes
gives rise to difficulty,303 because a contract may be in its inception
unilateral, but become bilateral in the course of its performance.304 For
example, A may promise to pay B £1,000 for some service (such as
repainting A’s house) which B does not promise to render. Here B
would not be liable if he did nothing; but once he began the work (e.g.
by stripping off the old paint) he might be held to have impliedly
promised305 to complete it, so that at this stage the contract would
become bilateral306 and both parties would be bound by it.
2–051
General rules as to acceptance. Once a promise is classified as an
offer of a unilateral contract, a number of rules apply to the acceptance
of such an offer. First, the offer can be accepted by fully performing
the required act or forbearance.307 Secondly, there is no need to give
2–052
advance notice of acceptance to the offeror.308 And thirdly, the offer
can, like all other offers, be withdrawn before it has been accepted. But
there is much dispute as to the exact stage at which the offer is
“accepted” so as to deprive the offeror of the power of withdrawal.
Acceptance by part performance. It is probable that the offer can be
accepted only by some performance and not by a counter-promise to
walk to York, or to give up smoking; for such a counter-promise would
not be what the offeror had bargained for. Thus the offeror could still
withdraw after such a counter-promise had been made. It is less clear
whether the offeror can still withdraw after the offeree has partly
performed the required act or forbearance, e.g. if he has walked half
way to York or refrained from smoking for six months. The first
problem (which will be discussed here) is whether the offeree has at
this stage accepted the offer; the second (to be discussed in Ch.3)309 is
whether he has provided consideration for the offeror’s promise.
According to one view, there is no contract until the required act or
forbearance has been completed, and this is said to give effect to the
intention of the parties, each of whom intends, until then, to reserve a
locus poenitentiae.310 But in most cases311 it is unlikely that the offeree
intends to expose himself to the risk of withdrawal when he has partly
performed and is willing and able312 to complete performance for the
sake of securing the promised benefit.313 The general view is that it
would cause hardship to the offeree to allow the offeror to withdraw in
such a case; and most writers try to find some reason for saying that
part-performance prevents the offeror from withdrawing the offer. One
possibility is to say that the offeror makes two offers: (1) the principal
offer; and (2) a collateral one to keep the principal offer open once
performance has begun; this latter offer is accepted by beginning to
perform.314 But this analysis is artificial: it is more realistic to say that
the principal offer itself is accepted by beginning to perform.315 It has
been objected that this cannot simply be asserted but must be
explained.316 The explanation appears to be that acceptance is no more
(or less) than an unqualified expression of assent to the terms of the
offer by words or conduct; and that the question whether an inference
of such assent can be drawn from part-performance is simply one of
fact. The sight of a man walking northwards from London may or may
not suggest that he does so in response to an offer to pay him £100 if
he reaches York, but, if his conduct does clearly suggest this, there is
2–053
no theoretical difficulty in saying that he has accepted the offer.
Factual difficulties might, of course, arise in distinguishing between
commencement of performance and mere preparation to perform. Thus
it is probable that an offer of a reward for the return of lost property
could still be withdrawn after someone had spent time looking for the
property without success, but not after he had actually found it and
was in the process of returning it to the owner.
Support for the above view is provided by Errington v Errington317
where a father bought a house subject to a mortgage, allowed his son
and daughter-in-law to live in it, and told them that, if they paid the
mortgage instalments, the house would be theirs when the mortgage
was paid off. The couple started to live in the house and paid some of
the mortgage instalments; but they did not bind themselves to go on
making the payments. It was held that this arrangement amounted to a
contract which could not, after the father’s death, be revoked by his
personal representatives. Denning LJ said:
“The father’s promise was a unilateral contract—a promise of the house in return for their
act of paying the instalments. It could not be revoked by him once the couple entered on
performance of the act, but it would cease to bind him if they left it incomplete and
unperformed, which they have not done.”318
Continuing guarantees. The view that part-performance of a
unilateral contract can amount to an acceptance is further supported by
the law relating to continuing guarantees. These may be divisible,
where each advance constitutes a separate transaction; or indivisible,
e.g. where, on A’s admission to an association, B guarantees all
liabilities that A may incur as a member of the association.319 If the
guarantee is divisible, it can be revoked at any time with regard to
future advances;320 but an indivisible guarantee cannot be revoked after
the creditor has begun to act on it by giving credit to the principal
debtor.321 This rule applies even though the contract of guarantee is
unilateral in the sense that the creditor has not made any promise to the
guarantor (in return for the guarantee) to give credit to the debtor.
2–054
Bankers’ irrevocable credits. This subject is more fully explained in
Ch.3.322 Here it need only be said that the essence of the system is that
a bank, on the instruction of its customer (usually a buyer of goods)
notifies a third person (usually the seller) that it has opened an
irrevocable credit in his favour, promising to pay him a stipulated sum
2–055
if he will present certain specified documents to the bank. The general
view is that the bank cannot revoke the promise once it has been
notified to the seller; and, as the seller makes no promise to the bank,
this result is sometimes explained in terms of a unilateral contract
between these parties. In most cases there will be some act of partperformance by the seller, e.g. in shipping the goods so as to procure
the required documents. But the bank’s promise is regarded as binding
as soon as it is notified to the seller, i.e. before he has done any act in
response to it. The binding force of such irrevocable credits is not,
therefore, easily explicable in terms of acceptance of an offer.
Estate agents’ contracts. Where an estate agent is engaged to
negotiate the sale of a house, it is arguable that his client’s promise to
pay a commission on sale gives rise to a unilateral contract, for in one
case of this kind it was said that “No obligation is imposed on the
agent to do anything.”323 It is settled that the client (the offeror) can,
without liability, revoke his instructions before a claim to commission
has accrued, in spite of the fact that the agent (the offeree) has made
considerable efforts to find a purchaser.324 Hence these cases could be
said to support the view that an offer of a unilateral contract can be
withdrawn after part-performance by the offeree. But the better
explanation is that this is one of the exceptional cases in which, on the
true construction of the offer, a locus poenitentiae is reserved to the
client even after part-performance by the agent. This view is supported
by the fact that the right to revoke instructions exists even where the
contract is bilateral because the agent has, expressly or by implication,
made some promise: e.g. one to use his best endeavours to effect a
sale325 or one to bear advertising expenses.326 Such promises have been
found to exist where the agent has been appointed “sole agent”, but in
practice they are commonly made by other agents as well. A “sole
agent” is entitled to damages if the client sells through another
agent,327 but not if he simply revokes his instructions or sells
“privately”, without the help of any agent at all.328 These rules apply
irrespective of the unilateral or bilateral nature of the contract; so that
the estate agency cases shed little, if any, light on the question of
acceptance by part-performance of unilateral contracts.
2–056
Extent of recovery. Where a unilateral contract takes the shape of a
promise to pay a sum of money, it is generally assumed that the
2–057
promisee must either get nothing or the full sum. But this seems
unnecessarily inflexible. If the promisee has walked half way to York
before the offer is withdrawn, it is arguable that he should desist and
recover damages.329 This may take the form of a discounted payment
of the sum promised to reflect the fact that he may not have completed
performance.330
3. TERMINATION OF OFFER
(a) Withdrawal
Communication to offeree generally required. As a general rule, an
offer can be withdrawn at any time before it is accepted.331 It is not
withdrawn merely by acting inconsistently with it, e.g. by disposing of
the subject-matter.332 Notice of the withdrawal must be given and must
actually reach the offeree,333 or an agent of the offeree with authority to
receive notification of withdrawal:334 mere posting will not suffice. In
Byrne & Co v Leon van Tienhoven335 an offer to sell tinplates was
posted in Cardiff on 1 October and reached the offerees in New York
on 11 October, and they immediately accepted it by a telegram which
they confirmed by a letter of 15 October. Meanwhile, the offerors had
on 8 October posted a letter withdrawing their offer, but that letter of
withdrawal did not reach the offerees until 20 October. It was held that
there was a contract since the withdrawal had not been communicated
when the offer was accepted. Thus there was a contract in spite of the
fact that the parties were demonstrably not in agreement, for when the
offerees first knew of the offer, the offerors had already ceased to
intend to deal with the offerees. The rule is based on convenience; for
no one could rely on a postal offer if it could be withdrawn by a letter
already posted but not yet received.
2–058
Communication need not come from offeror. Although withdrawal
must be communicated to the offeree, it need not be communicated by
the offeror. It is sufficient if the offeree knows from any reliable source
that the offeror no longer intends to contract with him. Thus in
Dickinson v Dodds336 it was held that an offer to sell land could not be
accepted after the offeror had, to the offeree’s knowledge, decided to
sell the land to a third party. The decision is based on the fact that there
is in such a case no agreement between the parties. But this would be
2–059
equally true if the offeree did not know of the withdrawal at all when
he accepted the offer: yet in that case there is normally337 a contract.338
The rule that communication of withdrawal need not come from the
offeror can be a regrettable source of uncertainty. It puts on the offeree
the possibly difficult task of deciding whether his source of
information is reliable, and it may also make it hard for him to tell
exactly when the offer was withdrawn. In Dickinson v Dodds, for
example, it is not clear whether this occurred when the offeree realised
that the defendant had: (a) sold the land to the third party; or (b) begun
to negotiate with the third party; or (c) simply decided not to sell to the
claimant. Certainty would be promoted if the rule were that the
withdrawal must be communicated by the offeror, as well as to the
offeree.
Exceptions. The general rule that the withdrawal must be “brought to
the mind of”339 the offeree is subject to a number of exceptions. First,
the requirement cannot be taken quite literally where an offer is made
to a company whose mail is received, opened and sorted in different
offices and then distributed to be dealt with in various departments. Is
a letter withdrawing such an offer communicated when it is received,
or when it is opened, or when it is actually read by the responsible
officer?340 In the interests of certainty it would probably be held that
communication took place when the letter was “opened in the ordinary
course of business or would have been so opened if the ordinary
course was followed.”341 Secondly (as the concluding words of the
passage just quoted suggest) the general rule may be displaced by the
conduct of the offeree. A withdrawal which had reached the offeree
would be effective even though he had simply failed to read it after it
had reached him: this would be the position where a withdrawal by fax
or email reached the offeree’s office during business hours342 even
though it was not actually read by the offeree or by any of his staff till
the next day.343 Of course the withdrawal would not be effective in
such a case, if it had been sent to the offeree at a time when he and all
responsible members of his staff were, to the offeror’s knowledge,
away on holiday or on other business.344 A third exception to the
requirement that a withdrawal must be actually communicated relates
to offers made to the public, e.g. of rewards for information leading to
the arrest of the perpetrator of a crime. As it is impossible for the
offeror to ensure that the notice of withdrawal comes to the attention
2–060
of everyone who knew of the offer, it seems to be enough for him to
take reasonable steps to bring the withdrawal to the attention of such
persons, even though it does not in fact come to the attention of them
all.345
Revival of a withdrawn offer. An attempt to accept an offer which
has been withdrawn is ineffective as an acceptance, but it may amount
to a new offer on the same terms as the withdrawn offer which can be
accepted by the conduct of the original offeror.346
2–061
(b) Rejection
An offer is terminated by rejection.347 An attempt to accept an offer on
new terms, not contained in the offer, may be a rejection of the offer
accompanied by a counter-offer.348 An offeree who makes such an
attempt cannot later accept the original offer.349 A communication from
the offeree may be construed as a counter-offer (and hence as a
rejection) even though it takes the form of a question as to the offeror’s
willingness to vary the terms of the offer.350 But such a communication
is not necessarily a counter-offer: it may be a mere inquiry351 or
request for information made without any intention of rejecting the
terms of the offer. Whether the communication is a counter-offer or a
request for information depends on the intention, objectively
ascertained,352 with which it was made. If, for example, an offer is
made to sell a house at a specified price, an inquiry whether the
intending vendor is prepared to reduce the price will not amount to a
rejection if the inquiry is “merely exploratory.”353
2–062
Rejection must be communicated to offeror. It seems that a rejection
has no effect unless it is actually communicated to the offeror. There is
no ground of convenience for holding that it should take effect when
posted. The offeree will not act in reliance on it as he derives no rights
or liabilities from it; and the offeror will not know that he is free from
the offer until the rejection is actually communicated to him. Hence, if
a letter of rejection is overtaken by an acceptance sent by email there
should be a contract, provided that the offeree has made his final
intention clear to the offeror. But once the rejection had reached the
offeror he should not be bound by an acceptance posted after the
rejection and also reaching the offeror after the rejection. To hold the
2–063
offeror bound,354 merely because the acceptance was posted before the
rejection had reached him, could expose him to hardship, particularly
when he had acted on the rejection, e.g. by disposing elsewhere of the
subject-matter. If the offeree has posted a rejection and then wishes,
after all, to accept the offer, he should ensure that his subsequentlyposted acceptance actually comes to the notice of the offeror before the
latter receives the rejection.
(c) Lapse of Time
An offer which is expressly stated to last for a fixed time cannot be
accepted after that time; and an offer which stipulates for acceptance
“by return” (of post) must normally355 be accepted either by a return
postal communication or by some other, no less expeditious method.
An offer which contains no express provision limiting its duration
terminates after lapse of a reasonable time.356 What is a reasonable
time depends on such circumstances as the nature of the subject-matter
and the means used to communicate the offer. Thus an offer to sell a
perishable thing, or one whose price is liable to sudden fluctuations,
would determine after a short time. The same is true of an offer made
by telegram357 or by some other, at least equally speedy, means of
communication such as email.
2–064
Extension of reasonable time. The period that would normally
constitute a reasonable time for acceptance may be extended if the
conduct of the offeree within that period indicates an intention to
accept and this is known to the offeror. Such conduct would often of
itself amount to acceptance, but this possibility may be ruled out by
the terms of the offer, which may require the acceptance to be by
written notice sent to a specified address.358 In such a case the offeree’s
conduct, though it could not amount to an acceptance, could
nevertheless prolong the time for giving a proper notice of acceptance.
For the offeree’s conduct to have this effect, it must be known to the
offeror; for if this were not the case the offeror might reasonably
suppose that the offer had not been accepted within the normal period
of time, and act in reliance on that belief: e.g. by disposing elsewhere
of the subject-matter.
2–065
(d) Occurrence of Condition
An offer which expressly provides that it is to terminate on the
occurrence of some condition cannot be accepted after that condition
has occurred; and such a provision may also be implied. If an offer to
buy or hire-purchase goods is made after the offeror has examined
them, it may be an implied term of the offer that they should at the
time of acceptance still be in substantially the same state as that in
which they were when the offer was made. Such an offer cannot be
accepted after the goods have been seriously damaged.359 On the same
principle, it is submitted that the offer which is made by bidding at an
auction by implication provides that it is to lapse as soon as a higher
bid is made.360
2–066
(e) Death
One possible view is that the death of either party terminates the offer,
as the parties can no longer reach agreement.361 But there may be a
contract in spite of a demonstrable lack of agreement if to hold the
contrary would cause serious inconvenience.362 In accordance with this
principle, it is submitted that the death of either party should not of
itself terminate the offer except in the case of such “personal”
contracts as are discharged by the death of either party.363
2–067
Death of offeror. The effect of the death of the offeror has been
considered in a number of cases concerning continuing guarantees. In
general, a continuing guarantee, e.g. of a bank overdraft, is divisible:364
it is a continuing offer by the guarantor, accepted from time to time as
the banker makes loans to his customer. Each loan is a separate
acceptance, turning the offer pro tanto into a binding contract. It seems
that such a guarantee is not terminated merely by the death of the
guarantor.365 But it is terminated if the bank knows that the guarantor
has died and that his personal representatives have no power under his
will to continue the guarantee;366 or if for some other reason it is
inequitable for the bank to charge the guarantor’s estate.367 If the
guarantee expressly provides that it can be terminated only by notice
given by the guarantor or his personal representatives, the death of the
guarantor, even if known to the bank, will not terminate the guarantee:
express notice must be given.368
2–068
Death of offeree. Two cases have some bearing on the effect of the
2–069
death of the offeree. In Reynolds v Atherton369 an offer to sell shares
was made in 1911 “to the directors of” a company. An attempt to
accept the offer was made in 1919 by the survivors of the persons who
were directors in 1911 and by the personal representatives of those
who had since died. The purported acceptance was held to be
ineffective; and Warrington LJ said obiter that an offer “made to a
living person who ceases to be a living person before the offer is
accepted … is no longer an offer at all”. The actual ground for the
decision, however, was that the offer had, on its true construction, been
made to the directors of the company for the time being, and not to
those who happened to hold office in 1911. In Kennedy v Thomassen370
an offer to buy annuities was accepted by the solicitors of the annuitant
after she had, without the solicitors’ knowledge, died. This acceptance
was held to be ineffective on the grounds that the solicitors’ authority
was terminated by their client’s death and that the acceptance was
made under a mistake.371 Neither case supports the view that an offer
can never be accepted after the offeree’s death. It is submitted that,
where an offer related to a contract which was not “personal”,372 it
might, on its true construction, be held to have been made to the
offeree or to his executors, and that such an offer could be accepted
after the death of the original offeree.
(f) Supervening Incapacity
Mental incapacity. If an offeror subsequently lacked mental capacity
he would not be bound by an acceptance made after this fact had
become known to the offeree, or after the offeror’s property had been
made subject to the control of the court. But the other party would be
bound; and an offer made to a person who later lacked mental capacity
could be accepted so as to bind the other party. These rules can readily
be deduced from the law as to contracts with persons who lack mental
capacity.373
2–070
Companies governed by the Companies Act 2006. Such a company
may lose its capacity to do an act by altering its articles of
association.374 The general rule is that acts done by the company can
no longer be called into question on the ground that the company
lacked capacity to do them by reason of anything in its constitution;375
and that, in favour of a person dealing with the company in good faith,
2–071
the power of the board of directors to bind the company, or to
authorise others to do so, is deemed to be free of any limitation under
the company’s constitution.376 But a member of the company may
bring proceedings to restrain the doing of acts beyond the powers of
the directors, except where such acts are done in fulfilment of legal
obligations arising from previous acts of the company.377 The effect of
these provisions must be considered on offers made to and by the
company.
Company as offeree. A company may receive an offer to enter into a
contract and then alter its articles of association so as to deprive itself
of the capacity to enter into that contract. If it nevertheless accepts the
offer, the acceptance is effective in favour of a person who deals with
the company in good faith; but before the company has accepted the
offer, the directors can be restrained from doing so in proceedings
brought by one of its members.
2–072
Company as offeror. A company may make an offer to enter into a
contract and then alter its articles of association so as to deprive itself
of the capacity to enter into that contract. An acceptance of that offer is
nevertheless effective in favour of a person dealing with the company
in good faith; but it is not entirely clear whether in this situation a
member of the company could take proceedings to prevent the
conclusion of the contract by the directors. Such proceedings lie only
to restrain “the doing of an act”378 by the directors and since the
relevant act (i.e. the making of the offer) would already have been
done when the company still had capacity to do it, there seems to be
nothing for the member to restrain, unless holding the offer open could
be described as a continuing act.
Of course, the company itself could normally withdraw the offer and
would be likely to do so in pursuance of the policy which had led it to
change its articles of association. But this possibility would not be
open to the company where it had bound itself not to withdraw the
offer, i.e. where it had granted a legally enforceable option;379 and in
such a case a member could not take proceedings to prevent the
conclusion of the contract since such proceedings cannot be taken “in
respect of an act to be done in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising
from a previous act of the company”:380 i.e. from the grant of the
option.
2–073
Other corporations.381 Companies may also be incorporated by Royal
Charter or by special legislation. Charter corporations have the legal
capacity of a natural person so that an alteration of the charter would
not affect the validity of an offer or acceptance made by the
corporation.382 The legal capacity of corporations incorporated by
special statute is governed by the statute, and acts not within that
capacity are ultra vires383 and void. An alteration of the statute could
therefore prevent the company from accepting an offer made to it, and
from being bound by the acceptance of an offer made by it, where the
offer was made before the alteration came into effect. In practice, the
problem is likely to be dealt with in the statute which changes the
capacity of the corporation.
2–074
4. SPECIAL CASES
In some situations already discussed, the analysis of agreement into
offer and acceptance gives rise to considerable difficulty,384 and in
others, to be discussed in this section, such analysis is impossible or
highly artificial.385 For this reason, it has been suggested that the
analysis is “out of date”386 and that “you should look at the
correspondence as a whole and at the conduct of the parties and see
therefrom whether the parties have come to an agreement”.387 The
objection to this view, however, is that it provides too little guidance
for the courts (or for the legal advisers of the parties) in determining
whether agreement has been reached. For this reason, the situations to
be discussed below are best regarded as exceptions388 to a general
requirement of offer and acceptance. This approach is supported by
cases in which it has been held that there was no contract precisely
because there was no offer and acceptance;389 and by those in which
the terms of a contract have been held to depend on the analysis of the
negotiation into offer, counter-offer and acceptance.390 That said, the
offer and acceptance analysis does not require “rigorous compliance”
and the “the court will, if appropriate, assess a person’s conduct over a
period and decide whether its cumulative effect is that he has evinced
an intention to make the contract.”391
2–075
Multipartite agreements. In The Satanita392 the claimant and the
defendant entered their yachts for a regatta. Each signed a letter,
addressed to the secretary of the club which organised the regatta,
2–076
undertaking to obey certain rules during the race. It was held that there
was a contract between all the competitors on the terms of the
undertaking, though it is not clear whether the contract was made
when the competitors entered their yachts or when they actually began
to race. In either event, it is difficult to analyse the transaction into
offer and acceptance.393 If the contract was made when the yachts were
entered, one would have to say that the entry of the first competitor
was an offer and that the entry of the next was an acceptance of that
offer and (simultaneously) an offer to yet later competitors; but this
view is artificial and unworkable even in theory unless each
competitor knew of the existence of previous ones. It would also lead
to the conclusion that entries which were put in the post together were
cross-offers and thus not binding on each other.394 If the contract was
made when the race began, then it seems that each competitor
simultaneously agreed to terms proposed by the officers of the club,
and not that each proposed an identical set of terms amounting at the
same time to an offer to the others and to an acceptance of the offers at
that instant made by them. Even if the second view of the facts could
be taken, the “offers” and “acceptances” would all occur at the same
moment. Thus they would be cross-offers and would not create a
contract. The competitors, no doubt, reached agreement, but they did
not do so by a process which can be analysed into offer and
acceptance. Similar reasoning would seem to apply to the contract
which governs the legal relations between members of an
unincorporated association.395
The above discussion is based on the assumption that all the parties
to the alleged multilateral contract were willing to agree to the same
terms. Where one of the negotiating parties had refused to accept one
of the terms of the proposed contract, no multilateral contract would
arise between that party and any of the others, unless the others agreed
to be bound to that party on terms excluding the one rejected by him.396
Reference to third party. Where two negotiating parties reach
deadlock, they may ask a third party to break it. If both simultaneously
assent to a solution proposed by him, there is a contract, but it is again
impossible to say which party has made the offer and which the
acceptance.397 The same is true where the parties negotiate through a
single broker who eventually obtains their consent to the same
terms.398
2–077
5. CERTAINTY
An agreement is not a binding contract if it lacks certainty, either
because it is too vague or because it is obviously incomplete.399
2–078
(a) Vagueness
Agreements too vague to enforce. An agreement may be so vague
that no definite meaning can be given to it without adding new terms.
Thus in G Scammell & Nephew Ltd v Ouston400 the House of Lords
held that an agreement to buy goods “on hire-purchase” was too vague
to be enforced, since there were many kinds of hire-purchase
agreements in widely different terms, so that it was impossible to say
on which terms the parties intended to contract. Similarly, agreements
“subject to war clause”,401 “subject to strike and lockout clause”,402 and
“subject to force majeure conditions”403 have been held too vague,
there being no evidence in any of the cases of a customary or usual
form of such clauses or conditions.404 Similar reasoning has sometimes
been applied where agreements were made subject to the “satisfaction”
of one party.405 The problems arising from such provisions are
discussed later in this chapter.406 But the courts do not expect
commercial documents to be drafted with strict precision, and will,
particularly if the parties have acted on an agreement,407 do their best
to avoid striking it down on the ground that it is too vague.408
2–079
Custom and trade usage. Apparent vagueness can be resolved by
custom. Thus a contract to load coal at Grimsby “on the terms of the
usual colliery guarantee” was upheld on proof of the terms usually
contained in such guarantees at Grimsby.409 It has similarly been held
that an undertaking to grant a lease of a shop “in prime position” was
not too uncertain to be enforced since the phrase was commonly used
by persons dealing with shop property, so that its meaning could be
determined by expert evidence.410 And courts often enforce
commercial contracts expressed in abbreviations whose meaning is
certain and notorious.
2–080
Reasonableness. In Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd,411 an agreement for
the sale of timber “of fair specification”, was made between persons
well acquainted with the timber trade. The agreement was upheld as
2–081
the standard of reasonableness could be applied to make the otherwise
vague phrase certain since the words of the contract imported some
objective standard for assessing the quality of the goods to be supplied.
In Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd412 the promise of a “guaranteed”
bonus pool was not too uncertain to amount to a variation of a contract
of employment notwithstanding that certain matters were left open,
e.g. whether the bonus was to be paid in the form of cash or shares;
such matters could be resolved by dealing with the fund “in the usual
way”.413 These cases should be contrasted with one in which a supplier
of clothing to a retail chain alleged that there was an implied contract
between them not to terminate their long-standing relationship except
on reasonable notice. One ground for rejecting the claim was that there
were “no objective criteria by which the court could assess what would
be reasonable either as to quantity or price.”414
Duty to resolve uncertainty. An agreement containing a vague phrase
may be binding because one party is under a duty to resolve the
uncertainty. In one case an agreement to sell goods provided for
delivery “free on board … good Danish port”. It was held that the
agreement was not too vague: it amounted to a good contract under
which the buyer was bound to select the port of shipment.415
2–082
Meaningless and self-contradictory phrases. The court will make
considerable efforts to give meaning to an apparently meaningless
phrase;416 but, even where these efforts fail, the presence of such
phrases does not necessarily vitiate the agreement. In Nicolene Ltd v
Simmonds417 steel bars were bought on terms which were certain
except for a clause that the sale was subject to “the usual conditions of
acceptance”. There being no such usual conditions, it was held that the
phrase was meaningless, but that this did not vitiate the whole
contract: the words were severable and could be ignored. A selfcontradictory clause can be treated in the same way.418 Thus where an
arbitration clause provided for arbitration of “any dispute” in London
and of “any other dispute” in Moscow the court disregarded the clause
and determined the dispute itself.419 Such cases show that the question
whether a meaningless phrase vitiates the contract, or can be ignored,
depends on the importance which the parties may be considered to
have attached to it. If it is simply verbiage, not intended to add
anything to an otherwise complete agreement, or if it relates to a
2–083
matter of relatively minor importance, it can be ignored. But if the
parties intend it to govern some vital aspect of their relationship, its
vagueness will vitiate the entire agreement.
(b) Incompleteness
Our principal concern in this part is with the effect of the parties’
failure to have agreed on all of the terms of the contract, but this
cannot be considered entirely separately from the question of whether
the parties had the necessary intention to be bound.420 For example, the
court may conclude that the parties did not intend to be bound until
some further term or terms had been agreed,421 and this is the
reasoning employed in a number of the decisions considered below. In
other cases, it may be that the parties intended to be bound
notwithstanding that there were further terms to be agreed and the
courts will enforce their agreement unless the failure to have agreed
the outstanding terms “renders the contract as a whole unworkable or
void for uncertainty”.422 This is a conclusion which the courts are
reluctant to reach, particularly if the parties have acted upon the
agreement.423 The parties need not have agreed every detail of their
agreement,424 but must have agreed the terms which “the law requires
as essential for the formation of legally binding relations”.425
2–084
(i) Agreement in principle only426
No contract if agreement incomplete in important respect. Parties
may reach agreement on essential matters of principle, but leave
important points unsettled, so that their agreement is incomplete.427
There is, for example, no contract if an agreement for a lease fails to
specify the date on which the term is to commence.428 Similarly, an
agreement for the sale of land by instalments is not a binding contract
if it provides for conveyance of “a proportionate part” as each
instalment of the price is paid but fails to specify which part was to be
conveyed on each payment.429
2–085
Not all details necessarily required. On the other hand, the
agreement does not have to be worked out in meticulous detail.430
Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, an agreement for the sale of goods
may be binding as soon as the parties have agreed to buy and sell,
2–086
where the remaining details can be determined by the standard of
reasonableness or by law. Even failure to fix the price is not
necessarily fatal in such a case. Section 8(2) of the Act provides that, if
no price is determined by the contract, a reasonable price must be paid.
Under s.15(1) of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, a
reasonable sum must similarly be paid where a contract for the supply
of services fails to fix the remuneration to be paid for them.431 These
statutory provisions assume that the agreement amounts to a contract
in spite of its failure to fix the price or remuneration. The very fact that
the parties have not reached agreement on this vital point may indicate
that there is no contract, e.g. because the price or remuneration is to be
fixed by further agreement.432 In such a case, the statutory provisions
for payment of a reasonable sum do not apply. There may, however, be
a claim for payment of such a sum at common law: e.g. where work is
done in the belief that there was a contract or in the expectation that
the negotiations between the parties would result in the conclusion of a
contract.433 Such liability arises in restitution, in spite of the fact that
there was no contract. It follows that the party doing the work, though
he is entitled to a reasonable sum, is not liable in damages, e.g. for
failing to do the work within a reasonable time.434 If the claim arose
under a contract by virtue of s.15(1) of the 1982 Act, the party doing
the work would be both entitled and liable.
Even an agreement for the sale of land dealing only with the barest
essentials may be regarded as complete if that was the clear intention
of the parties. Thus in Perry v Suffields Ltd435 an offer to sell a public
house with vacant possession for £7,000 was accepted without
qualification. It was held that there was a binding contract, in spite of
the fact that many important points such as the date of completion436
and the question of paying a deposit, were left open.437 In another
case438 a buyer and seller of corn feed pellets had reached agreement
on the “cardinal terms of the deal: product, price, quantity, period of
shipment, range of loading ports and governing contract terms”.439 The
agreement was held to have contractual force even though the parties
had not yet reached agreement on a number of other important points,
such as the loading port,440 the rate of loading and certain payments
(other than the price) which might in certain events become due under
the contract. In all these cases, the courts took the view that the parties
intended to be bound at once in spite of the fact that further significant
terms were to be agreed later;441 and that even their failure to reach
such agreement would not invalidate the contract unless without such
agreement the contract was unworkable or too uncertain442 to be
enforced.
Further agreement needed for continued operation of contract. A
distinction must be drawn between cases in which agreement on such
matters as the price is required for the making, and those in which it is
required for the continued operation, of a contract. The latter
possibility is illustrated by a case443 in which an agreement for the
supply of services for 10 years fixed the fee to be paid only for the first
two years. On the parties’ failure to fix the fee in later years, it was
held that they had intended to enter into a 10-year contract and that a
term was to be implied into that contract for payment of a reasonable
fee in those later years.
2–087
(ii) Agreements “subject to contract”
An agreement may be made “subject to contract”. Such an agreement
is incomplete until the details of a formal contract have been settled
and approved by the parties.444 But even when the terms of the formal
contract have been agreed, there is no binding contract until the parties
have gone through the procedure necessary to indicate that the
agreement is no longer “subject to contract”, e.g. in contracts for the
sale of land by private treaty, when there has been an “exchange of
contracts”.445 Before the “exchange”, there is no uncertainty as to the
terms of the agreement, but there is no contract because neither party
intends to be legally bound until the “exchange of contracts” takes
place. Since the principal effect of the stipulation that an agreement is
“subject to contract” is to negate the intention of the parties to be
bound, it is dealt with in further detail in Ch.4.446
2–088
(iii) Execution of formal document required
One possible effect of a stipulation that an agreement is to be
embodied in a formal written document is that the agreement is
regarded by the parties as incomplete, or as not intended to be legally
binding,447 until the terms of the formal document are agreed and the
document is duly executed in accordance with the terms of the
preliminary agreement (e.g. by signature).448 A second possibility is
2–089
that such a document is intended only as a solemn record of an already
complete and binding agreement:449 for example, a contract of
insurance is generally regarded as complete as soon as the insurer
initials a slip setting out the main terms of the contract, even though
the execution of a formal policy is contemplated.450 The question
whether an agreement which expressly requires the execution of a
formal document is incomplete depends on the purpose of the
requirement in each case;451 and there is no point multiplying
examples.452
Even where, under the principles here stated, the agreement has no
contractual force, a party to it may be liable on other grounds: e.g.
under a separate preliminary contract coming into existence when one
party begins to render services requested by the other and entitling the
former to a reasonable remuneration for those services;453 or under a
constructive trust.454
(iv) Terms left open
Parties may be reluctant to commit themselves to a rigid long-term
contract, particularly when prices and other factors affecting
performance are likely to fluctuate. They therefore attempt sometimes
to introduce an element of flexibility into the agreement; a number of
devices which have been used for this purpose call for discussion.
2–090
Terms “to be agreed”. One possibility is to provide that certain
matters (such as prices, quantities or delivery dates) are to be agreed
later, or from time to time. The question whether the resulting
agreement is a binding contract then depends primarily on the
intention of the parties; and inferences as to this intention may be
drawn both from the importance of the matter left over for further
agreement, and from the extent to which the parties have acted on the
agreement.
2–091
Agreements found to be unenforceable. Sometimes such agreements
have no contractual force. In May & Butcher v R.455 an agreement for
the sale of tentage provided that the price, dates of payment and
manner of delivery should be agreed from time to time. The House of
Lords held that the agreement was incomplete as it left vital matters
still to be settled. Had the agreement simply been silent on these
2–092
points, they could perhaps have been settled in accordance with the
provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979;456 or by the standard of
reasonableness;457 but the parties showed that this was not their
intention by providing that such points were to be settled by further
agreement between them. It has similarly been held that a lease at “a
rent to be agreed” was not a binding contract.458 In these cases, the
most natural inference to be drawn from the fact that the parties left
such an important matter as the price to be settled by further agreement
was that they did not intend to be bound until they had agreed on the
price. Even where the points left outstanding are of relatively minor
importance, there will be no contract if it appears from the words used
or other circumstances that the parties did not intend to be bound until
agreement on these points had been reached.459 A fortiori they are not
bound by a term requiring outstanding points to be agreed if that term
forms part of an agreement which itself is not binding because it was
made without any intention of entering into contractual relations.460
Agreements found to be enforceable. Where it can be inferred that
the parties intended to be bound immediately, in spite of the provision
requiring further agreement, a binding contract can be created at
once;461 for the courts are “reluctant to hold void for uncertainty any
provision that was intended to have legal effect”.462 This judicial
attitude is illustrated by Foley v Classique Coaches Ltd. 463 The
claimant owned a petrol-filling station and adjoining land. He sold the
land to the defendants on condition that they should enter into an
agreement to buy petrol for the purpose of their motor-coach business
exclusively from him. This agreement was duly executed, but the
defendants broke it, and argued that it was incomplete because it
provided that the petrol should be bought “at a price agreed by the
parties from time to time”. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument
and held that, in default of agreement, a reasonable price must be
paid.464 May & Butcher v R.465 was distinguished on a number of
grounds: the agreement in Foley’s case was contained in a stamped
document; it was believed by both parties to be binding and had been
acted upon for a number of years; it contained an arbitration clause in
a somewhat unusual form which was construed to apply “to any failure
to agree as to the price”;466 and it formed part of a larger bargain under
which the defendants had acquired the land at a price which was no
doubt fixed on the assumption that they would be bound to buy all
2–093
their petrol from the claimant.467 While none of these factors in itself is
conclusive,468 their cumulative effect seems to be sufficient to
distinguish the two cases.469
Thus an agreement is not incomplete merely because it calls for
some further agreement between the parties:
“Even if certain terms of economic or other significance to the parties have not been
finalised, an objective appraisal of their words and conduct may lead to the conclusion that
they did not intend agreement of such terms to be a pre-condition to a concluded and
legally binding agreement.”470
Even the parties’ later failure to agree on the matters left outstanding
will vitiate the contract only if it makes the agreement “unworkable or
void for uncertainty.”471 Often, the failure will not have this effect, for
it may be possible to resolve the uncertainty in one of the ways already
discussed, e.g. by applying the standard of reasonableness;472 or by
regarding the matter to be negotiated as of such subsidiary
importance473 as not to negative the intention of the parties to be bound
by the more significant terms to which they have agreed.474 There can
be no doubt as to the commercial convenience of this approach.
Commercial agreements are often intended to be binding in principle
even though the parties are not at the time able or willing to settle all
the details. For example, contracts of insurance may be made “at a
premium to be arranged” when immediate cover is required but there
is no time to go into all the details at once: such agreements are
perfectly valid and a reasonable premium must be paid.475 All this is
not to say that the courts will hold parties bound when they have not
yet reached substantial agreement;476 but once they have reached such
agreement it is not necessarily fatal that some points (even important
ones) remain to be settled by further negotiation.
Options and rights of pre-emption. An option to purchase land “at a
price to be agreed” is not a binding contract;477 but such an option must
be distinguished from a “right of pre-emption” by which a landowner
agrees to give the purchaser the right to buy “at a figure to be agreed”
should the landowner wish to sell.478 An option has at least some of the
characteristics of an offer479 in that it can become a contract of sale
when the purchaser accepts it by exercising the option; and it cannot
have this effect where it fails to specify the price. A right of preemption is not itself an offer480 but an undertaking to make an offer in
2–094
certain specified future circumstances. An agreement conferring such a
right is therefore not void for uncertainty merely because it fails to
specify the price. It obliges the landowner to offer the land to the
purchaser at the price at which he is prepared to sell; and if the
purchaser accepts that offer there is no uncertainty as to price.481 This
is so even though the parties have described the right as an “option”
when its true legal nature is that of a right of pre-emption.482 Where a
third party has offered terms which the grantor of the right of preemption is minded to accept, the right of pre-emption is observed by
first affording to the grantee the opportunity to match the third party’s
offer.483
Criteria specified in the agreement. An agreement may fail to
specify matters such as price or quality but lay down criteria for
determining those matters. For example, in Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos
Ltd484 an option to buy timber was held binding even though it did not
specify the price, since it provided for the price to be calculated by
reference to an official price list. Even a provision that hire under a
charterparty was in specified events to be “equitably decreased by an
amount to be mutually agreed” has been held sufficiently certain to be
enforced: it was said that “equitably” meant “fairly and reasonably”485
and that a “purely objective standard has been prescribed.”486 Where,
on the other hand, an agreement provided for payment of a fixed
percentage of the “open market value” of shares in a private company,
it was held that these words did not provide a sufficiently precise
criterion since there was more than one formula for calculating the
market value of shares in such a company.487
2–095
Machinery specified in the agreement. Alternatively, the agreement
may provide machinery for resolving matters originally left open.
Perhaps the most striking illustration of this possibility is provided by
cases in which such matters are to be resolved by the decision of one
party, but clear words are required to achieve that result488 and the
power which is conferred is limited by an implied term that it must not
be exercised “dishonestly, for an improper purpose, capriciously or
arbitrarily”;489 a standard which it has been said should be equated to
the test of “Wednesbury” reasonableness applied to the review of the
exercise of executive power.490 Similarly, an arbitration clause can
validly provide for the arbitration to take place at one of two or more
2–096
places to be selected by one of the parties.491 Agreements are a fortiori
not incomplete merely because they provide that outstanding points
shall be determined by arbitra-tion,492 or by the courts,493 or by the
valuation of a third party.494 The Sale of Goods Act 1979 provides that
if the third party “cannot or does not make the valuation, the
agreement is avoided”;495 but an agreement is not necessarily
ineffective merely because the agreed machinery fails to work. In
Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton496 a lease gave the tenant the
option to purchase the premises “at such price as may be agreed upon
by two Valuers, one to be nominated by” each party. The landlord
having refused to appoint a valuer, the House of Lords held that the
option did not fail for uncertainty. It amounted, on its true
construction, to an agreement to sell at a reasonable price to be
determined by the valuers; and the stipulation that each party should
nominate one of the valuers was merely “subsidiary and inessential”.497
So long as the agreed machinery (which fails to operate) is of this
character,498 the court can substitute other machinery: e.g., it can itself
fix the price with the aid of expert evidence. This is so not only where
the agreed machinery fails because of one party’s refusal to operate
it,499 but also where it fails for some other reason, such as the refusal of
a designated valuer to make the valuation.500
(v) Facts to be ascertained
An agreement is not ineffective on the ground of uncertainty merely
because the facts on which its operation depend are not known when it
is made: the requirement of certainty is satisfied if those facts become
ascertainable and are ascertained (without the need for further
negotiation) after the making of the agreement.501
2–097
(vi) Agreement to negotiate502
In some cases of incomplete agreements it is said that there is an
agreement to agree,503 or an agreement to negotiate. It is necessary at
the outset to stress that, even if such an agreement was enforceable, it
must be distinguished from the ultimate contract which the parties
were hoping to agree, or to negotiate; it is a form of preliminary
contract. For example, if the parties have entered into an agreement to
negotiate the sale of a business and it is alleged that one party, in
2–098
breach, has failed to negotiate, it does not follow that, even if they had
negotiated (i.e. if the contract had been performed), the parties would
have concluded the sale of the business. For this reason, it has been
acknowledged that “damages for breach of such an obligation could be
problematical”.504 This is not a problem which the courts have been
called upon to resolve505 because, in fact, an agreement to agree or an
agreement to negotiate is unenforceable.506 Either the ultimate contract
is itself enforceable, because any uncertainty over the outstanding
terms can be resolved (e.g. by resort to objective criteria,507 or to
objective machinery),508 or it is not. In this sense, to conclude that the
parties have concluded no more than an agreement to agree, or an
agreement to negotiate, is to conclude that it has not been possible to
resolve the uncertainty and there is no enforceable contract, or
obligation between them.509
Agreement to negotiate is unenforceable. In spite of occasional dicta
to the contrary,510 it has been held that an agreement to negotiate is not
a contract “because it is too uncertain to have any binding force.”511
Such an agreement is no more enforceable if it is couched in terms of
an obligation to negotiate in good faith. The leading case in this regard
is Walford v Miles512 in which the vendors agreed not to negotiate with
any third party (a “lock-out” agreement) during negotiations for the
sale of a business. This agreement lacked certainty because it failed to
specify any time limit;513 and the House of Lords unanimously rejected
the argument that it could be made certain by implying a term which
required the vendors to continue to negotiate in good faith with the
purchasers for so long as the vendors continued to desire to sell, since
such a term was itself too uncertain to be enforced. The uncertainty lay
in the fact that the alleged duty was “inherently inconsistent with the
position of a negotiating party”514 who must normally515 be free to
advance his own interests during the negotiations. The point is well
illustrated by the facts of Walford v Miles itself, where the defendants
had agreed subject to contract to sell a property to the purchasers for
£2 million and had (“in breach” of the ineffective “lock-out”
agreement) sold it to a third party for exactly that sum, and the
purchasers then claimed damages of £1 million on the basis that the
property was (by reason of facts known to them but not the
defendants) worth £3 million. If a duty to negotiate in good faith
exists, it must be equally incumbent on both parties, so that it can
2–099
hardly require a vendor to agree to sell a valuable property for only
two-thirds of its true value when the facts affecting that value are
known to the purchaser and not disclosed (as good faith would seem to
require)516 to the vendor. The actual result in Walford v Miles (in which
the purchasers recovered the sum of £700 in respect of their wasted
expenses as damages for misrepresentation,517 but not the £1 million
which they claimed as damages for breach of contract)518 seems, with
respect, to be entirely appropriate on the facts, especially because the
vendors reasonably believed themselves to be protected from liability
in the principal negotiation by the phrase “subject to contract”.
Criticism and scope. In Walford v Miles the House of Lords rejected
the solution of an implied obligation to negotiate in good faith but it
has been suggested that a different approach might be taken in relation
to an express agreement to negotiate in good faith.519 However,
subsequent cases have also ruled that an express agreement to agree, or
to negotiate in good faith, is unenforceable520 and the same result has
been reached where the parties have agreed to agree, or negotiate with
a third party;521 where they have agreed to use their best or reasonable
endeavours522 to agree, or negotiate an agreement;523 and where they
have entered into such an agreement as a condition precedent.524
Nevertheless, the “blanket unenforceability” of a provision to which
the parties have expressly agreed and by which they intended to be
bound is a result which the courts will strive to avoid.525 It should be
stressed that, when the courts have avoided this result, the conclusion
which is in fact reached is that the “ultimate” contract between the
parties was itself certain and enforceable, e.g. because any failure to
agree by the parties could be resolved by objective criteria or
machinery, or because the terms upon which the parties have failed to
agree were not essential to the enforceability of the contract.526 As
stated at the outset, an agreement to agree, or an agreement to
negotiate, is itself unenforceable.
2–100
Exceptions? In a number of cases, the parties have agreed to dispute
resolution clauses which, for example, allow for arbitration but only
after certain steps have been taken to resolve the dispute. Such clauses
have also been held to be unenforceable if, because of a lack of
certainty, they amount to no more than an agreement to agree, or to
negotiate a settlement.527 In Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime
2–101
Mineral Exports Private Ltd528 the parties agreed to arbitration but
only after seeking to resolve the dispute or claim “by friendly
discussion”. Teare J held such a provision to amount to an agreement
to seek to resolve the dispute “in good faith”, but also went on to
regard it as an enforceable condition precedent to the jurisdiction of
the tribunal (one which had been met on the facts). His decision is not
easy to reconcile with the earlier authorities. He was influenced by the
“public interest” in seeking to give effect, in particular, to dispute
resolution clauses and by the reasoning of a decision of the Australian
courts.529
Where the parties have reached agreement on all essential points,
but have left other points open, it has been held that the courts may
then imply a term that they are to negotiate in good faith so as to settle
the outstanding details which are to be incorporated in the formal
document setting out the full terms of the contract between them.530
Whether such a term is any more enforceable than other agreements to
negotiate is open to debate and the better analysis may be that the
outstanding details are simply not essential to the enforceability of the
contract which the parties have entered into, or may be resolved by
resort to objective criteria.531
6. CONDITIONAL AGREEMENTS
(a) Classification
Different meanings of “condition”. An agreement is conditional if its
operation depends on an event which is not certain to occur.
Discussions of this topic are made difficult by the fact that in the law
of contract the word “condition” bears many senses: it is “a
chameleon-like word which takes on its meaning from its
surroundings.”532 At this stage, we are concerned with only one of
these meanings; but to clear the ground it is necessary to draw a
number of preliminary distinctions.
2–102
Promissory and contingent conditions. The word “condition” may
refer either to an event, or to a term of a contract (as in the phrase
“conditions of sale”). Where “condition” refers to an event, that event
may be either an occurrence which neither party undertakes to bring
about, or the performance by one party of his undertaking. The first
2–103
possibility is illustrated by a contract by which A is to work for B, and
B is to pay A £50, “if it rains tomorrow”. Here the obligations of both
parties are contingent on the happening of the specified event which
may therefore be described as a contingent condition. The second
possibility is illustrated by the ordinary case in which A agrees to work
for B at a weekly wage payable at the end of the week. Here the
contract is immediately binding on both parties, but B is not liable to
pay until A has performed his promise to work. Such performance is a
condition of B’s liability, and, as A has promised to render it, the
condition may be described as promissory.533 In this chapter our
concern is with contingent conditions;534 promissory conditions will be
discussed in Chs 17 and 18.535
Contingent conditions may be precedent or subsequent. A condition
is precedent if it provides that the contract is not to be binding until the
specified event occurs. It is subsequent if it provides that a previously
binding contract is to determine on the occurrence of the event: e.g.
where A contracts to pay an allowance to B until B marries.536
(b) Degrees of Obligation
No duty to render principal performance. Where an agreement is
subject to a contingent condition precedent, there is, before the
occurrence of the condition, no duty on either party to render the
principal performance promised by him: e.g. a seller is not bound to
deliver and a buyer is not bound to pay. Nor, in such a case, does either
party undertake that the condition will occur. But an agreement subject
to such a condition may impose some degree of obligation on the
parties or on one of them. Whether it has this effect, and if so what
degree of obligation is imposed, depends on the true construction of
the term specifying the condition.537
2–104
Parties free to withdraw. One possibility is that, before the event
occurs, each party is free to withdraw from the agreement. In Pym v
Campbell538 an agreement for the sale of a patent was executed, but the
parties at the same time agreed that it should not “be the agreement”
unless a third party approved of the invention. He did not approve, and
it was held that the buyer was not liable for refusing to perform. The
written agreement was “not an agreement at all”.539 If this is taken
literally, either party could have withdrawn even before the third party
2–105
had given his opinion.
Parties cannot withdraw. A second possibility is that, before the
event occurs, the main obligations have not accrued; but that, so long
as the event can still occur, one (or both) of the parties cannot
withdraw. Thus in Smith v Butler540 A bought land from B on condition
that a loan to B (secured by a mortgage on the premises) would be
transferred to A.541 It was held that A could not withdraw before the
time fixed for completion: he was bound to wait until then to see
whether B could arrange the transfer. However, if it becomes clear that
the condition has not occurred, or that it can no longer occur, within
the time specified in the contract,542 the parties will be under no further
obligations under the contract.543 In such a case, the effect of the nonoccurrence of the condition is that the parties are “no longer bound”544
by the contract, or that the contract is “discharged.”545 What the parties
have called a “condition precedent” can thus operate as, or have the
effect of, a condition subsequent.546
2–106
Parties must not prevent occurrence of condition. A third
possibility is that, before the event occurs, the main obligations have
not accrued; but that in the meantime neither party must do anything to
prevent the occurrence of the event. Thus in Mackay v Dick547 an
excavating machine was sold on condition that it could excavate at a
specified rate on the buyer’s property. The buyer’s refusal to provide
facilities for a proper trial was held to be a breach. Similarly, the seller
would have been in breach, had he refused to subject the machine to a
proper test. The same principle is illustrated by a case548 in which a
professional footballer was transferred for a fee, part of which was to
be paid only after he had scored 20 goals. Before he had done so, the
new club dropped him from their first team, and they were held to be
in breach as they had not given the player a reasonable opportunity to
score the 20 goals.
The duty not to prevent the occurrence of the condition has been
explained as resting on an implied term and this explanation limits the
scope of the duty in a number of ways. For example, the implied term
may only be to the effect that a party will not prevent fulfilment of the
condition, so that he is not in breach simply by doing nothing;549 or
that he will not deliberately prevent the occurrence of the condition;550
or (even more narrowly) that he will not wrongfully do so.551 The latter
2–107
type of implication may allow a party to engage in certain kinds of
deliberate prevention but not in others: e.g. it may allow a company
which has promised an employee the opportunity of earning a bonus to
deprive him of that opportunity by going out of business, but not by
simply dismissing him, before the bonus has become due.552
Approval of one party. The sort of implied term referred to in the
previous paragraph can be excluded by an express contrary
provision;553 in particular, by a provision making the operation of a
contract dependent on the “satisfaction” of one party with the subjectmatter or other aspects relating to the other’s performance.554 Thus it
has been held that there was no contract where a house was bought
“subject to satisfactory mortgage”;555 and where a boat was bought
“subject to satisfactory survey”556 it was held that the buyer was not
bound if he expressed his dissatisfaction,557 in spite of the fact that
such expression was a deliberate act on his part which prevented the
occurrence of the condition. The same is true where goods are bought
on approval and the buyer does not approve them,558 and where an
offer of employment is made “subject to satisfactory references,” and
the prospective employer does not regard the references as
satisfactory.559 There is some apparent conflict in the authorities on the
question whether the law imposes any restriction on the freedom of
action of the party on whose satisfaction the operation of the contract
depends. In one case560 a proposed royalty agreement relating to the
use by a manufacturer of an invention was “subject to detailed
evaluation of production and marketing feasibility” by the
manufacturer. It was held that his discretion whether to enter into the
contract was “unfettered by any obligation to act reasonably or in good
faith”561 and that, as his satisfaction had not been communicated562 to
the other party, the agreement had not acquired contractual force. On
the other hand, where a ship was sold “subject to satisfactory
completion of two trial voyages” it was said that such a stipulation was
to be construed as “subject to bona fides”.563 The distinction between
the two lines of cases turns, ultimately, on the construction of the
agreement.564 Even if this requires the discretion to be exercised in
good faith, it does not follow that it must be exercised reasonably: the
matter may be left to the relevant party’s “subjective decision”.565 It
has also been held that the party on whose satisfaction the operation of
the contract depends must at least provide facilities for, or not impede,
2–108
the inspection referred to in the agreement.566 Of course if the result of
the inspection is unsatisfactory, the principal obligation of the contract
will not take effect.567
One party under duty to use reasonable efforts. A fourth possibility
is that, before the event occurs, the main obligations have not accrued
but that one of the parties undertakes to use reasonable efforts to bring
the event about (without absolutely undertaking that his efforts will
succeed). This construction was applied, for instance, where land was
sold subject to the condition that the purchaser should obtain planning
permission to use the land as a transport depot: he was bound to make
reasonable efforts to obtain the permission, but he was free from
liability when those efforts failed.568 Similarly, where goods are sold
“subject to export (or import) licence”, the party whose duty it is to
obtain the licence569 does not prima facie promise absolutely that a
licence will be obtained,570 but only undertakes to make reasonable
efforts to that end.571 The principal obligations to buy and sell will not
take effect if no licence is obtained;572 but if the party who should have
made reasonable efforts has failed to do so he will be liable in
damages,573 unless he can show that any such efforts, which he should
have made would (if made) have necessarily been unsuccess- ful.574
2–109
Effect of failure to perform. It will be seen that in cases falling
within the second, third and fourth categories discussed above, a
distinction must be drawn between two types of obligation: the
principal obligation of each party (e.g. to buy and sell) and a
subsidiary obligation, i.e. one not to withdraw, not to prevent
occurrence of the condition, or to make reasonable efforts to bring it
about. One view is that the party who fails to perform the subsidiary
obligation is to be treated as if the condition had occurred; and that he
is then liable on the principal obligation. Thus in Mackay v Dick575 the
buyer was held liable for the price; but there was no discussion as to
the remedy. In principle it seems wrong to hold him so liable, for such
a result ignores the possibility that the machine might have failed to
come up to the standard required by the contract, even if proper
facilities for trial had been provided. It is submitted that the correct
result in cases of this kind is to award damages for breach of the
subsidiary obligation: in assessing such damages, the court can take
into account the possibility that the condition might not have occurred,
2–110
even if there had been no such breach.576 To hold the party in breach
liable for the full performance promised by him, on the fiction that the
condition had occurred, seems to introduce into this branch of the law
a punitive element that is inappropriate to a contractual action.577 More
recent authorities rightly hold that such a doctrine of “fictional
fulfilment” of a condition does not form part of English law.578
Conditions for the benefit of one party. Where a condition is
inserted entirely for the benefit of one party, that party may waive the
condition.579 He can then sue580 and be sued581 on the contract as if the
condition had occurred. Obviously this rule does not apply to cases
falling within the first of the categories discussed above, in which
there is no contract at all before the condition occurs.
1
e.g. Storer v Manchester City Council [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1403; Air Transworld Ltd v Bombardier
Inc [2012] EWHC 243; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349 at [75]. Contrast Crest Nicholson (Londinium)
Ltd v Akaria Investments Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1331.
2 See above, para.1–002; First Energy (UK) Ltd v Hungarian International Bank Ltd [1993] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 195 at 201; Ignazio Messina & Co v Polskie Linie Oceaniczne [1995] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 566 at 571.
3 For offers made by conduct, see below, at fnn.15–23; The Aramis [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213
(where the objective test was not satisfied) G Percy Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer Ltd [1993] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 25 at 27.
4 Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v Rouvroy [2009] EWCA Civ 1334; [2010] 2 All
E.R. (Comm) 788 at [10], [17].
5 OT Africa Line Ltd v Vickers Plc [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 700.
6 cf. Centrovincial Estates Plc v Merchant Investors Assurance Co Ltd [1983] Com. L.R. 158;
cited with approval in Whittaker v Campbell [1984] Q.B. 318 at 327; and in OT Africa Line Ltd v
Vickers Plc [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 700 at 702.
7 The Hannah Blumenthal [1983] 1 A.C. 854 at 924.
8 The Splendid Sun [1981] 1 Q.B. 694, as explained in The Hannah Blumenthal [1983] 1 A.C.
854; The Multibank Holsatia [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 486 at 493.
9 The suggestion that A must be aware of B’s state of mind was made by Lord Diplock in The
Hannah Blumenthal [1983] 1 A.C. 854 at 916 but Lord Brightman’s contrary view, expressed in
[1983] 1 A.C. 854 at 924 has been generally preferred: see The Multibank Holsatia [1988] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 486 at 492.
10 See above, para.1–002; Ignazio Messina & Co v Polskie Linie Oceaniczne [1995] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 566 at 571; OT Africa Line Ltd v Vickers Plc [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 700 at 703; Attrill v
Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 394; [2013] 3 All E.R. 607 at [86]; and see the
authorities cited in fn.12, below.
11 The Hannah Blumenthal [1983] 1 A.C. 854 as interpreted in The Leonidas D [1985] 1 W.L.R.
925; Beatson 102 L.Q.R. 19; Atiyah 102 L.Q.R. 392; The Agrabele [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223,
esp. at 235; cf. Cie Française d’Importation, SA v Deutsche Continental Handelsgesellschaft
[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 592 at 597; Amherst v James Walker Goldsmith and Silversmith Ltd [1983]
Ch. 305.
2–111
12
The Golden Bear [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 330 at 341 (doubted on another point at para.2–043,
below); this view was approved in The Antclizo [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 130 at 143 but doubted in
[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 130 at 147 (affd. [1988] 1 W.L.R. 603 without reference to the point); and
semble in Floating Dock Ltd v Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Ltd [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 at
77; The Multibank Holsatia [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 486 at 492 (“at least did not conflict with [B’s]
subjective understanding”); The Maritime Winner [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 506 at 515.
13
See above, para.1–002.
14 Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v Rouvroy [2009] EWHC 257 (Comm); [2009] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 475 at [228] (affd. [2009] EWCA Civ 1334; [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 788).
15 Hart v Mills (1846) 15 L.J. Ex. 200; below, para.2–018; cf. Steven v Bromley & Son [1919] 2
K.B. 722; The Saronikos [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277.
16
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277) reg.27A.
17
The arbitrators have a statutory power to dismiss claims for want of prosecution (Arbitration
Act 1996 s.41(3)), but that power may be excluded by agreement (Arbitration Act 1996 s.41(2)).
18 cf. Amherst Ltd v James Walker Goldsmith & Silversmith Ltd [1983] Ch. 305; Collin v Duke of
Westminster [1985] Q.B. 581; MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v BRE Metro Ltd [1985] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 239.
19 The Splendid Sun [1981] Q.B. 694, as explained in The Hannah Blumenthal [1983] 1 A.C. 854
(though this explanation was doubted in Cie Française d’Importation SA v Deutsche Conti
Handelsgesellschaft [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 592 at 599); Tracomin SA v Anton C Nielsen [1984] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 195; The Multibamk Holsatia [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 486; for the question whether
such an offer can be accepted by inactivity, see below, para.2–043.
20 Unisys International Services Ltd v Eastern Counties Newspapers Group Ltd [1991] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 538 at 553; cf. The Boucraa [1994] 1 A.C. 486 at 521, describing the “abandonment”
approach as “largely useless in practice”.
21 Unisys International Services Ltd v Eastern Counties Newspapers Group Ltd [1991] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 538 at 553.
22 The Leonidas D [1985] 1 W.L.R. 925; Cie Française d’Importation etc. SA v Deutsche Conti
Handelsgesellschaft [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 592; The Antclizo [1988] 1 W.L.R. 603; contra, The
Golden Bear [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 330; The Ermoupolis [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 160 at 166; see
also below, para.2–047.
23 The Antclizo [1988] 1 W.L.R. 603; Davenport 104 L.Q.R. 493.
24 Harvey v Facey [1893] A.C. 552; Gibson v Manchester CC [1979] 1 W.L.R. 294; cf. The
Barranduna [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 419; Michael Gerson (Leasing) Ltd v Wilkinson [2000] Q.B.
514 at 530.
25 Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] Q.B. 433 at 436.
26 Photolibrary Group Ltd v Burda Senator Verlag GmbH [2008] EWHC 1343 (QB), [2008] 2
All E.R. (Comm) 811 at [63]–[64] where, because of a course of dealing between the parties,
either analysis was “viable”.
27 See above, para.2–002, fn.1.
28 Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1184.
29 Spencer v Harding (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 561; Clifton v Palumbo [1944] 2 All E.R. 497.
30 [2007] UKHL 23; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 1325.
31 Bigg v Boyd Gibbins Ltd [1971] 1 W.L.R. 913.
32 Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] A.C. 207.
33 Sale of Goods Act 1979 s.57(2); British Car Auctions Ltd v Wright [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1519.
34 See below, para.2–062.
35
McManus v Fortescue [1907] 2 K.B. 1; on a sale of land, it must be expressly stated whether
the sale is with reserve or not: Sale of Land by Auction Act 1867 s.5.
36 Warlow v Harrison (1859) 1 E. & E. 309; cf. Barry v Davies [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1962. Contra,
Fenwick v Macdonald Fraser & Co Ltd (1904) 6 F. (Ct. of Sess.) 850; Slade 68 L.Q.R. 238;
Gower 68 L.Q.R. 457; Slade 69 L.Q.R. 21.
37 Harris v Nickerson (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 286.
38 The question whether there is any consideration for the auctioneer’s undertaking is discussed
below, para.3–162.
39
Timothy v Simpson (1834) 6 C. & P. 499; Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 Q.B. 394; contrast Wiles v
Maddison [1943] 1 All E.R. 315 at 317.
40 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd [1952] 2 Q.B. 795; [1953]
1 Q.B. 401; cf. Lacis v Cashmarts Ltd [1969] 2 Q.B. 400; Davies v Leighton [1978] Crim. L.R.
575.
41 See below, para.2–016 for what constitutes an acceptance, and para.2–034, fn.199 for the time
of acceptance, in such cases.
42
Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1976] 1 W.L.R. 1 at 5, 6, 11;
Richardson v Worrall [1985] S.T.C. 693 at 717.
43 Re Charge Card Services [1989] Ch. 497 at 512.
44 cf. below, para.2–011, fn.61.
45 Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1976] 1 W.L.R. 1 at 11.
46 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd [1952] 2 Q.B. 795 at 802.
47 See Lasky v Economic Grocery Stores 65 N.E. 2d 305. (1946).
48 R. v Warwickshire CC Ex p. Johnson [1993] A.C. 583 at 588.
49 See below, para.2–058.
50 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277) reg.3(4)(d), Sch.1
para.6. For any civil liability, under the 2008 Regulations, see below, paras 9–002, 10–048.
51 e.g. Gibbons v Proctor (1891) 64 L.T. 594; Williams v Carwardine (1833) 5 C. & P. 566; 4 B.
& Ad. 621; below, para.2–048.
52 See below, para.2–051, for the meaning of “unilateral contracts”.
53 [1893] 1 Q.B. 256.
54
Contrast Lambert v Lewis [1982] A.C. 225 at 262, per Stephenson LJ (affirmed [1982] A.C.
271 without reference to this point).
55 [1996] C.L.C. 451.
56 See above, para.2–002.
57 Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1204; contrast Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus
Stores 86 N.W. 2d 689 (1957).
58 Rooke v Dawson [1895] 1 Ch. 480.
59 Grainger & Sons v Gough [1896] A.C. 325; quaere whether a price-list sent on request to a
single customer could be an offer.
60 cf. Guildford v Lockyer [1975] Crim. L.R. 236.
61 Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 Q.B. 163 at 169.
62 Chapelton v Barry Urban DC [1940] 1 K.B. 532.
63 Contrast Harvey v Facey [1893] A.C. 552 with Philip & Co v Knoblauch 1907 S.C. 994.
64 Denton v GN Ry (1856) 5 E. & B. 860; Thompson v LM&S Ry [1930] 1 K.B. 41 at 47.
65 Wilkie v LPTB [1947] 1 All E.R. 258 at 259.
66
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 Q.B. 163 at 169; Cockerton v Naviera Aznar SA
[1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450. Such acceptance would be by conduct rather than by silence: cf.
below, para.2–047.
67
MacRobertson-Miller Airline Service v Commissioner of State Taxation (1975) 8 A.L.R. 131;
the principle resembles that stated in Heskell v Continental Express Ltd [1950] 1 All E.R. 1033 at
1037 in relation to carriage of goods by sea.
68
Hobbs v L&SW Ry (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 111 at 119, as explained in MacRobertson-Miller
Airline Service v Commissioner of State Taxation (1975) 8 A.L.R. 131 at 147.
69 The Eagle [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 70; Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co v Fay (1988) 165
C.L.R. 97; cf. The Anwar al Sabar [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 261 at 263 (carriage of goods by sea).
70 The Mikhail Lermontov [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 155 at 159, reversed on other grounds: Baltic
Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 C.L.R. 344.
71
Spencer v Harding (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 561.
72 Spencer v Harding (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 561 at 564.
73 See below, para.2–022.
74 Spencer v Harding (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 561 at 563.
75 See William Lacey (Hounslow) Ltd v Davis [1957] 1 W.L.R. 932 at 939.
76
Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] A.C. 207 at 224–225.
77
Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool BC [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1195. No decision was
reached on the quantum of damages: as to this, see below, para.20–059.
78 cf. Fairclough Building v Port Talbot BC (1992) 62 B.L.R. 82.
79 Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/12) (see Brent LBC v Risk Management Partners
Ltd [2011] UKSC 7; [2011] 2 W.L.R. 166, decided under the previous Regulations (SI 2006/5);
Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/6).
80 And in the terminology of Companies Act 2006 ss.755, 756 and of Financial Services and
Markets Act 2000 s.102B.
81 e.g. Harris’ Case (1872) L.R. 7 Ch. App. 587; National Westminster Bank Plc v IRC [1995] 1
A.C. 119 at 126; cf. Wallace’s Case [1900] 2 Ch. 671; Rust v Abbey Life Ins Co [1979] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 335.
82 Jackson v Turquand (1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 305.
83 Taylor v Jones (1871) 1 C.P.D. 87.
84 See below, para.2–064.
85 (1818) 1 B. &Ald. 681.
86 Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B. & Ald. 681 at 683.
87 See above, para.2–002; Inland Revenue Commissioners v Fry [2001] S.T.C. 1715 at [6], [7];
University of Edinburgh v Onifade 2005 S.L.T. (Sh Ct) 63 at [6].
88 OTM Ltd v Hydranautics [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 211 at 214.
89 Michael Gerson (Leasing) Ltd v Wilkinson [2000] Q.B. 514 at 530.
90 In the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013) reg.11, the
words “acknowledge” and “acknowledgement” seem to be used in this sense.
91 Peter Lind & Co Ltd v Mersey Docks & Harbour Board [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 234.
92 See, e.g. Glencore Energy Ltd v Cirrus Oil Services Ltd [2014] EWHC 87 (Comm); [2014] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 1.
93 Kennedy v Lee (1817) 3 Mer. 441; cf. Cie de Commerce v Parkinson Stove Co [1953] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 487; Thorensen Car Ferries Ltd v Weymouth Portland BC [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
614; The Bay Ridge [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 306.
94
[2008] EWCA Civ 1455; [2008] 2 C.L.C. 1013.
Given the earlier agreement of the parties to include the warranty, Rix LJ queried why there
had been no plea of rectification (see below, para.8–059 et seq.): [2008] EWCA Civ 1455; [2008]
2 C.L.C. 1013 at [37].
96 G Percy Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer Ltd [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 25; cf. RTS Flexible
Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH & Co KG [2010] UKSC 14; [2010] 1 W.L.R. 753.
Peter Lind & Co Ltd v Mersey Docks & Harbour Board [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 234 shows that the
factor of performance of the work is not decisive, though it may (as in that case) give rise to a
restitutionary claim: see below, para.22–021.
97 G Percy Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer Ltd [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 25 at 27; Twintec Ltd v
Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd [2014] EWHC 10 (TCC); [2014] B.L.R. 150.
98
Hussey v Horne-Payne (1878) 4 App. Cas. 311; British Guiana Credit Corp v Da Silva [1965]
1 W.L.R. 248; Container Transport International Inc v Oceanus Mutual etc Association [1984] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 476; Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601 at 619; Ignazio
Messina & Co v Polskie Linie Oceaniczne [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566; cf. in the context of
rescinding the contract: Drake Insurance Plc v Provident Insurance Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1834;
[2004] Q.B. 601 at [100].
99 Perry v Suffields Ltd [1916] 2 Ch. 187; Davies v Sweet [1962] 2 Q.B. 300; Cranleigh
Precision Engineering Ltd v Bryant [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1293; Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master
Fund v Rouvroy [2009] EWHC 257 (Comm); [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 475 at [230]; affirmed [2009]
EWCA Civ 1334; [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 788, without reference to this point; cf. Virulite LLC
v Virulite Distribution Ltd [2014] EWHC 366 (QB) at [74].
100
Jayaar Impex Ltd v Toaken Group Ltd [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 437.
101
Harvey v Johnston (1848) 6 C.B. 295 at 305; cf. Steven v Bromley & Son [1919] 2 K.B. 722
at 728; Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] Q.B. 433 at 436; Re
Charge Card Services [1989] Ch. 497 at 512.
102 The Kurnia Dewi [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533; Datec Electronic Holdings Ltd v United Parcels
Service Ltd [2007] UKHL 23; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 1325: above, para.2–006; Reveille Independent
LLC v Anotech International (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 726 (Comm).
103 Weatherby v Banham (1832) 5 C. & P. 228; or even by using part of the goods: cf. Hart v
Mills (1846) 15 L.J. Ex. 200.
104 See above, para.2–002.
105 In the context of employment contracts, see: Khatri v Cooperatieve Centrale RaiffeisenBoerenleenbank BA [2010] EWCA Civ 397; [2010] I.R.L.R. 715 at [51].
106 Jayaar Impex Ltd v Toaken Group Ltd [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 437.
107 Taylor v Allon [1966] 1 Q.B. 304. cf. in another context, Re Leyland Daf Ltd [1994] 4 All
E.R. 300, affirmed sub nom. Powdrill v Watson [1995] 2 A.C. 394.
108 Beta Computers (Europe) v Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd (1996) S.L.T. 604.
109 Capital Finance Co Ltd v Bray [1964] 1 W.L.R. 323.
110 Sale of Goods Act 1979 s.8(2); Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15(1); cf. Steven v
Bromley & Son, above; see below, para.2–086.
111 e.g. Brogden v Metropolitan Ry (1877) 2 App. Cas. 666; contrast D&M Trailers (Halifax) Ltd
v Stirling [1978] R.T.R. 468; Jayaar Impex Ltd v Toaken Ltd [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 437 (above,
fn.106).
112 e.g. Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 Q.B. 402; see below, para.14–072.
113 Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 L.T. 271; cf. Jordan v Norton (1838) 4 M. & W. 155;
Harrison v Battye [1975] 1 W.L.R. 58.
114 North West Leicestershire DC v East Midlands Housing Assocn [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1396.
95
115
Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 W.L.R. 401.
Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 W.L.R. 401; North
West Leicestershire DC v East Midlands Housing Association [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1396; cf.
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 A.C. 34.
117 Jackson v Turquand (1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 305; Bircham & Co Nominees (No.2) Ltd v Worrell
Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 725; (2001) 82 P. & C.R. 427 at [11]. Statements which are not
intended to add new terms do not vitiate the acceptance: Simpson v Hughes (1897) 66 L.J.Ch.
334; Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 W.L.R. 401.
118 Jones v Daniel [1894] 2 Ch. 332; Von Hartzfeld-Wildenburg v Alexander [1912] 1 Ch. 284;
Lark v Outhwaite [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 at 139; Beazley Underwriting Ltd v Travelers
Companies Inc [2011] EWHC 1520 (Comm); [2012] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1241 at [184].
119
Midgulf international Ltd v Group Chimique Tunisien [2010] EWCA Civ 66; [2010] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 543 at [45].
120 Lark v Outhwaite [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 at 139.
121 G Percy Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer Ltd [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 25 at 28; Maple Leaf
Macro Volatility Master Fund v Rouvroy [2009] EWHC 257 (Comm); [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 475
at [247] (affd. [2009] EWCA Civ 1334; [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 788); Midgulf International
Ltd v Group Chimique Tunisien [2010] EWCA Civ 66; [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 543 at [45].
122 AB v CD Ltd [2013] EWHC 1376; [2013] B.L.R. 435 at [28].
123 The Master Stelios [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 356.
124 e.g. OTM Ltd v Hydranautics [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 211 at 215; cf. below, para.2–089.
125 See below, para.8–059.
126 Domb v Isoz [1980] Ch. 548.
127 A may challenge the incorporation of B’s terms on grounds which are considered below:
para.7–004 et seq.
128 [1968] 1 W.L.R. 811; cf. OTM Ltd v Hydranautics [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 211; Muirhead v
Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd [1986] Q.B. 507 at 530; Claxton Engineering Services Ltd v TXM
Olaj-és Gázkutató Kft [2010] EWHC 2567 (Comm); [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 252.
129 As in Zambia Steel & Building Supplies Ltd v James Clark & Eaton Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 225.
130 [1979] 1 W.L.R. 401, esp. at 405; Adams 95 L.Q.R. 481; Rawlings 42 M.L.R. 715. See also
Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol [2009] EWCA Civ 1209; [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357
where the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the multiple relationships established in a longterm supply chain might indicate that the parties did not intend to contract on the terms found to
apply as a consequence of the “battle of the forms” rules, but held that this was not made out on
the facts of the case; cf. Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd v ADT Fire & Security Plc [2011] EWHC
1936 (TCC); [2011] B.L.R. 661; Transformers & Rectifiers Ltd v Needs Ltd [2015] EWHC 269
(TCC); [2015] T.C.L.R. 2.
131 See above, para.2–019, fnn.115 and 116.
132 Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 W.L.R. 401 per
Lawton and Buckley LJJ; Lord Denning MR also uses this analysis, but prefers the alternative
approach of considering “the documents…as a whole”: see at 405 and cf. below, para.2–075.
133 cf. Allianz Insurance Co (Egypt) v Aigaion Insurance Co SA [2008] EWCA Civ 1455; [2008]
2 C.L.C. 1013: an e-mail stating that insurance cover was provided “as we had quoted” did not
extend to a warranty which the reinsurer intended to include because the words were followed by
“i.e.” and what was then stated were only the rates for the cover: see above, para.2–017, text to
fn.95.
134 Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 W.L.R. 401 at 406, per
116
Lawton LJ.
135 GHSP Inc v AB Electronic Ltd [2010] EWHC 1828 (Comm); cf. Matter of Doughboy
Industries Inc 233 N.Y.S. 2d. 488 at 490 (1962): “The buyer and seller accomplished a legal
equivalent to the irresistible force colliding with the immoveable object”.
136 It seems to have been rejected for this reason in Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd v State Trading
Corp of India [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 427.
137
cf. Peter Lind & Co Ltd v Mersey Docks & Harbour Board [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 234;
above, para.2–016.
138 See above, para.2–013.
139 See below, para.2–089.
140 Percival v London CC Asylum Committee (1918) 87 L.J.K.B. 677.
141 e.g. Sylvan Crest Sand & Gravel Co v US 150 F. 2d. 642 (1945).
142 cf. Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] A.C. 207.
143 Great Northern Ry v Witham (1873) L.R. 9 C.P. 16.
144 Great Northern Ry v Witham (1873) L.R. 9 C.P. 16 at 19.
145 Percival v London County Council Asylum Committee (1918) 87 L.J.K.B. 677; cf. Miller v F
A Sadd & Son Ltd [1981] 3 All E.R. 265; below, para.3–160.
146 See above, para.2–013.
147
[1986] A.C. 207.
148
M’Iver v Richardson (1813) 1 M. & S. 557; Ex p. Stark [1897] 1 Ch. 575; Holwell Securities
Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 W.L.R. 155 at 157; The Leonidas D [1985] 1 W.L.R. 925 at 937.
149 Anon. (1478) Y.B. 17 Edw. IV Pasch, f.1–pl.2, cited in Fifoot, History & Sources of the
Common Law (1949), p.253.
150 Kennedy v Thomassen [1929] 1 Ch. 426; Brogden v Metropolitan Ry (1877) 2 App. Cas. 666
at 692.
151 Best’s Case (1865) 2 D.J. & S. 650; cf. Gunn’s Case (1867) L.R. 3 Ch. App. 40.
152 Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 A.C. 34.
153 Hebb’s Case (1867) L.R. 4 Eq. 9; Kennedy v Thomassen [1929] 1 Ch. 426.
154 Bloxham’s Case (1864) 33 Beav. 529; (1864) 4 D.J. & S. 447; Levita’s Case (1867) L.R. 3
Ch. App. 36.
155 This seems to be the best explanation of Powell v Lee (1908) 99 L.T. 284.
156 Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 Q.B. 327 at 332.
157 cf. below, para.2–058.
158 Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27 at 33.
159 Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 Q.B. 327 at 333.
160 cf. The Brimnes [1975] Q.B. 929.
161 The Pamela [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 249 at 252; The Petr Schmidt [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.
162 Argo Fund Ltd v Essar Steel Ltd [2005] EWHC 600 (Comm); [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 203 at
[53], affirmed [2006] EWCA Civ 241; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 134, without reference to this point;
Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 394; [2013] I.R.L.R. 548 at [98].
163 Weatherby v Banham (1832) 5 C. & P. 228; cf. Minories Finance Ltd v Afribank Nigeria Ltd
[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 134 at 140; and see above, para.2–004, fn.15.
164 cf. American Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) s.2–206(1)(b); The Kurnia Dewi [1997] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 553 at 559.
165 Roberts v Hayward (1828) 3 C. & P. 432; but not if the tenant disclaims the intention to
accept: Glossop v Ashley [1921] 2 K.B. 451.
166 For the meaning of “unilateral contract,” see below, para.2–051.
167 [1893] 1 Q.B. 256; see above, para.2–010.
168 See below, paras 2–053—2–057.
169 See below, para.3–024.
170 First Sport Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1229 at 1234.
171 First Sport Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1229 at 1234–1235.
172 Gardner 12 O.J.L.S. 170.
173 In Conductive Interjet Technology Ltd v Uni-Pixel Displays Inc [2013] EWHC 2968 (Ch);
[2014] F.S.R. 22, the court found, for the purpose of permission to serve the claim form out of the
jurisdiction, that there was a “good arguable case” that the contract was made in both of the
countries from which the parties had sent and received copies.
174 See, e.g., below, after fn.184.
175 But see below, para.2–035.
176 Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27 33; Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B. & Ald. 681; cf. Bruner
v Moore [1904] 1 Ch. 305 (telegram); Stevenson Jacques & Co v McLean (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 346;
Cowan v O’Connor (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 640 (place of acceptance).
177 Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 A.C. 34 at
41; the “Post Office” here refers to the provider of the universal postal service under Postal
Services Act 2011, by whatever name that provider may from time to time be known.
178 Re London & Northern Bank [1900] 1 Ch. 220.
179 Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27 at 31.
180 Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B. & Ald. 681 at 683. This case is usually considered to be one of
the early leading authorities in support of the “general rule”; but in fact the court does not mention
the posting of the acceptance at all.
181 Household etc Insurance Co Ltd v Grant (1879) 4 Ex. D. 216 at 220.
182 Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27 at 33; See above, para.2–025.
183 See Winfield 55 L.Q.R. 509.
184 Household etc Insurance Co Ltd v Grant (1879) 4 Ex. D. 216 at 223.
185 It is often hard to tell which party is offeror and which is offeree, especially if the final offer
was a counter-offer (see above, para.2–019).
186 See below, para.2–042.
187 See below, para.2–058. In countries in which the acceptance is only effective when
communicated a similar result is often reached by legally limiting the offeror’s power to withdraw
his offer.
188 See below, para.2–058.
189 [1892] 2 Ch. 27.
190 cf. Quenerduaine v Cole (1883) 32 W.R. 185 (telegram).
191 Bal v Van Staden [1902] T.S. 128.
192 [1974] 1 W.L.R. 155; cf. New Hart Builders Ltd v Brindley [1975] Ch. 342.
193 Nolan, in Burrows & Peel (eds), Contract Formation and Parties (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2010)
194 Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 Q.B. 327; Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und
Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 A.C. 34; cf. Gill & Duffus Landauer Ltd v London
Export Corp GmbH [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 627.
195
See, above, para.2–024; the exceptions set out in paras 2–025—2–027 may also apply, but
not the exception in the form of the posting rule.
196 See Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 Q.B. 327 at 333 and Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag
Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 A.C. 34 at 43; Greenclose Ltd v National
Westminster Bank Plc [2014] EWHC 1156 (Ch); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 169 at [140].
197 In JSC Zestafoni Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd [2004] EWHC 245
(Comm); [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 335 at [75] a fax was regarded as a form of instantaneous
communication; the issue was where acceptance had taken effect, not whether it had done so, and
there was no consideration of the latter of the two situations considered in the text.
198 The Eastern Navigator [2005] EWHC 3020 (Comm); [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 at [29]–[31];
Greenclose Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc [2014] EWHC 1156 (Ch); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep
169 at [138] (“An email is not subject to the postal acceptance rule. It is a form of nearinstantaneous communication”). For various possible times at which an email can be said to have
been received, see Law Commission, Electronic Commerce: Formal Requirements in Electronic
Communications (December 2001) §3.56; Greenclose at [132] (“a recipe for argument”); the
present question is whether such a message may be effective before it is received.
199
Law Commission, Electronic Commerce: Formal Requirements in Electronic
Communications, §3.37 regards “clicking on a website button” as satisfying the requirement of
signature but does not state whether it is an offer or an acceptance, or specify when it takes effect.
The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013) reg.11(2)(a) states
that “the order and the acknowledgement of receipt will be deemed to be received when the
parties to whom they are addressed are able to access them”; but this form of words does not of
itself answer the question whether the contract may not be concluded even before that time.
200 See Evans 15 I.C.L.Q. 553.
201 See above, para.2–031 text to fn.188.
202 Harris’Case (1872) L.R. 7 Ch. App. 587; Byrne & Co v Leon van Tienhoven (1880) 5 C.P.D.
344; Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27; Re London & Northern Bank [1900] 1 Ch. 200.
203 See above, para.2–029.
204 Household etc Insurance v Grant (1879) 4 Ex. D. 216, overruling British and American
Telegraph Co v Colson (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 108.
205 See Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 H.L.C. 381, which would probably be followed in England
though it is expressly restricted (at 402) to Scots law.
206 Potter v Sanders (1846) 6 Hare 1.
207 Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 A.C. 34 at
41; Gill & Duffus Landauer Ltd v London Export Corp GmbH [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 627 at 631.
208 Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 W.L.R. 157 at 161.
209 LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 1345 (QB).
210 Fault of one party may not be the effective cause of the misdirection if the resulting error is
obvious to the other party.
211 cf. Townsend’s Case (1871) L.R. 13 Eq. 148.
212 LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 1345 (QB) at [15].
213 Henkel v Pape (1870) L.R. 6 Ex. 7.
214 cf. above, para.2–031.
215 Morrison v Thoelke 155 So. 2d 889 (1963); A to Z Bazaars (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Agriculture
(1974) (4) S.A. 392(C) (Turpin [1975] C.L.J. 25); cf. Wenckheim v Arndt (N.Z.) 1 J.R. 73 (1873),
contrast Dick v US (1949) 113 Ct.C1.94, 82 F.Supp. 326; Dunmore v Alexander (1830) 9 Shaw
190. See generally Hudson 82. L.Q.R. 169. cf. Kinch v Bullard [1999] 1 W.L.R. 423 (no
withdrawal by sender of notice which, by virtue of Law of Property Act 1925 s.196(3), had taken
effect on being left at a person’s place of abode).
216 See above, para.2–031.
217 cf. LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 1345 (QB) at [11], dealing with a
similar possible outcome in the case of a misdirected acceptance.
218 Hudson 82 L.Q.R. 169, who also argues that the offeror can protect himself by stipulating that
he is not to be bound till the acceptance reaches him, or that the offeree is to be bound as soon as
he posts the acceptance.
219
See below, para.18–015.
220
See below, para.17–079 et seq. cf. Kinch v Bullard [1999] 1 W.L.R. 423 where the
withdrawal held ineffective against the addressee was said (at 430–431) to be effective against the
sender.
221 SI 2013/3134 reg.5
222 Regulation 29(1); The same right also applies to “off-premises contracts” (reg.5); it is subject
to the limits set out in reg.28.
223 Regulation 30.
224 Regulation (1)(a).
225 Regulations 34–36.
226
Mulcaire v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 3469 (Ch); [2012] Ch. 435 at [11].
227
Frank v Knight (1937) O.Q.P.D. 113; cf. Eliason v Henshaw (1819) 4 Wheat. 225.
228 Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1184 at 1186. Contrast Hitchens v General
Guarantee Corp [2001] EWCA Civ 359; The Times, March 13, 2001.
229 Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 W.L.R. 157.
230 Wettern Electric Ltd v Welsh Development Agency [1983] Q.B. 796.
231 As in Wettern Electric Ltd v Welsh Development Agency [1983] Q.B. 796; provided, however,
that such conduct is accompanied by the requisite contractual intention: see Harvela Investments
Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] A.C. 207; and below, para.4–003.
232 Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd
[1970] 1 W.L.R. 242.
233 Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 L.T. 271 at 278; Manchester Diocesan Council for
Education v Commercial & General Investments Ltd [1970] 1 W.L.R. 242; cf. Edmund Murray v
PSB Foundations (1992) 33 Con. L.R. 1.
234 MSM Consulting Ltd v Tanzania [2009] EWHC 121 (QB); 123 Con. L.R. 154 at [120]; A Ltd
v B Ltd [2015] EWHC 137 (Comm) at [29].
235 MSM Consulting Ltd v Tanzania [2009] EWHC 121 (QB); 123 Con. L.R. 154 at [120]; cf.
The Botnica [2006] EWHC 1360 (Comm; [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37).
236 See Robophone Facilities v Blank [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1423; Carlyle Finance Ltd v Pallas
Industrial Finance Ltd [1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 659 at 670 (approving reasoning identical with
that in the text above); cf. Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and
General Investments Ltd [1970] 1 W.L.R. 242. From this point of view, these cases are, it is
submitted, to be preferred to Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1184.
237 (1862) 11 C.B. (N.S.) 869, affirmed (1863) New Rep. 401; Miller 35 M.L.R. 489. cf.
Financial Techniques (Planning Services) v Hughes [1981] I.R.L.R. 32 at 35.
238 Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 C.B. (N.S.) 869 at 875.
239 The evidence in Felthouse v Bindley that the nephew did in fact wish to sell the horse to the
uncle means that the actual decision is hard to support, but this is no criticism of the general rule
laid down.
240 See above, para.2–005.
241
For acceptance by silence and conduct, see below, para.2–047.
But not always: see below, fn.250.
243 e.g. Jayaar Impex Ltd v Toaken Group Ltd [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 437 at 445.
244 The Leonidas D [1985] 1 W.L.R. 925 at 927; Rafsanjan Pistachio Producers Co-operative v
Bank Leumi (UK) Plc [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 513 at 542.
245 The Leonidas D [1985] 1 W.L.R. 925 at 927; Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd [1996] A.C. 800 at 812.
Such “exceptional circumstances” may be illustrated by The Splendid Sun [1981] Q.B. 694
(where acceptance may have been by conduct: below, para.2–047) though this case is hard to
reconcile with The Leonidas D;cf. Cie Française d’Importation v Deutsche Continental
Handelsgesellschaft [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 592 at 598. The Golden Bear [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
330 is hard to reconcile with these cases and was apparently doubted in The Antclizo [1987] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 130 at 147 (affirmed [1988] 1 W.L.R. 603).
246
cf. Rust v Abbey Life Ins Co [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 335.
247 cf. above, para.2–042.
248 As in Alexander Hamilton Institute v Jones 234 Ill. App. (1924).
249 As in Cole-McIntyre-Norfleet Co v Holloway 141 Tenn. 679; 214 S.W. 87 (1919).
250 Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd [1996] A.C. 800; see below, para.18–011.
251
The Agrabele [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 496 at 509, per Evans J, whose statement of the relevant
legal principles was approved on appeal, though the actual decision was reversed on the facts:
[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 at 225. The case would now be governed by Arbitration Act 1996
s.41(3): see above, para.2–005.
252 Re Selectmove [1995] 1 W.L.R. 474 at 478 (where the point was left open).
253 The Harriette N [2008] EWHC 2257 (Comm); [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 685 at [70], citing
Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601 at 614.
254 Yona International Ltd v La Réunion Française [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 84 at 110.
255 See above, para.2–043, further discussed below.
256 Minories Finance Ltd v Afribank Nigeria Ltd [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 134.
257 Spiro v Lintern [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1002 at 1011.
258 See below, para.16–029.
259 See Yona International Ltd v La Réunion Française [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 84 at 107 (where
this requirement was not satisfied).
260 See below, paras 3–090, 9–167; cf. (in another context) The Stolt Loyalty [1993] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 281 at 289–291, affirmed [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 598, without reference to this point. The
case would not be one of estoppel by convention (below, para.3–094), for such estoppel is based
on an agreed assumption of fact, while in cases of the present kind the question is whether there
was any agreement.
261 See below, paras 3–081, 9–167.
262 See below, para.3–082.
263 cf. AC Yule & Son Ltd v Speedwell Roofing & Cladding Ltd [2007] EWHC 1360 (TCC);
[2007] B.L.R. 499 (obligation to respond to adjudicator’s requests under the Housing Grants,
Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Pt II).
264 Burrows, The Law of Restitution, 3rd edn (2010), pp.334–339.
265 Fairline Shipping Corp v Adamson [1975] Q.B. 180 at 189.
266 At para.2–044.
267 See above, para.2–043.
268 This reasoning would not apply where the terms of the offer had been drawn up by the
242
offeree: cf. above, para.2–042.
269 Fairline Shipping Corp v Adamson [1975] Q.B. 180 at 189.
270 See below, para.3–040.
271 See above, para.2–018.
272 (1828) 3 C. & P. 432.
273 cf. above, para.2–027.
274 Wettern Electric Ltd v Welsh Development Agency [1983] Q.B. 796.
275 Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al Zayat [2007] EWCA Civ 1001 at [30].
276 See above, para.2–043.
277 cf. Collin v Duke of Westminster [1985] Q.B. 581.
278 See The Splendid Sun [1981] Q.B. 694 at 712, 713 (“closed their files”); cf. at 706 (“did so
act”); The Multibank Holsatia [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 486 at 493 (where the offeree had destroyed
relevant files, so that the case was not one of mere inaction).
279 Vis Trading v Nazarov [2014] EWCA Civ 313 at [40].
280 [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 335.
281 Rust v Abbey Life Ins Co [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 335; affirming [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 386 at
393.
282 cf. above, para.2–038 and Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd [1996] A.C. 800; above, para.2–044.
283 Contrast Yona International Ltd v La Réunion Française [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 84 at 110;
Cooper v National Westminster Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3035 (QB); [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 490.
284
See above, para.2–044.
285
R. v Clarke (1927) 40 C.L.R. 227 at 233; Tracomin SA v Anton C Nielsen [1984] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 195 at 203; Lark v Outhwaite [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 at 140.
286 R. v Clarke (1927) 40 C.L.R. 227 at 233 at 241.
287 (1891) 64 L.T. 594, sub nom. Gibson v Proctor 55 J.P. 616. See Hudson 84 L.Q.R. 513.
288 The possibility of acceptance without being aware of the offer, in the case of a unilateral
contract, was left open in The Jag Ravi [2011] EWHC 1372 (Comm); [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 309
at [48] (affd. [2012] EWCA Civ 180; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 637, though on the basis that no
contract was concluded: see para.14–092, below).
289 e.g. Tracomin SA v Anton C Nielsen [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 195 at 203.
290 [1942] 1 All E.R. 220; Mitchell 12 J.C.L. 78.
291 cf. Burrows, The Law of Restitution (2010), pp.241–242; The Sibohelle [2011] EWHC 1150
(Comm); [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 220 at [44].
292 cf. BSC v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd [1984] 1 All E.R. 504 at 510; Air
Transworld Ltd v Bombardier Inc [2012] EWHC 243; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349 at [75]. Quaere
what the position should be where one party thinks that he is giving or getting a gratuitous service
while the other thinks that he is contracting.
293 Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 L.T. 271 at 278.
294 (1833) 5 C. & P. 566; 4 B. & Ad. 621; it must be assumed that the claimant knew of the offer:
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd [1892] 2 Q.B. at 489, fn.2.
295 Williams v Carwardine 4 B. & Ad. 621 at 623.
296 [1893] 1 Q.B. 256, above, para.2–010.
297 (1927) 40 C.L.R. 227.
298 R. v Clarke (1927) 40 C.L.R. 227 at 233.
299 Lark v Outhwaite [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 at 140.
300
Or to do some other act, or to forbear from doing something. In the text we shall deal only
with the most common case of a promise to pay money.
301 An old example: Rogers v Snow (1573) Dalison 94; cf. Great Northern Ry v Witham (1873)
L.R. 9 C.P.16 at 19.
302 cf. Hamer v Sidway 124 N.Y. 538 (1881).
303 See generally Llewellyn 48 Yale L.J. 1, 799.
304 cf. The Eurymedon [1975] A.C. 154 at 167–168 (“a bargain initially unilateral but capable of
becoming mutual”): see further para.14–063, below.
305
According to a dictum in Little v Courage Ltd (1995) 70 P. & C.R. 469 at 475, terms which
impose legal obligations cannot be implied into a unilateral contract; but this view would not
preclude such a contract from becoming bilateral after it had originally come into existence. See
further para.6–038, below.
306 See The Unique Mariner [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 at 51–52; The Kurnia Dewi [1997] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 553 at 559; contrast BSC v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd [1984] 1 All
E.R. 504 at 510–511 where such an implied promise was negatived by the fact that the terms of a
bilateral contract were still under negotiation and were never agreed.
307 See Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] Ch. 231 at 238; cf. Harvela
Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] A.C. 207 at 224.
308 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 Q.B. 256; Bowerman v Association of British
Travel Agents [1995] N.L.J. 1815.
309 See below, para.3–158.
310 Wormser in Selected Readings on the Law of Contracts from American and English Legal
Periodicals (MacMillan Co, 1931), p.307; but for the same writer’s later views see 3 Jl. Leg.
Educ. 146.
311 For a possible exception, see below, para.2–056.
312 It is assumed that performance remains within the offeree’s power. If not, the offeror can
withdraw: see Morrison SS Co v The Crown (1924) 20 Ll.L.R. 283.
313 Lord Diplock in Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] A.C. 207
at 224 can be read as depriving the offeror of the power to withdraw as soon as his offer is
communicated (i.e. before any performance); but in that case the offeree had completely
performed the required act by making the requested bid.
314 McGoveney in Selected Readings on the Law of Contracts from American and English Legal
Periodicals (1931), p.300.
315 Pollock, Principles of Contract, 13th edn (Stevens & Sons, 1950), p.19; Ballantine, Selected
Readings, p.312.
316 McGoveney in Selected Readings on the Law of Contracts from American and English Legal
Periodicals (1931), p.300.
317 [1952] 1 K.B. 290. The reasoning of this case was doubted, but not on this point, in National
Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] A.C. 1175 at 1239–1240, 1251–1252 and in Ashburn
Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch. 1 at 17 (overruled on another point in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v
London Residuary Body [1992] A.C. 386).
318 Errington v Errington [1952] 1 K.B. 290 at 295; cf. Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] EWCA Civ
969; [2008] 2 W.L.R. 834 at [50] (where performance had been completed); Schweppe v Harper
[2008] EWCA Civ 442 [2008] B.P.I.R. 1090 at [46]: “Where there is an offer to pay for the
performance of a certain task, part performance can produce a contract under which that offer
cannot be withdrawn”, per Waller LJ, dissenting.
319 As in Lloyd’s v Harper (1880) 16 Ch. D. 290.
320 As in Offord v Davies (1862) 12 C.B.N.S. 748.
321
Lloyd’s v Harper (1880) 16 Ch. D. 290.
See below, para.3–159.
323 Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] A.C. 108 at 124. In fact the agent often does
undertake to do something; see below, fnn.325, 326.
324 See below, para.16–088.
325 Christopher v Essig [1958] W.N. 461; John McCann & Co v Pow [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1643 at
1647.
326 cf. Bentall Horsley & Baldry v Vicary [1931] 1 K.B. 253.
327 Hampton & Sons Ltd v George [1939] 3 All E.R. 627; Christopher v Essig [1958] W.N. 461;
below, para.16–091.
328
See below, para.16–091.
329 Unless the promisee has a “substantial or legitimate interest” in going on, this may be the law
under the principles laid down in White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] A.C. 413;
below, para.21–012.
330 Schweppe v Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442 [2008] B.P.I.R. 1090 at [53] (per Waller LJ,
dissenting. The “loss of a chance” analysis adopted in that case was particularly apt since
complete performance depended on the conduct of third parties: see para.20–059 below).
331
Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653; Offord v Davies (1862) 12 C.B.N.S. 748; Scammell v
Dicker [2001] 1 W.L.R. 631; Bircham & Co Nominees (No.2) v Worrell Holdings [2001] EWCA
Civ 775; (2001) 82 P. & C.R. 472 at [24], [35].
332 Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B. & Ald. 681; Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean (1880) 5
Q.B.D. 346; contrary dicta in Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch. D. 463 at 472 would no longer be
followed.
333 An initial offer may be withdrawn by making a further offer depending on the nature of the
two offers and the circumstances in which they were made: Pickfords Ltd v Celestica Ltd [2003]
EWCA Civ 1741 at [17].
334
Financing Ltd v Stimson [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1184; C F Asset Finance Ltd v Okonji [2014]
EWCA Civ 870; [2014] E.C.C. 23.
335 (1880) 5 C.P.D. 344. Under Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.69(1)(ii) and (7) posting is,
exceptionally, sufficient (as is “transmission” of an electronic communication).
336 (1876) 2 Ch. D. 463; cf. Cartwright v Hoogstoel (1911) 105 L.T. 628.
337 i.e. subject to the exceptions stated in the following paragraph.
338 Byrne & Co v Leon van Tienhoven (1880) 5 C.P.D. 344, above, fn.335.
339 Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27 at 32.
340 cf. Curtice v London Bank [1908] 1 K.B. 291 at 300–301 (notice to countermand a cheque).
341 Eaglehill Ltd v J Needham (Builders) Ltd [1973] A.C. 992 at 1011, discussing notice of
dishonour of a cheque; The Pamela [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 249 at 252; cf. The Pendrecht [1980] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 56 at 66 (telex notice of arbitration); The Eastern Navigator [2005] EWHC 3020
(Comm); [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 (email notice of arbitration).
342 For the effect of such messages when sent out of business hours, see above, para.2–026. But
see the comment in fn.344 below.
343 cf. The Brimnes [1975] Q.B. 929 (notice withdrawing ship from charterparty).
344 cf. Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 A.C. 34 at
42 (communication of acceptance). Quaere how strictly such a principle should be applied now
when so many communications are by e-mail and the proliferation of remote devices for their
transmission has blurred the line between “business” and “non-business” hours.
345 Shuey v US 92 U.S. 73 (1875).
322
346
Pickfords Ltd v Celestica Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1741 at [26].
Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 L.T. 271 at 278.
348 See above, para.2–020.
349 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav. 334; cf. Mulcaire v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011]
EWHC 3469 (Ch); [2012] Ch. 435 where the offeree’s response was “collateral” and did not
amount to a rejection of the offer.
350 See the treatment in Tinn v Hoffman (1873) 29 L.T. 271 at 278 of the claimant’s letter of 27
November.
351
Stevenson Jacques & Co v Maclean (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 346 at 349.
352
See above, para.2–002.
353
Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 W.L.R. 294 at 302.
354 Under the “posting rule”, above, para.2–030.
355 See above, para.2–040.
356 Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co Ltd v Montefiore (1866) L.R. 1 Ex. 109; Cemco Leasing SpA v
Rediffusion Ltd [1987] F.T.L.R. 201; L.J. Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 1345
(QB).
357 Quenerduaine v Cole (1883) 32 W.R. 185.
358 As in Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments
Ltd [1970] 1 W.L.R. 241.
359
Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1184; cf. Canning v Farquhar (1885) 16 Q.B.D.
722; Looker v Law Union & Rock Ins Co Ltd [1928] 1 K.B. 554
360 See above, para.2–008.
361 Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch. D. 463 at 475.
362 See above, para.2–058.
363 e.g. contracts of employment or agency: below, para.16–107. In such cases the legal effects of
saying that the offer was terminated, so that there was never any contract, is likely to differ from
those of saying that there had been a contract which had been discharged, e.g. Law Reform
(Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 could apply to the latter, but not to the former, situation.
364 See above, para.2–054.
365 Bradbury v Morgan (1862) 1 H. & C. 249; Coulthart v Clementson (1879) 5 Q.B.D. 42 at 46.
366 Coulthart v Clementson (1879) 5 Q.B.D. 42.
367 Harriss v Fawcett (1873) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 866.
368 Re Silvester [1895] 1 Ch. 573.
369 (1921) 125 L.T. 690, affirmed (1922) 127 L.T. 189.
370 [1929] 1 Ch. 426.
371 cf. below, para.8–008.
372 See above, at fn.363.
373 See below, para.12–052 et seq.
374 See below, para.12–067.
375 Companies Act 2006 s.39(1) (modified rules apply to companies which are charities:
ss.39(2), 42; below, para.12–068, fn.216.
376 Companies Act 2006 s.40(1) (modified rules apply to companies which are charities:
ss.40(6), 42; and transactions with directors and their associates: ss.40(6), 41; below, para.12–069.
377 Companies Act 2006 s.40(4).
378 Companies Act 2006 s.40(4).
347
379
For legally enforceable options, see below, para.3–160.
Companies Act 2006 s.40(4).
381 Problems of the kind here under discussion cannot arise with regard to limited liability
partnerships incorporated under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 as they have
“unlimited capacity” (s.1(3)).
382 See below, para.12–064; but members of a corporation could bring proceedings to restrain the
conclusion of the contract: para.12–064.
383 See below, para.12–072.
384
See above, paras 2–007, 2–017, 2–020.
385
Gibson v Manchester City Council [1978] 1 W.L.R. 520 at 523, reversed [1979] 1 W.L.R.
294; cf. The Eurymedon [1975] A.C. 154 at 167.
386 Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 W.L.R. 401 at 404; cf.
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] Ch. 433 at 443.
387 Gibson v Manchester City Council [1978] 1 W.L.R. 520 at 523, reversed [1979] 1 W.L.R.
294; cf. Finmoon Ltd v Baltic Reefer Management Ltd [2012] EWHC 920; [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
388 at [22].
388 Gibson v Manchester CC [1979] 1 W.L.R. 294 at 297; G Percy Trentham v Archital Luxfer
Ltd [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 25 at 27, 29–30; Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol [2009]
EWCA Civ 1209; [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 at [25].
389 The Kapetan Markos NL (No.2) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 323 at 331 (“What was the mechanism
for offer and acceptance?”); cf. The Good Helmsman [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 377 at 409; The
Aramis [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213; Treitel [1989] L.M.C.L.Q. 162. The “offer and acceptance”
analysis was also regarded as decisive in many of the arbitration cases discussed at para.2–005,
above, though it was viewed with scepticism in The Multibank Holsatia [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
486 at 491 and in The Maritime Winner [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 506 at 515.
390
e.g. The “battle of forms” cases discussed at paras 2–020—2–021, above.
391
Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v Rouvroy [2009] EWHC 257 (Comm); [2009] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 475 at [242], affirmed [2009] EWCA Civ 1334; [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 788.
392 [1895] P. 248; affirmed sub nom. Clarke v Dunraven [1897] A.C. 59; Phillips 92 L.Q.R. 499.
393 cf. Kingscroft Ins Co Ltd v Nissan Fire and Marine Ins Co Ltd [2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 272
at 291 (admission of new members to an existing insurance pool analysed in terms of offer and
acceptance).
394 See above, para.2–049.
395 See Artistic Upholstery Ltd v Art Forma (Furniture) Ltd [1999] 4 All E.R. 277 at 285; though
breach of the rules by one member may not, on their true construction, be actionable in damages
at the suit of another: Anderton v Rowland, The Times, November 5, 1999.
396 Azov Shipping Co v Baltic Shipping Co [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 at 165.
397 Pollock, Principles of Contract (1950), p.5.
398 Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601 at 616.
399 Fridman 76 L.Q.R. 521.
400 [1941] A.C. 251.
401 Bishop & Baxter Ltd v Anglo-Eastern Trading Co [1944] K.B. 12.
402 Love & Stewart Ltd v S Instone & Co (1917) 33 T.L.R. 475.
403 British Electrical Industries Ltd v Patley Pressings Ltd [1953] 1 W.L.R. 280.
404 For further illustrations, see below, para.2–080.
405 Stabilad Ltd v Stephens & Carter Ltd (No.2) [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 651 at 659.
380
406
See below, para.2–108.
Brown v Gould [1972] Ch. 53 at 57–58; Tito v Waddell (No.2) [1977] Ch. 106 at 314;
Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton [1983] 1 A.C. 444; The Mercedes Envoy [1995] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 559 at 564.
408 “Void for uncertainty is a last resort conclusion”: Shaw v Lighthousexpress Ltd [2010] EWCA
Civ 161 at [21]. See also: Rahcassi Shipping Co v Blue Star Line [1969] 1 Q.B. 173; Nea Agrex
SA v Baltic Shipping Co Ltd [1976] Q.B. 933 at 943 (“a counsel of despair”); Deutsche
Schachtbau-und-Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH v Ras Al Khairah National Oil Co [1990] 1 A.C. 295
at 306, reversed on other grounds: [1990] 1 A.C. 295 at 329 et seq.; Scammell v Dicker [2005]
EWCA Civ 405; [2005] 3 All E.R. 838 at [31]; Schweppe v Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442;
[2008] B.P.I.R. 1090 at [75], [82]; Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v Bmibaby Ltd [2010] EWCA
Civ 485; [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68.
409 Shamrock SS Co v Storey & Co (1899) 81 L.T. 413; cf. Hart v Hart (1881) 18 Ch. D. 670;
Baynham v Philips Electronics (UK) Ltd, The Times, July 19, 1995.
410 Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch. 1 at 27, overruled on another ground in Prudential
Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body [1992] A.C. 386.
411 (1932) 147 L.T. 503 (and see below, para.2–095); Sweet & Maxwell Ltd v Universal News
Services Ltd [1964] 2 Q.B. 699; cf. Greater London Council v Connolly [1970] 2 Q.B. 100;
Scammell v Dicker [2005] EWCA Civ 405; [2005] 3 All E.R. 838; Bear Stearns Bank Plc v
Forum Global Equity Ltd [2007] EWHC 1576 (Comm) at [64]; Furmans Electrical Contractors
Ltd v Elecref Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 170; [2009] T.C.L.R. 6 at [33].
412 [2013] EWCA Civ 394; [2013] 3 All E.R. 607
413 Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 394; [2013] 3 All E.R. 607 at [60].
414
Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274; [2002] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 737 at [30]. cf. Schweppe v Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442; [2008] B.P.I.R. 1090 at [72]
(“reasonable finance” too uncertain).
415 David T Boyd & Co v Louis Louca [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 209; cf. Siew Soon Wah v Yong
Tong Hong [1973] A.C. 831; Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601; Bulk
Trading Co Ltd v Zenziper Grains and Feedstuffs [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 (seller’s duty to
specify place of delivery under f.o.t. contract). Contrast Mehboob Travel Ltd v Pakistan
Inernational Airlines Corp [2013] EWHC 2120 (QB) at [57].
416 The Tropwind [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 232.
417 [1953] 1 Q.B. 543; discussed in Heisler v Anglo-Dal Ltd [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1273; cf. Slater v
Raw, The Times, October 15, 1977; The Scaptrade [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 425 at 432, affirmed
without reference to this point [1983] 2 A.C. 694.
418 Scammell v Dicker [2005] EWCA Civ 405; [2005] 3 All E.R. 838 at [31].
419 E R J Lovelock v Exportles [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163; cf. The Star Texas [1993] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 445.
420 Dhanani v Crasnianski [2011] EWHC 926 (Comm); [2011] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 799 at [75].
On intention generally, see Ch.4.
421 Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 601 at 619 (see the third of the
principles stated by Lloyd LJ).
422 Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 601 at 619 (Principle (5)); Barbudev
v Eurocom Cable Management Eood [2012] EWCA Civ 548; [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 963 at
[32].
423 Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v Rouvroy [2009] EWHC 257 (Comm); [2009] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 475 at [235] (affd. [2009] EWCA Civ 1334; [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 788).
424 If they have, they may nonetheless still not intend to be bound until some further step is
407
taken, such as the formal execution of the contract: see para.4–009.
425 RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC 14, [2010] 1 W.L.R.
753 at [45]; Bear Stearns Bank Plc v Forum Global Equity Ltd [2007] EWHC 1576 at [155].
426
Lücke 3 Adelaide L. Rev. 46.
427 Bols Distilleries BV v Superior Yacht Services Ltd [2006] UKPC 45; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 12;
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752 (below, para.3–
127); Whittle Movers Ltd v Hollywood Express Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1189; [2009] 2 C.L.C. 771
at [14].
428 Harvey v Pratt [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1025.
429 Bushwall Properties Ltd v Vortex Properties Ltd [1976] 1 W.L.R. 591; cf. Hadley v Kemp
[1999] E.M.L.R. 589 at 628; London & Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc Belfast International
Airport Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 355.
430
First Energy (UK) Ltd v Hungarian International Bank Ltd [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 195 at 205;
Bear Stearns Bank Plc v Forum Global Equity Ltd [2007] EWHC 1576 (Comm).
431 cf. Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.51(2); below, para.23–051; and at common law, Way v
Latilla [1937] 3 All E.R. 759; The Tropwind [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 232; Furmans Electrical
Contractors Ltd v Elecref Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 170; [2009] T.C.L.R 6 at [32]; and see, as to
agents’ commissions, below, para.16–085.
432 e.g. May & Butcher v R. [1934] 2 K.B. 17n.; Courtney & Fairbairn Ltd v Tolaini Bros
(Hotels) Ltd [1975] 1 W.L.R. 297; Chamberlain v Boodle & King [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1443n; Russell
Bros (Paddington) Ltd v John Elliott Management Ltd (1995) 11 Const. L.J. 377.
433 See below, para.22–021.
434 BSC v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd [1984] 1 All E.R. 504.
435 [1916] 2 Ch. 187; Elias v George Sahely & Co (Barbados) Ltd [1982] 3 All E.R. 801.
436 cf. Storer v Manchester CC [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1403.
437 For the resolution of such points, see below, para.2–090.
438
Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601.
439
Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601 at 611.
440
cf. above, para.2–082, fn.415.
441 cf. RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GbmH [2010] UKSC 14; [2010] 1
W.L.R. 753 at [45]; Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 394; [2013] 3 All E.R.
607 at [60]; Proton Energy Group SA v Orlen Lietuva [2013] EWHC 2872 (Comm); [2014] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 100.
442 See above, para.2–079.
443 Mamidoil-Jetoil Arab Petroleum Co SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD [2001] EWCA Civ
406; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76. For further proceedings arising out of the same contract, see
[2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; below, para.2–095.
444 Winn v Bull (1877) 7 Ch. D. 29. cf. The Junior K [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583; (sale of ship and
charterparty intended to be “subject to details” not binding before details settled); Drake & Scull
Engineering Ltd v Higgs & Hill (Northern) Ltd (1995) 11 Const. L.J. 214; Regalian Properties
Plc v London Dockland Development Corp [1995] 1 W.L.R. 212; contrast Prudential Assurance
Co Ltd v Mount Eden Land Co Ltd [1997] 1 E.G.L.R. 37 (consent to alterations given by landlord
“subject to licence” held effective as the consent was a unilateral act, so that no question of
agreement arose).
445 See below, para.4–010.
446 See below, para.4–009 et seq.
447 BSC v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd [1984] 1 All E.R. 504; Ignazio Messina Co v
Polskie Linie Oceaniczne [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566; Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA
Petrobas [2005] EWCA Civ 891; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 at [74]–[77]; Diamond Build Ltd v
Clapham Park Homes Ltd [2008] EWHC 1439 (TCC); 119 Con L.R. 32 (where the parties
remained bound only by a letter of intent as a result).
448 Okura & Co Ltd v Navara Shipping Corp SA [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 537; cf. New England
Reinsurance Corp v Messoghios Insurance Co SA [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 251; Thoresen & Co
(Bangkok) Ltd v Fathom Marine Co [2004] EWHC 167; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 622; Investec
Bank (UK) Ltd v Zulman [2010] EWCA Civ 536; Grant v Bragg [2009] EWCA Civ 1228; [2010]
1 All E.R. (Comm) 1166; Whittle Movers Ltd v Hollywood Express Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1189;
[2009] 2 C.L.C. 771.
449
Rossiter v Miller (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1124; cf. Filby v Hounsell [1896] 2 Ch. 737; Branca v
Cobarro [1947] K.B. 854; E R Ives Investment Ltd v High [1967] 2 Q.B. 379; The Blankenstein
[1985] 1 W.L.R. 435; Jayaar Impex Ltd v Toaken Group Ltd [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 437; Harvey
Shopfitters Ltd v ADI Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1752; [2004] 2 All E.R. 982; Bryen & Langley Ltd v
Boston [2005] EWCA Civ 973; [2005] C.I.L.L. 2261; Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v
Rouvroy [2009] EWCA Civ 1334; [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 788 at [16].
450 Ionides v Pacific Insurance Co (1871) L.R. 6 Q.B. 674 at 684; General Reinsurance Corp v
Forsakringsaktiebolaget Fennia Patria [1983] Q.B. 856; Youell v Bland Welch & Co Ltd [1992] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 127 at 140–141; HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v New Hampshire
Insurance [2001] EWCA Civ 735; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 at [86]–[87].
451
Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v Alexander [1912] 1 Ch. 284 at 288–289; Immingham Storage Co
Ltd v Clear Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 89; 135 Con L.R. 224.
452 For an extensive survey of the authorities and the considerations to be derived from them, see
Benourad v Compass Group Plc [2010] EWHC 1882 (QB) at [106].
453 The Kurnia Dewi [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 553; cf. Galliard Homes Ltd v Jarvis Interiors [2000]
C.L.C. 411, where the incomplete agreement expressly provided for such a remuneration in the
events which happened.
454 Banner Homes Ltd v Luff Development Ltd [2000] Ch. 372 (party to joint venture agreement,
which lacked contractual force, acquiring proposed subject-matter for himself); contrast London
& Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc Belfast International Airport Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 355
(where such an agreement was expressly “subject to contract”: see below, para.4–009 et seq.).
455 [1934] 2 K.B. 17n.; cf. British Homophone Ltd v Kunz (1935) 152 L.T. 589; The Shamah
[1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 40 at 83; The Good Helmsman [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 377 at 409; The
Gudermes [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 623; Grow With Us Ltd v Green Thumb (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA
Civ 1201 at [29], where it was found there was not even an agreement to agree.
456 See above, para.2–086.
457 cf. Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD [2001] EWCA Civ
406; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76, esp. at [73]; Malcolm v Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the
University of Oxford, The Times, December 19, 1990.
458 King’s Motors (Oxford) Ltd v Lax [1970] 1 W.L.R. 426; cf. King v King (1981) 41 P. & C.R.
311 (rent review clause).
459 The Gladys [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 402; Ignazio Messina & Co v Polskie Linie Oceaniczne
[1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566.
460 Orion Insurance Plc v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 239.
461 Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601.
462 Brown v Gould [1972] Ch. 53 at 57–58; cf. Smith v Morgan [1971] 1 W.L.R. 803 at 807;
Snelling v John G Snelling Ltd [1973] 1 Q.B. 87 at 93; Queensland Electricity Generating Board
v New Hope Colliery Pty Ltd [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 205 at 210.
463 [1934] 2 K.B. 1.
464
cf. British Bank for Foreign Trade v Novinex [1949] 1 K.B. 623; Beer v Bowden [1981] 1
W.L.R. 522; The Tropwind [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 232 at 236; Global Container Lines Ltd v State
Black Sea Shipping Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 at 155; Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum SA v
Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD [2001] EWCA Civ 406; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76; MRI Trading AG
v Erdenet Mining Corp LLC [2013] EWCA Civ 156; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 638.
465 See above, at fn.455.
466
Foley v Classique Coaches Ltd [1934] 2 K.B. 1 at 10; the clause covered disputes as to “the
subject matter or construction of this agreement,” while the arbitration clause in May & Butcher v
R. covered “disputes with reference to or arising out of this agreement.” For the distinction
between the two forms of clause, see Heyman v Darwins [1942] A.C. 356 at 382, 392; cf. also
Vosper Thornycroft Ltd v Ministry of Defence [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 58; Queensland Electricity
Generating Board v New Hope Collieries Pty Ltd [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 205.
467 Scrutton LJ said [1934] 2 K.B. 1 at 7 that he was glad to decide in favour of the claimant
“because I do not regard the [defendants’] contention as an honest one”.
468 R.S.T.C. 49 L.Q.R. 316.
469 Foley’s case was approved by the House of Lords in G Scammell & Nephew Ltd v Ouston
[1941] A.C. 251.
470 RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH & Co KG [2010] UKSC 14; [2010]
1 W.L.R. 753 at [45] per Lord Clarke; cf. Wilson Smithett & Cape (Sugar) Ltd v Bangladesh
Sugar & Food Industries Ltd [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 at 386.
471 Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601 at 619; Bear Stearns Bank Plc v
Forum Global Equity Ltd [2007] EWHC 1576 (Comm) at [155].
472 See above para.2–081; or by imposing on one party the duty to resolve the uncertainty:
para.2–082, fn.415; Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601.
473
Though this point is not decisive: see above para.2–092, fn.459.
474
Nelson v Stewart (1991) S.L.R. 523.
475 Gliksten & Son Ltd v State Assurance Co (1922) 10 Ll.L. Rep. 604; cf. Marine Insurance Act
1906 s.31(2); contrast American Airline Inc v Hope [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 233; affirmed [1974] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 301 (“at an additional premium and geographical area to be agreed”).
476 See Shackleford’s Case (1866) L.R. 1 Ch. App. 567; Loftus v Roberts (1902) 18 T.L.R. 532;
The Intra Transporter [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132; Pagnan SpA v Granaria BV [1986] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 547; Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 485; (2001) 67
Con. L.R. 224 at [35].
477 See Brown v Gould [1972] Ch. 52 (where, however, the option was binding for the reason
stated below, fn.484).
478 Pritchard v Briggs [1980] Ch. 339.
479 See below, para.3–160; Bircham & Co Nominees (No.2) Ltd v Worrell Holdings Ltd [2001]
EWCA Civ 775; (2001) P. & C.R. 427 at [41].
480 Bircham & Co Nominees (No.2) Ltd v Worrell Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 775; (2001) P.
& C.R. 427 at [16], [23]; Tiffany Investments Ltd v Bircham & Co Nominees (No.2) Ltd [2003]
EWCA Civ 1759; [2004] 2 P. & C.R. 10.
481 Smith v Morgan [1971] 1 W.L.R. 803; cf. Snelling v John G Snelling [1973] 1 Q.B. 87 at 93;
Miller v Lakefield Estates Ltd [1988] 1 E.G.L.R. 212 (where some doubts were expressed about
Smith v Morgan).
482 See Fraser v Thames Television Ltd [1984] Q.B. 44.
483 AstraZeneca UK Ltd v Albemarle International Corp [2011] EWHC 1574 (Comm); [2011] 2
C.L.C. 252.
484 (1932) 147 L.T. 503; cf. Miller v F A Sadd & Son Ltd [1981] 3 All E.R. 265; Mamidoil-Jetoil
Greek Petroleum Company SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 at [161]–
[165]; Brown v Gould [1972] Ch. 53 (option to renew a lease “at a rent to be fixed having regard
to the market value of the premises”).
485 The Didymi [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108 at 116, 118.
486 The Didymi [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108 at 117. Contrast Willis Management (Isle of Man) Ltd
v Cable & Wireless Plc [2005] EWCA Civ 806; [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 597 (parties agreed that
one would take a “fair” share of losses incurred by the other, but the evidence indicated that the
parties meant fair share to be agreed).
487 Gillatt v Sky Television Ltd (Formerly Sky Television Plc) [2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 461.
488 Lombard Tricity Finance Ltd v Paton [1989] 1 All E.R. 918; Esso Petroleum Company v
Addison [2003] EWHC 1730 (Comm); West Sussex CC v Amberley UK Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 11.
489
The Product Star (No.2) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 397; Paragon Finance Ltd v Nash [2001]
EWCA Civ 1466; [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 1025 at [36]; cf. Cantor Fitzgerald International v
Horkulak [2004] EWCA Civ 1287; [2005] I.C.R. 402 at [48]; Lymington Marina Ltd v
Macnamara [2007] EWCA Civ; [2007] N.P.C. 27; Socimer International Bank Ltd v Standard
Bank London Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 116; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 558 at [110]. Contrast GX
Networks Ltd v Greenland [2010] EWCA Civ 784; [2010] I.R.L.R. 991 (discretion to be exercised
“by exception only”); Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 394; [2013] 3 All E.R.
607 at [57].
490 Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17; [2015] 1 W.L.R. 1661 at [103].
491 The Star Texas [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445.
492 Arcos Ltd v Aronson (1930) 36 Ll.L.R. 108; cf. Thomas Bates & Son Ltd v Wyndham’s
(Lingerie) Ltd [1981] 1 W.L.R. 505, where a lease was rectified (below, para.8–059) to include
such a clause; Queensland Electricity Generating Board v New Hope Collieries Pty Ltd [1989] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 205.
493 Alstom Signalling Ltd v Jarvis Facilities Ltd [2004] EWHC 1232 (TCC); 95 Con L.R. 55.
494 As in Heathrow Airport Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 992.
495 Sale of Goods Act 1979 s.9(1); cf. Pym v Campbell (1856) 6 E. & B. 370.
496 [1983] 1 A.C. 444.
497 Re Malpass (Deceased) [1985] Ch. 42 at 50; Tito v Waddell (No.2) [1977] Ch. 106 at 314;
The Didymi [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108 at 115.
498 i.e. not if it is “an integral and essential part of the definition of the payments to be made”:
Gillatt v Sky Television Ltd (Formerly Sky Television Plc) [2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 461 at 479.
499 As in Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton [1983] 1 A.C. 444; cf. Cream Holdings Ltd v
Davenport [2011] EWCA Civ 1287; [2012] 1 B.C.L.C. 365 (term implied that the transferor of
shares under a right of pre-emption would co-operate with the appointment of a valuer and not
unreasonably refuse to agree the terms of engagement).
500 As in Re Malpas (Deceased) [1985] Ch. 42.
501 Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Ltd [1992] B.C.L.C. 148.
502 Peel in Burrows & Peel (eds), Contract Formation and Parties (2010); Berg 119 L.Q.R. 357;
Hoskins 130 L.Q.R. 131; Trakman & Sharma [2014] C.L.J. 598.
503 For the position where this expression refers to an agreement to execute a formal document
incorporating terms on which the parties have previously agreed, see above, para.2–089.
504 Jet2.Com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 417; 142 Con L.R. 1 at [65].
Damages might be awarded on the basis of a “loss of chance”: Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro
SA Petrobas [2005] EWCA Civ 891; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 at [118]; Walford v Miles (1991)
62 P & CR 410 at 423 (Bingham LJ (dissenting)); cf. Jones v Ricoh UK Ltd [2010] EWHC 1743
(Ch) at [77]–[78]. See, generally, para.20–059 below.
505
A “loss of chance” approach was adopted in the context of breach of an agreement not to
negotiate with a third party in Dandara Holdings Ltd v Co-operative Retail Services Ltd [2004]
EWHC 1476 (Ch) (no damages awarded).
506
See para.2–099, below
507 See para.2–095, above.
508 See para.2–096, above.
509 Dhanani v Crasnianski [2011] EWHC 926 (Comm); [2011] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 799 at [95];
Mehboob Travel Ltd v Pakistan Inernational Airlines Corp [2013] EWHC 2120 (QB) at [36].
510
Chillingworth v Esche [1924] 1 Ch. 97 at 113; Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd (1932) 147 L.T.
503 at 515. See F.P. 48 L.Q.R. 141; F.W. McC. 48 L.Q.R. 310; Williams 6 M.L.R. 81.
511 Courtney & Fairbairn Ltd v Tolaini Bros (Hotels) Ltd [1975] 1 W.L.R. 297 at 301; cf. Von
Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v Alexander [1912] 1 Ch. 284 at 249; Mallozzi v Carapelli SpA [1976] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 407; The Scaptrade [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 425 at 432 (affirmed without reference to
this point [1983] 2 A.C. 694); Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum SA v Okta Crude Oil Refining
AD [2001] EWCA Civ 406; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76 at [53], [59]. Contra in the US, Hoffman v
Red Owl Stores Inc 133 N.W. 2d. 267 (1965)
512 [1992] 2 A.C. 128; Neill 108 L.Q.R. 405; Mills & Loveridge [2011] L.M.C.L.Q. 528.
513 A “lock out” agreement is enforceable where a time limit is agreed: Pitt v PHH Asset
Management Ltd [1994] 1 W.L.R. 327. Further, such an agreement is not uncertain if a temporal
limit can be implied which is not tied to the parties’ obligation to negotiate: Compere Associates
Ltd v Halsey [2004] EWHC 1317 (Ch); cf. JSD Corporation Pte Ltd v Al Waha Capital PJSC
[2009] EWHC 3376 (Ch) where the “lock-out” could be terminated for “default” and this was
held to include any failure to observe a “non-binding” undertaking to negotiate (alternatively, the
lock-out lasted for a reasonable time).
514
Walford v Miles [1992] 2 A.C. 128 at 138; cf. Surrey CC v Bredero Homes Ltd [1993] 1
W.L.R. 1361 at 1368; Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc [2001] EWCA Civ
274; [2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 737 at [68].
515 For an exception, see Re Debtors (Nos 4449 and 4450 of 1998) [1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
149 at 158 (Lloyd’s bound to negotiate in good faith with its names as it was “performing
functions in the public interest within a statutory framework”). See further: para.2–101, below.
516 In the DCFR para.I–103(1) “the expression ‘good faith and fair dealing’ refers to a standard
of conduct characterised by honesty, openness and consideration for the interests of the other
party to the transaction or relationship in question.” (Research Group on the Existing EC Private
Law (Acquis Group), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft
Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). On the meaning of “good faith” in the context of the
performance of the contract, see para.6–042, below.
517 See Walford v Miles [1992] 2 A.C. 128 at 136. In some circumstances, a quantum meruit may
be awarded to reflect the value of work done by the claimant before negotiations have broken
down: Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752; below,
para.22–021.
518 See Walford v Miles [1992] 2 A.C. 128 at 135.
519 See, in particular, the obiter dictum of Longmore LJ in Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA
Petrobas [2005] EWCA Civ 891; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 at [121]; Knatchbull-Hugessen v
SISU Capital Ltd [2014] EWHC 1194 (QB) at [23]. See also Lord Steyn, writing extra-judicially:
113 L.Q.R. 433 at 439.
520 Barbudev v Eurocom Cable Management Eood [2012] EWCA Civ 548; [2012] 2 All ER
(Comm) 963.
521 Shaker v Vistajet Group Holding SA [2012] EWHC 1329 (Comm); [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 93;
Dany Lions Ltd v Bristol Cars Ltd [2014] EWHC 817 (QB); [2014] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 403.
522 On the meaning of “best” and “reasonable” endeavours, see: Sheffield District Railway Co v
Great Central Railway Co (1911) 27 T.L.R. 471; IBM United Kingdom Ltd v Rockware Glass Ltd
[1980] F.S.R. 335 at 339, 343; Yewbelle Ltd v London Green Developments Ltd [2007] EWCA
Civ 475; [2007] 23 E.G. 164; Rhodia International Holdings Ltd v Huntsman International LLC
[2007] EWHC 292 (Comm); [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 at [33]–[35]; Jet2.Com Ltd v Blackpool
Airport Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 417; 142 Con L.R. 1.
523 Little v Courage (1995) 70 P. & C.R. 469 at 475; Phillips Petroleum Co UK Ltd v Enron
Europe Ltd (1997) C.L.C. 329 (Potter LJ); London & Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc Belfast
International Airport Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 355 at [39]; Multiplex Constructions UK Ltd v
Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd [2006] EWHC 1341 (TCC); affirmed [2007] EWCA Civ 443, without
reference to this point. Any suggestion of Lord Ackner in Walford v Miles [1992] 2 A.C. 128 that
an agreement to use best endeavours to agree is enforceable appears to have been overtaken by
these decisions.
524 Shaker v Vistajet Group Holding SA [2012] EWHC 1329 (Comm); [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 93.
525 Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobas [2005] EWCA Civ 891; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 161; Dany Lions Ltd v Bristol Cars Ltd [2014] EWHC 817 (QB); [2014] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
403 at [47].
526 Jet2.Com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 417; 142 Con L.R. 1 at [59]
(Lewison LJ dissenting); Shaker v Vistajet Group Holding SA [2012] EWHC 1329 (Comm);
[2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 93 at [17].
527
Itex Shipping v China Ocean Shipping [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 522; Cable & Wireless Plc v
IBM United Kingdom Ltd [2002] EWHC 2059 (Comm); [2003] B.L.R. 89; Sulamérica CIA
Nacional de Seguros SA v Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 102;
Wah v Grant Thornton International Ltd [2012] EWHC 3198 (Ch); [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 11.
528 [2014] EWHC 2104 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457.
529 United Group Rail Services v Rail Corp New South Wales (2009) 127 Con. L.R. 202.
530 Donwin Productions Ltd v EMI Films Ltd, The Times, March 9, 1984 (not cited in Walford v
Miles [1992] 2 A.C. 128).
531 Wah v Grant Thornton International Ltd [2012] EWHC 3198 (Ch); [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 11
at [57]. In Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobas [2005] EWCA Civ 891; [2006] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 161 the parties expressly agreed to negotiate the “reasonable cost” of an upgrade to
a vessel. There may be no uncertainty in agreeing “cost”, or a “fair price”; the courts can make a
finding as to what that might be, in the absence of the parties’ agreement (see para.2–095, above).
But Longmore LJ also thought that the court could make a finding as to an element of “uplift” by
way of profit on the basis of the obligation to negotiate in good faith; cf. Butters v BBC
Worldwide Ltd [2009] EWHC 1954 (Comm) at [148]–[151], affirmed [2009] EWCA Civ 1160;
[2010] Ch. 347 without reference to this point; Gold Group Properties Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd
[2010] EWHC 1632 (TCC) at [87].
532 The Varenna [1984] Q.B. 599 at 618.
533 Total Gas Marketing Ltd v Arco British Ltd [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 209 at 215, 218; UR Power
GmbH v Kuok Oils and Grains Pte Ltd [2009] EWHC 1940 (Comm); [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 495
at [14]–[15].
534 A contingent condition precedent may take the form of the fulfilment of a warranty, e.g. in a
compromise agreement, the employee’s warranty that he has not committed a repudiatory breach
of the employment contract: Collidge v Freeport Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 485; [2008] I.R.L.R. 697.
535 See below, paras 17–015—17–018, 18–042—18–062.
536 cf. Brown v Knowsley BC [1986] I.R.L.R. 102; Jameson v CEGB [2000] 1 A.C. 455 at 477.
537 The MV Pacific Champ [2013] EWHC 470 (Comm); [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 320 at [68]. For
special difficulties where the condition precedent is implied, see Bentworth Finance Ltd v Lubert
[1968] 1 Q.B. 680; Carnegie, 31 M.L.R. 78.
538
(1856) 6 E. &B. 370.
539
Pym v Campbell (1856) 6 E. & B. 370 at 374.
540 [1900] 1 Q.B. 694; cf. Felixstowe Dock & Ry Co v British Transport Docks Bd [1976] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 656; Alan Estates Ltd v W G Stores Ltd [1982] Ch. 511 at 520.
541 On agreements “subject to finance” see Coote 40 Conv. (N.S.) 37; Furmston 3 O.J.L.S. 438,
discussing Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 C.L.R. 571.
542
If no time is specified, the court will ordinarily imply a “reasonable time”: Beazley
Underwriting Ltd v Travelers Companies Inc [2011] EWHC 1520 (Comm); [2012] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 1241 at [185].
543 North Sea Energy Holdings NV v Petroleum Authority of Thailand [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 418
at 428–429 (affirmed on other grounds [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 483).
544 Total Gas Marketing Ltd v Arco British Ltd [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 209 at 215.
545 Total Gas Marketing v Arco British Land Ltd [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 209 at 218.
546 Total Gas Marketing v Arco British Land Ltd [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 209 at 221, 224.
547 (1881) 6 App. Cas. 251; cf. Shipping Corp of India v Naviera Letasa [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
132; CIA Barca de Panama SA v George Wimpey & Co Ltd [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 598; Cream
Holdings Ltd v Davenport [2011] EWCA Civ 1287; [2012] B.C.L.C. 365. Contrast North Sea
Energy Holdings NV v Petroleum Authority of Thailand [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 483 (duty to cooperate in bringing about the event negatived by terms of the contract).
548 Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic FC v Manchester United FC, The Times, May 22, 1980.
cf. CEL Group Ltd v Nedlloyd Lines UK Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1716; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 381
at [21]–[22]; Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1940] A.C. 108, below, para.16–088.
549 Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1300; [2006] E.M.L.R. 4 at [160].
550 See Blake & Co v Sohn [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1412.
551
See Thompson v ASDA-MFI Group Plc [1988] Ch. 241.
552
Example based on Thompson v ASDA-MFI Group Plc [1988] Ch. 241, above, and below,
para.16–088.
553 See Micklefield v SAC Technology Ltd [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1002.
554 Schweppe v Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442; [2008] B.P.I.R. 1090 at [70].
555 Lee-Parker v Izett (No.2) [1975] 1 W.L.R. 775; distinguished in Janmohammed v Hassam,
The Times, June 10, 1976.
556 Astra Trust Ltd v Adams & Williams [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81; doubted in The Merak [1976]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 250 at 254 and in Ee v Kakar (1979) 40 P. & C.R. 223.
557 But if the buyer declared his satisfaction the seller would be bound even though the survey
was not objectively satisfactory: Graham v Pitkin [1992] 1 W.L.R. 403 at 405.
558 cf. Sale of Goods Act 1979 s.18, r.4.
559 Wishart v National Association of Citizens’ Advice Bureaux [1990] I.C.R. 794.
560 Stabilad Ltd v Stephens & Carter (No.2) [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 651.
561 Stabilad Ltd v Stephens & Carter (No.2) [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 651 at 662.
562 For the requirement of communication, see Stabilad Ltd v Stephens & Carter (No.2) [1999] 2
All E.R. (Comm) 651 at 660; the requirement may be satisfied by conduct from which satisfaction
can be inferred, e.g. where a buyer of goods on approval retains them without notifying rejection
for more than the stipulated or a reasonable time: Sale of Goods Act 1999 s.18, r.4(b).
563 The John S Darbyshire [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457 at 464; cf. BV Oliehandel Jongkind v
Coastal International Ltd [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 463; contrast The Junior K [1988] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 583 at 589 (where the words were held to negative contractual intention). See also El Awadi
v Bank of Credit & Commerce International SA [1990] 1 Q.B. 606 at 619; and in an analogous
context, The Product Star (No.2) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 397 at 404 (above, para.2–096, text to
fn.489).
564
Schweppe v Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442; [2008] B.P.I.R. 1090 at [71].
565
Stabilad Ltd v Stephens & Carter Ltd (No.2) [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 651 at 659.
566 The Merak [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 250; cf. Ee v Kakar (1979) 40 P. & C.R. 223.
567 As in The John S Darbyshire [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457.
568 Hargreaves Transport Ltd v Lynch [1969] 1 W.L.R. 215 (condition not satisfied); Richard
West & Partners (Inverness) Ltd v Dick [1969] 2 Ch. 424 (similar condition satisfied); contrast
Tesco Stores Ltd v Gibson (1970) 214 E.G. 835 (no obligation on purchaser to apply for planning
permission).
569 As to which party has this duty, see H O Brandt & Co v H N Morris & Co [1917] 2 K.B. 784;
A V Pound &Co v M W Hardy & Co [1956] A.C. 588.
570
The prima facie rule may be excluded by express words which do, on their true construction,
impose an absolute duty; e.g. Peter Cassidy Seed Co Ltd v Osuustukkukauppa [1957] 1 W.L.R.
273; C Czarnikow Ltd v Centrala Handlu Zagranicznego “Rolimpex” [1979] A.C. 351 at 371;
Pagnan SpA v Tradax Ocean Transport SA [1987] 3 All E.R. 565; Yates and Carter 1 J.C.L. 57.
571 Re Anglo-Russian Merchant Traders and John Batt & Co (London) Ltd [1917] 2 K.B. 679;
Coloniale Import-Export v Loumidis & Sons [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 560; Gamerco SA v ICM Fair
Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1226 at 1231. Where the contract is expressly subject to
the approval of a public authority, there may not even be a duty to make reasonable efforts to
secure that approval: see Gyllenhammar Partners International v Sour Brodegradevna Industria
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 403.
572 Charles H Windschuegl Ltd v Alexander Pickering & Co Ltd (1950) 84 Ll.L. Rep 89 at 92–
93; Brauer & Co (Great Britain) Ltd v James Clark (Brush Materials) Ltd [1952] 2 All E.R. 497
at 501.
573 e.g. Malik v Central European Trading Agency [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 279; Agroexport v Cie.
Européenne de Céréales [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 499.
574 See Benjamin’s Sale of Goods, 9th edn (London: Sweet &Maxwell, 2014), para.18–375;
Overseas Buyers Ltd v Granadex SA [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 608 at 612.
575 (1881) 6 App. Cas. 251; above, para.2–107.
576 Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic FC v Manchester United FC, The Times, May 22, 1980;
cf. The Blankenstein [1985] 1 W.L.R. 435 (below, para.18–021); Alpha Trading Ltd v DunshawPatten Ltd [1981] Q.B. 290; George Moundreas & Co SA v Navimpex Centrala Navala [1985] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 515.
577 cf. below, para.20–019.
578 Thompson v ASDA-MFI Group Plc [1988] Ch. 241 at 266 (where the condition was said at
251 to be subsequent); Little v Courage Ltd (1995) 70 P. & C.R. 469 at 474.
579 Irwin v Wilson [2011] EWHC 326 (Ch).
580 Wood Preservation Ltd v Prior [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1077; contrast Heron Garages Properties Ltd
v Moss [1974] 1 W.L.R. 148.
581 McKillop v McMullan [1979] N.I. 85.
CHAPTER 3
CONSIDERATION1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Introduction
(a) General
(b) Definitions
Adequacy
(a) Consideration Need Not Be Adequate
(b) Nominal Consideration
(c) Attitude of Equity
Past Consideration
Consideration must Move from the Promisee
Consideration must be of Some Value
(a) Must be of Economic Value
(b) Illusory Consideration
(c) Trivial Acts or Objects
(d) Gift of Onerous Property
(e) Compromise and Forbearance to Sue
(i) Valid claims
(ii) Invalid and doubtful claims
(iii) Actual forbearance
(f) Performance of Existing Duty
(i) Duty imposed by law
(ii) Duty imposed by contract with promisor
(iii) Duty imposed by contract with a third party
Rescission and Variation
(a) Rescission
(b) Variation
(c) Waiver
(i) At common law
(ii) In equity
(d) Part Payment of a Debt
(i) General rule
(ii) Common law limitations
(iii) Equitable evasion
Proprietary Estoppel
3–001
3–001
3–004
3–013
3–013
3–014
3–016
3–017
3–023
3–027
3–027
3–028
3–031
3–033
3–034
3–034
3–036
3–040
3–043
3–044
3–047
3–053
3–056
3–057
3–062
3–066
3–066
3–076
3–100
3–100
3–102
3–111
3–118
(a)
(b)
Nature and Scope of the Doctrine
Requirements
(i) Representation or Assurance
(ii) Reliance
3–119
3–124
3–125
3–130
(iii) Detriment
3–134
(c) Effects of the Doctrine
3–135
(i) Revocability
3–135
(ii) Operation of proprietary estoppel
3–138
(iii) Proprietary and promissory estoppels contrasted 3–147
(iv) Proprietary estoppel and contract contrasted
3–152
8. Special Cases
3–153
(a) Defective Promises
3–153
(b) Unilateral Contracts
3–158
(c) Bankers’ Irrevocable Credits
3–159
(d) Firm Offers
3–160
(e) Auction Sales Without Reserve
3–162
(f) Novation of Partnership Debts
3–163
(g) Gratuitous Bailments
3–166
(h) Gratuitous Services
3–168
9. Promises in Deeds
3–170
10.
Proposals for Reform
3–174
1. INTRODUCTION
(a) General
General rule. In English law, a promise is not, as a general rule,
binding as a contract unless it is either made in a deed2 or supported by
some “consideration”. The purpose of the requirement of consideration
is to put some legal limits on the enforceability of agreements even
where they are intended to be legally binding3 and are not vitiated by
some factor such as mistake, misrepresentation, duress or illegality.4
The existence of such limits is not a peculiarity of English law, e.g. in
some civil law countries certain promises which in England are not
binding for “want of consideration” cannot be enforced unless they are
made in some special form, e.g. by a notarised writing.5 The view was,
indeed, put forward at one time that consideration was only evidence
3–001
of the intention of the parties to be bound, and that (at any rate in the
case of certain commercial contracts), such evidence could equally
well be furnished by writing.6 But the view that agreements (other than
those contained in deeds) were binding without consideration merely
because they were in writing was rejected in England over 200 years
ago,7 though it has been revived as a proposal for law reform.8 The
present position therefore is that English law limits the enforceability
of agreements (not in deeds) by reference to a complex and
multifarious body of rules known as “the doctrine of consideration”.
Doctrine based on reciprocity. This doctrine is based on the idea of
reciprocity: “something of value in the eye of the law”9 must be given
for a promise in order to make it enforceable as a contract. An
informal gratuitous promise therefore does not amount to a contract.10
A person or body to whom a promise of a gift is made from purely
sentimental or charitable motives gives nothing for the promise; and
the claims of such a promisee are less compelling than those of a
person who has given (or promised) some return for the promise.11 The
invalidity of informal gratuitous promises of this kind can also be
supported on the ground that their enforcement could prejudice third
parties such as creditors of the promisor.12 Such promises, too, may be
rashly made;13 and the requirements of executing a deed or giving
value provide at least some protection against this danger.
3–002
Promises struck down for want of consideration. The doctrine of
consideration has, however, also struck at many promises which were
not “gratuitous” in any ordinary or commercial sense. These
applications of the doctrine were brought within its scope by stressing
that consideration had to be not merely “something of value”, but
“something of value in the eye of the law”.14 The law in certain cases
refused to recognise the “value” of acts or promises which might well
be regarded as valuable by a layman. This refusal was based on many
disparate policies; so that “promises without consideration” included
many different kinds of transactions which, at first sight, had little in
common. It is this fact which is the cause of the very great complexity
of the doctrine; and which has also led to its occasional unwarranted
extensions and hence to demands for reform of the law.15
3–003
(b) Definitions
Benefit and detriment. The traditional definition of consideration
concentrates on the requirement that “something of value” must be
given and accordingly states that consideration is either some
detriment to the promisee (in that he may give value) or some benefit
to the promisor (in that he may receive value).16 Usually, this detriment
and benefit are merely the same thing looked at from different points
of view. Thus payment by a buyer is consideration for the seller’s
promise to deliver and can be described as a detriment to the buyer or
as a benefit to the seller; and conversely delivery by a seller is
consideration for the buyer’s promise to pay and can be described
either as a detriment to the seller or as a benefit to the buyer. These
statements relate to the consideration for the promise of each party
looked at separately. For example, the seller suffers a “detriment”
when he delivers the goods and this enables him to enforce the buyer’s
promise to pay the price. It is quite irrelevant that the seller has made a
good bargain and so gets a benefit from the performance of the
contract. What the law is concerned with is the consideration for a
promise—not the consideration for a contract.
3–004
Either benefit or detriment sufficient. Under the traditional
definition it is sufficient if there is either a detriment to the promisee or
a benefit to the promisor. Thus detriment to the promisee suffices even
though the promisor does not benefit,17 e.g. where A guarantees B’s
bank overdraft and the promisee bank suffers detriment by advancing
money to B, then A is bound by his promise, even though he gets no
benefit from the advance to B.18 One view, indeed, was that
“Detriment to the promisee is of the essence of the doctrine, and
benefit to the promisor is, when it exists, merely an accident”.19 But
the view that benefit to the promisor is, on its own, sufficient to satisfy
the requirement of consideration is supported by a number of cases20 in
which promises were enforced on the ground that such a benefit had
been conferred, even though there was no apparent detriment to the
promisee.
3–005
Benefit and detriment may be factual or legal. The traditional
definition of consideration lacks precision because the key notions of
“benefit” and “detriment” are used in at least two senses. They may
refer, first, to any act21 which is of some value, or, secondly, only to
acts, the performance of which is not already legally due from the
3–006
promisee. In the first sense, there is consideration if a benefit or
detriment is in fact obtained or suffered. When the words are used in
the second sense this factual benefit or detriment is disregarded, and a
notion of what may be called legal benefit or detriment is substituted.
Under this notion, the promisee may provide consideration by doing
anything that he was not legally bound to do, whether or not it actually
occasions a detriment to him or confers a benefit on the promisor;
while conversely, he may provide no consideration by doing only what
he was legally bound to do, however much this may in fact occasion a
detriment to him or confer a benefit on the promisor. The English
courts have not consistently adopted either of these senses of the
words “benefit” and “detriment.” In some of the situations to be
discussed in this chapter, factual benefit is stressed22 even though legal
detriment may also have been present; while in others the absence of a
legal detriment or benefit has in the past been regarded as decisive.23
One more recent authority24 regards factual benefit to the promisor as
sufficient in one such situation, even in the absence of a legal benefit
to him or of a legal detriment to the promisee and it is possible (though
far from certain) that this approach may spread to at least some25 of the
situations in which the courts have in the past insisted on legal benefit
or detriment.
Other definitions. The traditional definition of consideration in terms
of benefit and detriment is sometimes regarded as unsatisfactory. One
cause of dissatisfaction is that it is thought to be wrong to talk of
benefit and detriment when both parties expect to, and actually may,
benefit from the contract. But this reasoning falls, with respect, into
the error of treating the subject-matter of the definition as the
consideration for a contract,26 when the definition is actually
concerned with the consideration for a promise.27 Another cause of
dissatisfaction is the artificial reasoning that is sometimes necessary to
accommodate decided cases within the traditional definition. Sir
Frederick Pollock has, accordingly, described consideration as simply
“the price for which the promise is bought”.28 This statement has been
approved in the House of Lords;29 but if it is to be regarded as a
definition of consideration it is defective in being so vague as to give
no help in determining whether consideration exists on a given set of
facts. A view which leads to even more uncertainty is that
consideration “means a reason for the enforcement of promises”30—
3–007
that reason being simply “the justice of the case”.31 But “the justice of
the case” is in almost all the decided cases highly debatable, so that the
suggested definition provides no basis for formulating a coherent legal
doctrine.32 A modification of the suggested definition, describing
consideration as “a reason for the recognition of an obligation”,33 is
open to the same objection. Of course the traditional definition does
not provide complete (or even a very high degree of) certainty. But it
does state the doctrine in a way which gives some basis for predicting
the course of future decisions; and it has more support in the
authorities than any other definition. For these reasons it will be used
in this chapter.
Mutual promises. So far we have discussed performance by one party
as consideration for the promise of the other, e.g. payment by a buyer
as the consideration for the seller’s promise to deliver, or delivery by a
seller as consideration for the buyer’s promise to pay. It is, however,
also well settled that mutual promises can be consideration for each
other. Hence if a seller promises to deliver goods in six months’ time
and the buyer to pay for them on delivery, there is an immediately
binding contract from which neither party can withdraw, though, of
course, performance cannot be claimed till the appointed time.
Implied, no less than express, promises can constitute consideration
for each other.34
Some difficulty has been felt in explaining the rule that mutual
promises can be consideration for each other. At first sight, it might
seem that the mere giving of a promise was not a detriment, nor its
receipt a benefit, so as to make the counter-promise binding. It will not
do to say that the person making the promise suffers a detriment
because he is legally bound to perform it; for if this assumption is
made about one of the promises, it must also be made of the other, so
that the “explanation” assumes the very point in issue. Probably the
reason for the rule is simpler. A person who makes a commercial
promise expects to have to perform it (and is in fact under considerable
pressure to do so). Correspondingly, one who receives such a promise
expects it to be kept. These expectations, which can exist even where
the promise is not legally enforceable,35 are based on commercial
morality, and can properly be called a detriment and a benefit; hence
they satisfy the requirement of consideration in the case of mutual
promises. But there must, at least, be a counter-promise from the
3–008
promisee: “A promise does not become contractually binding simply
because the making of the promise is potentially advantageous to the
promisor”.36
As a general rule a promise is regarded as consideration for a
counter-promise only if its performance would also have been so
regarded.37 It follows that a mere promise to accept a gift cannot be
consideration for the promise to make it. Similarly, we shall see that a
debtor who actually pays part of a debt does not thereby provide
consideration for the creditor’s promise to release the balance38 and the
position is exactly the same if the debtor promises part-payment in
return for the creditor’s counter-promise to accept the part-payment in
full settlement.
Invented consideration. Normally, a party enters into a contract with
a view to obtaining the consideration provided by the other, e.g. the
buyer wants the goods and the seller the price. In the US it has been
said that this is essential, and that “Nothing is consideration that is not
regarded as such by both parties.”39 But English courts do not insist on
this requirement and often regard an act or forbearance as the
consideration for a promise even though it may not have been the
object of the promisor to secure it,40 or the promisee may not have
consciously realised that he was giving what was, in fact,
consideration.41 They may also regard the possibility of some prejudice
to the promisee as a detriment without regard to the question whether
it has in fact been suffered.42 These practices may be called “inventing
consideration”, and the temptation to adopt one or the other of them is
particularly strong when the act or forbearance which was actually
bargained for cannot be regarded as consideration for some reason
which is thought to be technical and without merit. In such cases the
practice of inventing consideration may help to make the operation of
the doctrine of consideration more acceptable; but the practice may
also be criticised43 on the ground that it gives the courts a wide
discretion to hold promises binding (or not) as they please. Thus the
argument that the promisee might have suffered prejudice by acting in
reliance on a promise is in some cases made a basis of decision,44
while in others precisely the same argument is rejected.45 The courts
have not been very consistent in the exercise of this discretion and its
existence is a source of considerable uncertainty in this branch of the
law.
3–009
Motive and consideration. In Thomas v Thomas46 a testator shortly
before his death expressed a desire that his widow should during her
life have the house in which he lived, or £100. After his death, his
executors “in consideration of such desire” promised to convey the
house to the widow during her life or for so long as she should
continue a widow, “provided nevertheless and it is hereby further
agreed” that she should pay £1 per annum towards the ground rent,
and keep the house in repair. In an action by the widow for breach of
this promise, the consideration for it was stated to be the widow’s
promise to pay and repair. An objection that the declaration omitted to
state part of the consideration, namely the testator’s desire, was
rejected. Patteson J said: “Motive is not the same thing with
consideration. Consideration means something which is of value in the
eye of the law, moving from the [claimant].”47 This remark should not
be misunderstood: a common motive for making a promise is the
desire to obtain the consideration; and an act or forbearance on the part
of the promisee may fail to constitute consideration precisely because
it was not the promisor’s motive to secure it, e.g. where A promises to
give B £1,000 and B thereupon buys a diamond ring. What Patteson J
meant was that a motive for promising does not amount to
consideration unless two further conditions are satisfied, viz: (i) that
the thing secured in exchange for the promise is “of some value in the
eye of the law”;48 and (ii) that it moves from the promisee.49
Consideration and motive are not opposites; the former concept is a
subdivision of the latter. The consideration for a promise is (unless it is
nominal or invented)50 always a motive for promising; but a motive for
making a promise is not necessarily consideration for it in law. Thus
the testator’s desire in Thomas v Thomas was a motive for the
executors’ promise, but not part of the consideration for it. The
widow’s promise to pay and repair was another motive for the
executors’ promise and did constitute the consideration.
3–010
Consideration and condition. Thomas v Thomas also illustrates the
difference between consideration and condition:51 the claimant’s
remaining a widow was not part of the consideration but a condition of
her entitlement to enforce the executors’ promise. Similarly, in Carlill
v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co52 the claimant provided consideration for
the defendants’ promise by using the smoke-ball; but her catching
influenza was only a condition of her entitlement to enforce that
3–011
promise. In these cases, the promisee can be said to have performed
the condition, but such performance was not requested by the
promisor.53 Where the promisee’s performance of the condition is (or
can reasonably be regarded as having been) so requested, it can
constitute consideration,54 e.g. where A promised B to convey a plot of
land to B if B built a house on it, B could enforce the promise after he
had built the house.55
Limited effects of promises without consideration. A promise that is
not supported by consideration may nevertheless give rise to certain
legal effects. In particular, English law places certain restrictions on
the revocability of a promise where the promisee has acted on it in a
way that the promisor could have anticipated but had not requested;
and it may give a remedy against a promisor who would be unjustly
enriched if he were allowed freely to revoke his promise after such
action in reliance on it by the promisee. These limited legal effects of
promises without consideration will be discussed later in this chapter:56
here it is only necessary to emphasise that they do not give such
promises the full consequences of binding contracts. Thus the
restrictions on their revocability may be only temporary57 and breach
of the promise may not entitle the injured party to the full loss of
bargain damages normally awarded for breach of contract,58 or may
not entitle him to them as of right.59 Only a promise supported by
consideration (or one made in a deed) has these full contractual effects.
The limited effects of promises without consideration may therefore
have mitigated some of the rigours of the strict doctrine; but they have
not eliminated consideration as an essential requirement of a binding
contract.60
3–012
2. ADEQUACY
(a) Consideration Need Not Be Adequate
Under the doctrine of consideration, a promise has no contractual force
unless some value has been given for it. But the courts do not, in
general, ask whether adequate value has been given,61 or whether the
agreement is harsh or one-sided.62 The reason for this is not that the
courts cannot value the promise of each party: they have to do just this
when assessing damages.63 It is rather that they should not interfere
3–013
with the bargain actually made by the parties. The fact that a person
pays “too much” or “too little” for a thing may be evidence of fraud or
mistake, or induce the court to imply a term as to the quality of the
subject-matter or be relevant to the question whether a contract has
been frustrated.64 But it does not of itself affect the validity of the
contract. This state of the law sometimes causes dissatisfaction, e.g.
when it is said that “excessive” prices are charged for goods or
services or accommodation. Such problems are, however, more
appropriately dealt with by special legislation or by administrative
measures than by the ordinary process of civil litigation. The courts are
not well equipped to develop a system of price-control, and their
refusal, as a general rule, to concern themselves with the adequacy of
consideration is a reflection of this fact. At the same time, the general
rule is subject to a number of exceptions, to be discussed later in this
book.65 These indicate that the courts are (even where the legislature
has not intervened) by no means insensitive to the problem of unequal
bargains; but in none of them is a promise held invalid merely because
adequate value for it has not been given. Some additional factor is
required to bring a case within one of the exceptions, e.g. the existence
of a relationship in which one party is able to take an unfair advantage
of the other. The general rule remains that “no bargain will be upset
which is the result of the ordinary interplay of forces”.66
(b) Nominal Consideration
Sufficiency of nominal consideration. The rule that consideration
need not be adequate makes it possible to evade the doctrine of
consideration, in the sense that a gratuitous promise can be made
binding by means of a nominal consideration, e.g. £1 for the promise
of valuable property, or a peppercorn for a substantial sum of money.
Such cases are merely extreme applications of the rule that the courts
will not judge the adequacy of consideration.67 If, however, it appears
on the face of the agreement that the consideration must as a matter of
arithmetic be worth less than the performance of the counter-promise,
there would seem to be no contract, e.g. if A promised to pay B £100
in return for £1 to be simultaneously paid by B. It is assumed in the
example that both sums are simply to be paid in legal tender. An
agreement to exchange a specific coin or coins of a particular
description for a sum of money greater than their face value (e.g. 20
3–014
shilling pieces bearing the date 1900 for £100) would be a good
contract. The same would be true of an agreement to pay a sum in one
currency in exchange for one payable in another, and of an agreement
to pay a larger sum tomorrow in exchange for a smaller sum paid
today.
Where an agreement is legally binding on the ground that it is
supported by nominal consideration, the doctrine of consideration does
not serve its main purpose, of distinguishing between gratuitous and
onerous promises. But the law has no settled policy against enforcing
all gratuitous promises. It refuses to enforce only informal gratuitous
promises; and the deliberate use of a nominal consideration can be
regarded as a form to make a gratuitous promise binding. In some
cases it may, indeed, be undesirable to give nominal consideration the
same legal effect as substantial consideration; but these cases are best
dealt with by special rules.68 Such rules are particularly necessary
where the promise can cause prejudice to third parties. For example,
the danger that company promoters might use the device of nominal
consideration to the prejudice of shareholders is avoided by imposing
fiduciary duties on the promoters.69
Nominal
consideration
distinguished
from
inadequate
consideration. It is not normally necessary to distinguish between
“nominal” and “inadequate” consideration, since both equally suffice
to make a promise binding. The need to draw the distinction may,
however, arise in some of the exceptional cases70 in which the law
treats promises or transfers supported only by nominal consideration
differently from those supported by consideration which is substantial
or “valuable” (even though it may be inadequate).
One view is that a nominal consideration is one which is of only
token value,71 while an inadequate consideration is one which has
substantial value even though it is manifestly less than that of the
performance promised or rendered in return. A second view is that
“‘[n]ominal consideration’ and a ‘nominal sum’ appear..., as terms of art, to refer to a sum
or consideration which can be mentioned as consideration but is not necessarily paid.”72
This was the view of Lord Wilberforce in Midland Bank & Trust Co
Ltd v Green,73 where a husband sold a farm, said to be worth £40,000,
to his wife for £500. It was held that the wife was, for the purposes of
the Land Charges Act 1925 s.13(2), a “purchaser for money or
3–015
money’s worth” so that the sale to her prevailed over an unregistered
option to purchase the land, which had been granted to one of the
couple’s sons.74 It was not necessary to decide whether the
consideration for the sale was nominal but Lord Wilberforce said that
he would have had “great difficulty” in so holding; and that “[t]o
equate ‘nominal’ with ‘inadequate’ or even ‘grossly inadequate’
consideration would embark the law on inquiries which I cannot think
were ever intended by Parliament”,75 i.e. inquiries into the adequacy of
the price. On the facts of the case the £500 was in fact paid and was
more than a mere token, so that the consideration was not nominal on
either of the two views stated above. But if the stated consideration
had been only £1, or a peppercorn, it is submitted that it would have
been nominal even if it had been paid, or delivered, in accordance with
the intention of the parties. So to hold would not lead to enquiries as to
the adequacy of consideration; for the distinction between a
consideration that is a mere token and one that is inadequate (or even
grossly inadequate) is, it is submitted, clear as a matter of common
sense. Thus where the question was whether a lease amounted to a
“disposition … for a nominal consideration”76 it was said that “[a]ny
substantial value—that is, a value of more than, say, £5 … will prevent
[the] disposition from being for a nominal consideration”.77 Such an
approach gives rise to no more difficulty than the concept of a
consideration which is “mentioned as a consideration but … not
necessarily paid”. That test would presumably make the question
whether consideration was nominal turn on the intention of the parties;
and, in the present context, this would be an even more elusive than
usual criterion, since no guidance could be obtained from the terms of
the contract, those terms being, in cases of this kind, often deliberately
drafted so as to conceal the true nature of the transaction.
(c) Attitude of Equity
Equity recognised the general rule that the validity of a contract could
not be challenged merely on the ground of inadequacy of
consideration.78 But it sometimes refused specific performance, or set a
contract aside, or even reopened it (i.e. varied its terms) on the ground
that adequate value had not been given to a party who was thought to
need special protection.79 Equity also refuses to aid a “volunteer”—i.e.
a person who has given no substantial consideration but can
3–016
nonetheless enforce a promise at law because it was made in a deed or
supported by nominal consideration.80 It was evidently thought that
even such formal gratuitous promises did not deserve the same degree
of enforcement as those for which substantial value had been given,
and so the equitable remedy of specific performance is not available in
respect of such a promise.81
3. PAST CONSIDERATION
General rule. The consideration for a promise must be given in return
for the promise. If A makes a present of a car to B and a year later B
promises to pay A £500 there is no consideration for B’s promise as A
did not give B the car in return for it. This reasoning often applies
where there is an interval of time between an act and the promise said
to have been given in return for it. The alleged consideration is then
said to be “past consideration” and therefore bad.82 Thus if a thing is
guaranteed after it has been sold there is no consideration for the
guarantee.83 Similarly, a promise to pay a sum of money may be made
to an employee after his retirement or to an agent after the termination
of the agency. If the sole consideration for the promise is the service
previously rendered by the employee or agent under the terminated
contract, it will be a past consideration so that the promise will not be
contractually binding.84 It will be so binding only if some
consideration, other than the past service, has been provided by the
promisee. Such other consideration may consist in his giving up rights
which are outstanding (or are in good faith believed to be outstanding)
under the original contract,85 or in his promising or accomplishing
some other act or forbearance not due from him under the original
contract, e.g. in his validly promising not to compete with the
promisor.86
3–017
When consideration is past. In determining whether consideration is
past, the court is not, it is submitted, bound to apply a strictly
chronological test. If the consideration and the promise are
substantially one transaction, the exact order in which these events
occur is not decisive.87 A manufacturer’s “guarantee” may be given to
a customer after he has bought the goods. But the consideration for the
guarantee would not be past if the sale and the giving of the
“guarantee” were in substance a single transaction,88 as they would be
3–018
if the customer at the time of the sale thought that he was buying a
guaranteed product.89 The question whether consideration is past is one
of fact: the wording of the agreement is not decisive. Thus in Re
McArdle90 a promise made “in consideration of your carrying out”
certain work was held to be gratuitous as the work had already been
done. Conversely, a promise made “in consideration of your having
today advanced … £750” has been held binding on proof that the
advance was made at the same time as the promise.91
Past consideration as good consideration. A past act can be
consideration for a promise if three conditions are satisfied: the act
must have been done at the request of the promisor;92 it must have
been understood that payment would be made; and the payment, if it
had been promised in advance, must have been legally recoverable.93
In such a case the promisee is, quite apart from the subsequent
promise, entitled to a reasonable sum for his services by way of a
quantum meruit. The promise can be regarded either as fixing the
amount of that sum94 or as being given in consideration of the
promisee’s releasing his claim for such a payment. On the other hand,
a past service which was not done at the request of the promisor, or
one for which payment was not expected, or one for which payment,
though expected, is not legally recoverable, is no consideration for a
subsequent promise to pay for it.95
The consideration for a promise by A can consist not only of a past
act done by B at A’s request, but also of an earlier promise made by B
at A’s request. Thus in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long96 the claimants had
promised the defendants that for one year they would not sell certain
shares in a company of which the defendants were the principal
shareholders. This promise had been made at the request of the
defendants, who were anxious to prevent the value of their own
holding from being depressed by a sudden sale of the claimants’
shares. Later, the defendants gave the claimants a guarantee in which
they promised to indemnify the claimants against any loss which they
might suffer if, during the year, the shares fell in value.97 The Privy
Council rejected the argument that the consideration for the guarantee
was past.98 The claimants’ promise not to sell the shares was good
consideration for the guarantee; for although that promise had been
made before the guarantee was given, it had been made at the
defendants’ request and on the understanding that the claimants were,
3–019
in return for making it, to receive some form of protection against the
risk (to which the promise exposed them) of a fall in the value of those
shares.
Antecedent debt. In a number of cases it has been held that the mere
existence of an antecedent debt does not constitute “value” for a
transfer by the debtor as it amounts only to past consideration.99 These
cases are not directly concerned with the question whether such an
antecedent debt can constitute consideration for a later promise by the
debtor, e.g. for one to pay higher interest or to pay early. But they may,
by analogy, support the view that, where the only possible
consideration for such a promise is an antecedent debt owed by the
promisor to the promisee, then such consideration is past, so that the
promise is not contractually binding.100 In practice, however, the
creditor (i.e. the promisee) will often provide consideration for such a
promise by forbearing, on the strength of it, to sue for the debt.101
3–020
Moral obligation. It is clear that the moral obligation to perform a
promise, once made, cannot provide consideration for it, since this
would “annihilate the necessity for any consideration at all.”102 Nor is
consideration provided by any antecedent moral obligation. Thus in
Eastwood v Kenyon103 the guardian of a young girl had raised a loan to
pay for her maintenance and education, and to improve her estate.
After she had come of age and married, her husband promised the
guardian to pay the amount of the loan. The court dismissed the
guardian’s action on this promise; the mere existence of the antecedent
moral obligation to reimburse the guardian did not amount to
consideration for the husband’s promise.104
3–021
Statutory exceptions. There are two exceptions to the rule that past
consideration is no consideration. First, an “antecedent debt or
liability” is good consideration for a bill of exchange.105 Secondly, the
Limitation Act 1980106 provides that, where a debtor in a writing
signed by him107 “acknowledges” a debt, it shall be deemed to have
accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment. An
“acknowledgment” need not take the form of a promise;108 but if it
does take this form the promise can extend the period of limitation
even though the only consideration for it was the antecedent debt, and
thus past. Further acknowledgments made within such an extended
3–022
period or periods have the same effect.109 But once the debt has
become statute-barred the right to sue for it cannot be revived by any
subsequent acknowledgment:110 to this extent, the old “moral
obligation” theory as applied to statute-barred debts111 has been
reversed.
4. CONSIDERATION MUST MOVE FROM THE PROMISEE
Promisee must provide consideration. The rule that consideration
must “move from the promisee”112 means that a person to whom a
promise was made can enforce it only if he himself provided the
consideration for it. He has no such right if the consideration moved
from a third party. Thus if A promises B to pay £10,000 to B if C will
paint A’s house, and C does so, B cannot enforce A’s promise (unless,
of course, B had procured, or undertaken to procure, C to do the
work). The promisee need not, however, provide the whole
consideration for the promise: thus he can enforce a promise, the
consideration for which was provided partly by himself and partly by
his agent or partner or by some other co-promisee.113
3–023
Consideration need not move to promisor. While consideration must
move from the promisee, it need not move to the promisor.114 It
follows that the requirement of consideration may be satisfied where
the promisee suffers some detriment at the promisor’s request, but
confers no corresponding benefit on the promisor. Thus the promisee
may provide consideration by giving up a job115 or the tenancy of a
flat,116 even though no direct benefit results to the promisor from these
acts. Consideration may also move from the promisee without moving
to the promisor where the promisee at the promisor’s request confers a
benefit on a third party, e.g. by entering into a contract with the third
party.117 This possibility is illustrated by the case in which goods are
bought and paid for by the use of a debit card or credit card. The issuer
of the card makes a promise to the supplier of the goods that the
supplier will be paid; and the supplier provides consideration for this
promise by supplying the goods to the customer.118 In the case of the
credit card transaction, there is also consideration in the shape of the
discount allowed by the supplier of the goods to the issuer of the card:
this is both a detriment to the supplier and a benefit to the issuer.119
3–024
Benefit to promisor sufficient. The requirement that consideration
must move from the promisee at first sight supports the view that the
essence of consideration is detriment to the promisee. But the
requirement may be satisfied, even though the promisee in fact suffers
no detriment, if he confers a benefit on the promisor, or on a third
party at the promisor’s request. This possibility is illustrated by
Edmonds v Lawson,120 where the relationship between a pupil barrister
and the members of the chambers at which she had accepted an offer
of pupillage was held to be contractual even though she paid no
pupillage fee. The requirement of consideration was satisfied in that
her (and other pupils’) agreement to accept pupillage “provide[d] a
pool of selected candidates who can be expected to compete with each
other for recruitment as tenants”,121 and in that “chambers may see an
advantage in developing close relationships with pupils who plan to
practise as employed barristers or overseas”.122 Both these factors
stress the benefit to the promisors (the members of the chambers),
moving from the promisee (the pupil barrister) even though no
detriment was suffered by her.
The view that consideration can move from the promisee though he
in fact suffers no detriment is supported by two further rules to be
discussed later in this chapter. The first is that performance of an
existing contractual duty (or a promise to perform such a duty) can
constitute consideration if it benefits the promisor:123 this benefit
“moves” from the promisee in that it is conferred by him, even though
it may cause him no detriment124 in the sense that he was already
bound to do the acts in question. The second is that a composition
agreement between a debtor and his creditors is binding because it
benefits the creditors;125 and this benefit can be said to “move” from
the debtor in that his co-operation is essential to the making and
performance of the composition agreement. It could be said that the
debtor suffers a legal detriment by signing the agreement when he is
not bound to do so. But the rule is not based on this invented
consideration.126 It is based on benefit to the promisors.127
3–025
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Under this Act, a term
in a contract between A (the promisor) and B (the promisee) is, in
specified conditions, enforceable by a third party, C, against A. The
Act is more fully discussed in Ch.14;128 the only points to be made
here are that C is not prevented from enforcing the term by the fact
3–026
that no consideration for A’s promise moved from him,129 and that C’s
right to enforce that promise can be described as a quasi-exception to
the rule that consideration must move from the promisee.130 It is not a
true exception to the rule since in the case put the promisee is B, who
must provide consideration for A’s promise.
5. CONSIDERATION MUST BE OF SOME VALUE
(a) Must be of Economic Value
An act, forbearance or promise will amount to consideration only if the
law recognises that it has some economic value. It may have such
value even though the value cannot be precisely quantified. But
“natural affection of itself is not a sufficient consideration”,131 and the
same is true of other merely sentimental motives for promising. This is
the reason why in Thomas v Thomas132 the desire of the testator that
his widow should live in his house was not part of the consideration
for the executors’ promise that she might do so. Similar reasoning may
also explain the decision in White v Bluett133 that a son had not
provided consideration (for his father’s promise not to sue him on a
promissory note) by promising not to bore his father with complaints.
3–027
(b) Illusory Consideration
Promise impossible to perform. A promise may appear to be made
for some consideration which is illusory and which must therefore be
disregarded. One such situation can arise when the alleged
consideration consists of a promise, the performance of which is, to
the knowledge of both parties, impossible. For example, a promise by
A to pay B £100 in return for B’s promise to let A have all the wine in
B’s cellar would probably be regarded as a gratuitous promise if, when
the promise was made, both A and B knew134 that there was no wine in
the cellar. The position would be different if B’s promise were to
deliver the future contents of the cellar. In that case, A would be
buying the chance of the cellar’s containing wine;135 and the value of
that chance would be illusory only if the question whether any wine
was to be put into the cellar had been left entirely to B’s discretion.136
3–028
Promisee would have accomplished act or forbearance in any
event. A second situation in which consideration would be illusory is
3–029
where the promisee would have accomplished the act or forbearance
anyway, even if the promise had not been made. This will be the
position if A promises B, who has religious objections to smoking, £5
if he will not smoke for a week. Since “it is no consideration to refrain
from a course of conduct which it was never intended to pursue”,137
such a promise would not be legally binding. But where the promise
provided an inducement for the act or forbearance, the requirement of
consideration would be satisfied even though there were also other
inducements operating on the mind of the promisee.138 It seems that the
burden of proving that the requested act or forbearance would have
been accomplished, even if the promise had not been made, is on the
promisor.139
Promise of performance at the discretion of the promisor.140
Consideration would again be illusory where it was alleged to consist
of a promise the terms of which left performance entirely to the
discretion of the promisor.141 A person does not provide consideration
by promising to do something “if I feel like it”, or “unless I change my
mind”; and the same principle may apply in analogous cases.142 Thus a
promise may be illusory if it is accompanied by a clause effectively
excluding all liability of the promisor for breach.143 And a promise to
buy “so much coal as I may decide to order” would be an illusory
consideration for the seller’s counter-promise to deliver, which could
therefore not be enforced.144 On the other hand, if the promise were to
buy “so much of the coal that I require as I may order from you”, the
court could give reality to the promise by implying a term into it to the
effect that at least a reasonable part of any requirements which the
promisor actually turned out to have must be ordered from the
promisee. Equally a buyer would provide consideration by promising
to buy from the seller “all the coal I require”; for in such a case, even
if the buyer does not promise to have any requirements, he does at
least give a definite undertaking not to deal with anybody else.145
Similarly, a promise which is subject to cancellation by A may
nevertheless constitute consideration for a counter-promise from B
where A’s power to cancel is limited by the express terms of the
promise, e.g. where it can be exercised only within a specified time.
Such a limitation on the power to cancel may also be implied, so that
(e.g.) A could not cancel after B had begun to perform his counterpromise. A’s promise would then constitute consideration, so that B
3–030
would be liable if he failed to complete the performance. Finally, the
objection that a promise amounts only to illusory consideration on the
grounds here discussed can be removed if the promise is performed:
such actual performance can constitute consideration even though the
person who has rendered it was not legally obliged to render it.146
(c) Trivial Acts or Objects
Acts of very small value. Since consideration need not be adequate,
acts or omissions of very small value can be consideration.147 Thus it
has been said that the act of executing a deed could be consideration
for a promise to pay money although the deed was void;148 that to
show a person a document was consideration;149 that the grant of
permission to cut back undergrowth was consideration for the grant of
a licence to occupy land;150 and that the mere act of conducting
negotiations can satisfy the requirement of consideration, even though
that act does not commit the promisee to bringing the negotiations to a
successful conclusion.151
3–031
Objects of trifling value. On the same principle, objects of trifling
value can constitute consideration. In Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co
Ltd,152 chocolate manufacturers sold gramophone records for 1s. 6d.
plus three wrappers of their 6d.bars of chocolate. It was held that the
delivery of the wrappers formed part of the consideration, though the
wrappers were of little value and were in fact thrown away. If the
delivery of the wrappers formed part of the consideration it could,
presumably, have formed the whole of the consideration, so that a
promise to deliver records for wrappers alone would have been
binding. This case should be contrasted with Lipkin Gorman v
Karpnale Ltd,153 where gaming chips supplied by a gaming club to one
of its members (and then lost by the member in the course of the
gaming) were held not to constitute consideration for the money which
the member had paid for them.154 One reason for this view appears to
have been that “the chips themselves were worthless”;155 but this is
equally true of the wrappers in the Chappell case. Another seems to
have been that the chips “remained the property of the club”;156 but this
again would not of itself be decisive, for the transfer of possession (no
less than that of ownership) can constitute consideration.157 A third
reason for the view that the chips were not consideration for the money
3–032
may be that the parties did not so regard the transaction: they regarded
the chips as merely “a convenient mechanism for facilitating
gambling”,158 and the case may be one in which the court refused to
“invent” consideration159 (by regarding something as consideration
which was not so regarded by the parties) even though this course was
technically open to it. This refusal appears to have been based on the
context in which the question arose. The issue was not whether the
club could sue the member on any promise made by him: it arose
because the money paid by the member to the club had been stolen;
and the club, which had received the money in good faith, argued that
it had given valuable consideration for it, so as to defeat the true
owner’s claim for the return of the money. This explanation of the case
derives some support from Lord Goff ‘s discussion of a hypothetical
case of tokens supplied by a department store in exchange for cash. He
said that “by receiving the money in these circumstances the store does
not for present purposes give valuable consideration for it”;160 yet he
also accepted that (in the store example) “an independent contract is
made for the chips when the customer originally obtains them at the
cash desk”.161 The question whether a party has provided consideration
may thus receive one answer when it arises for the purpose of
determining the enforceability of a promise, and a different and
narrower one when it arises for the purpose of determining whether a
transaction has adversely affected the rights of an innocent third
party.162 It was the desire to protect the victim of the theft which led
the House of Lords in the Lipkin Gorman case to reject the (no doubt
somewhat technical) argument that the chips constituted consideration
for the money.
The Lipkin Gorman case gives rise to further difficulty because the
chips were supplied on the terms that they could be used, not only for
gaming, but also to purchase refreshments at the club. There was no
evidence of their having been used for this purpose,163 but Lord
Templeman said that “neither the power to buy refreshments nor the
exercise of that power could constitute consideration for the receipt
[by the club] of £154,693”, (the sum lost by the member of the
club).164 One possible interpretation of this passage is that the supply
of refreshments could not constitute consideration for £154,693 since
the disparity in value was too great; but this would be inconsistent with
the principle that consideration need not be adequate. It is submitted
that the preferable explanation of Lord Templeman’s statement is that
the chips were simply “treated as currency”165 in the club and could be
used for a variety of transactions. The reason why the supply of
refreshments was not consideration for the face value of the chips lost
at play was simply that these transactions were entirely separate ones.
(d) Gift of Onerous Property
A promise to give away onerous property is binding if the donee
promises in return to discharge obligations attached to it. Thus a
promise to give away a leasehold house is binding if the donee
promises to perform the donor’s covenants under the lease, e.g. to
repair, to insure and to pay rent;166 a promise to give away a freehold
house is binding if the donee promises to pay outstanding mortgage
instalments or other charges;167 and a promise to give away partly
paid-up shares in a company is binding if the donee promises to pay
further calls which may be made on the shares.168
3–033
(e) Compromise and Forbearance to Sue169
(i) Valid claims
Promise to release a valid claim is good consideration.170 A promise
not to enforce a valid claim is clearly good consideration for a promise
given in return.171 If, for example, A is injured by the admitted
negligence of B, they can validly compromise the claim, A’s promise
not to sue B constituting the consideration for B’s promise to pay the
agreed compensation. Similarly, a creditor to whom a sum of money
has become due may promise to give the debtor extra time to pay in
return for the debtor’s promise to pay higher interest or to give
additional security. In such a case there is good consideration for the
debtor’s promise: he benefits by getting extra time to pay, while the
creditor suffers a detriment in that he is, for a time, kept out of his
money.172 There is such benefit to the debtor and detriment to the
creditor even if the creditor promises to forbear for only a limited time;
and if no time is specified, the court will infer that he undertook to
forbear for a reasonable time.173
3–034
Promise to abandon a defence, or a remedy. The principles just
stated apply, not only to a promise not to enforce a claim, but also to a
promise to abandon a good defence;174 and to a promise to abandon a
3–035
particular remedy, e.g. to one to abandon arbitration proceedings.175
(ii) Invalid and doubtful claims
Claims known to be invalid. It used to be thought that a promise by A
not to enforce a claim which was invalid was no consideration for a
promise given by B in return, since B, if he was not liable, did not
benefit from A’s promise not to sue him, while A lost nothing by
giving up a worthless right.176 This reasoning still applies where the
sole177 consideration provided by A is his forbearance to enforce a
claim which is clearly invalid and which he either knows to be invalid
or does not believe to be valid.178
3–036
Doubtful claims. Where the claim is doubtful in law, a promise to
abandon it involves the possibility of detriment to the potential
claimant and of benefit to the other party. Such a promise is therefore
good consideration for a counter-promise given by the latter party, e.g.
for one to pay a sum of money to the party promising to abandon the
claim.179
3–037
Claims wrongly believed to be valid. A promise by A to abandon a
claim is also good consideration for a counter-promise made by B,
even though A’s claim is clearly bad in law, if it is believed by A to be
a valid one.180 One reason which has been given for this rule is that
otherwise “in no case of a doubtful claim could a compromise be
enforced”;181 but this does not explain why the rule applies where A’s
claim is not merely “doubtful” but clearly bad. Another suggested
reason for the rule is that A suffers detriment because “he gives up
what he believes to be a right of action”;182 but, in general,
consideration must be something of value, not something believed to
be of value. In fact A would be worse off, if he did not forbear, for he
would lose his action and the costs. A further suggestion is that A
suffers detriment in that it becomes more difficult to get up his case,
the longer he waits;183 this is a possible detriment (even though his
action is bound to fail) as the failure may be more expensive than it
would have been, had he sued promptly. A may also suffer detriment if
as a result of the agreement he loses the right to sue a third party who
is liable on the original cause of action.184 A’s forbearance can also be
said to confer a benefit on B since “instead of being annoyed with an
3–038
action, he [B] escapes from the vexations incident to it”.185 There is
some difficulty in relying on this benefit as the consideration for B’s
counter-promise, since it may also exist where A’s claim is known to
be bad, in which case the compromise is not binding.186 Perhaps this
last rule is based on public policy rather than on want of consideration.
As Tindal CJ said in Wade v Simeon:187
“It is almost contra bonos mores and certainly contrary to the principles of natural justice
that a man should institute proceedings against another when he is conscious that he has
no good cause of action”.
If compromises of such claims were upheld, improper pressure might
be brought to bear on persons who “owed” void debts.
The rule that a promise by A to abandon a claim which is clearly
bad, but believed to be valid, is good consideration for a counterpromise from B is subject to a number of safeguards.188 There must be
a “reasonable claim”,189 (i.e. one made on reasonable grounds) and A
must honestly believe that his claim had at any rate a fair chance of
success.190 And he must show that he seriously intended to enforce the
claim.191
The cases in the present group all concern claims the validity of
which was doubtful in law. It seems that the same rules apply where
the claim was doubtful because of a dispute about the facts. A
settlement based on a simple mistake of fact made by both parties
might be void for mistake.192 But it will not be void on this ground
where both parties knowingly take the risk that the actual facts may
turn out to be different from the facts as they were supposed to be.
This element of risk is always present when parties negotiate a
settlement on disputed facts.
Executed compromises. The preceding discussion is concerned with
the enforceability of an agreement to compromise a claim. Different
problems can arise after such an agreement has been performed,
generally by payment of the amount which one party has agreed to pay
under the compromise. Even if, under the rules discussed above, there
was no consideration for that party’s promise, he will not be entitled to
the return of the payment if it was made “to close the transaction”:193
in such a case the payment is treated as if it were an executed gift.194
To give rise to a claim for repayment, it will be necessary to establish
other circumstances than lack of consideration, e.g. that the payment
3–039
was made under duress.195
(iii) Actual forbearance
As evidence of an implied promise to forbear. A person may forbear
from enforcing a claim without expressly promising to do so. The
question then arises whether this actual forbearance is consideration
for some promise or act of the other party, for example for a promise
by him to give security, or for giving the security. Sometimes actual
forbearance may be evidence of an implied promise to forbear.196 Thus
the acceptance of a cheque in payment of a debt may be evidence of a
promise not to sue the debtor so long as the cheque is not dishonoured,
or at least for a reasonable time.197
3–040
Where there is no promise to forbear. Even where no promise to
forbear (express or implied) has been made, an actual forbearance may
constitute consideration. In Alliance Bank v Broom198 the defendant
owed £22,000 to his bank, which pressed him to give some security.
He promised to do so, but the bank made no counter-promise not to
sue him. It was held that there was consideration for the defendant’s
promise as the bank had given, and the defendant received, “some
degree of forbearance”.199 On the other hand, in Miles v New Zealand
Alford Estate Co200 a company had bought land and then became
dissatisfied with the purchase. The vendor later promised to make
certain payments to the company, and it was alleged that the
consideration for this promise was the company’s forbearance to take
proceedings to rescind the contract. A majority of the Court of Appeal
held that there was no consideration for the vendor’s promise as no
proceedings to rescind were ever intended; and Cotton LJ added that
“it must be shown that there was something which would bind the
company not to institute proceedings”.201 Bowen LJ dissented from
this proposition,202 relying on Alliance Bank v Broom; but it may be
possible to reconcile the cases by reference to the types of claim
forborne. A bank to which £22,000 is owed is virtually certain to take
steps to enforce its claim, but a dissatisfied purchaser of land is much
less certain to take proceedings for rescission. It may, therefore, be
reasonable to say that an actual forbearance can amount to
consideration in relation to the former type of claim, but that a promise
to forbear is necessary where it is problematical whether the claim will
3–041
ever be enforced at all. A promise to forbear is also, of course,
necessary where that is what the debtor bargains for.
Where the consideration consists of a promise to forbear which
specifies no time the creditor must forbear for a reasonable time.203
There is no such requirement where the consideration consists of
actual forbearance: here it is enough that the debtor had “a certain
amount of forbearance”.204
The promise to be enforced must have been induced by the
forbearance. A forbearance amounts to consideration only for a
promise or performance that is induced by it. In Wigan v English &
Scottish Law Life Assurance Society205 a debtor executed a mortgage of
an insurance policy in favour of his creditor. It was held that the
creditor, who knew nothing of the mortgage, had not provided
consideration for it merely by having forborne to sue for his
antecedent debt. But Parker J added206 that the creditor would have
provided consideration if he had been told of the mortgage and if, “on
the strength of” it, he had actually forborne to sue for the debt. The
crucial question, therefore, is whether the creditor has forborne “on the
strength of” the debtor’s act or promise. He will clearly have done so
where the debtor has expressly requested the forbearance207 but in
Alliance Bank v Broom208 the bank’s forbearance was held to constitute
consideration even though the defendant had not expressly requested
it. The case has been explained on the ground that the debtor had
impliedly requested forbearance.209 But where the forbearance is not
requested either expressly or by implication, it is no consideration. In
Combe v Combe210 a husband during divorce proceedings promised to
pay his wife an annual allowance. In an action to enforce this promise,
the wife argued, inter alia, that she had given consideration for it by
forbearing to apply to the court for a maintenance order. But her
argument was rejected as she had not forborne at the husband’s
request.211
3–042
(f) Performance of Existing Duty212
Much difficulty arises in determining whether a person who does, or
promises to do, what he was already under a legal duty to do thereby
provides consideration for a promise made to him. As he was already
legally bound to do the act, he suffers no legal detriment.213 But he
3–043
may suffer a factual detriment if he actually does the act: this may be
more troublesome to him than to pay damages. The promisor may also
get a factual benefit, as damages might not fully compensate him for
the loss which he would suffer if the duty were broken. Denning LJ
has therefore said that the performance of an existing duty, or the
promise to perform it, was of itself good consideration.214 This radical
view has not been accepted;215 but the requirement of consideration in
this group of cases has been mitigated by recognising that it can be
satisfied where the promisee has conferred a factual (as opposed to a
legal) benefit on the promisor.216
(i) Duty imposed by law
Some promises unenforceable on grounds of public policy. One
group of cases denies the enforceability of a promise made in return
for the promise to perform, or the performance of, a duty imposed by
law (as opposed to one imposed by contract). Thus a public officer
cannot enforce a promise to pay him money for doing his duty as
such,217 and generally a person does not provide consideration by
forbearing to engage in a course of conduct that is criminal.218
Enforcement of such promises would tend to encourage an undesirable
form of extortion; and it is this ground of public policy, rather than
want of consideration, that accounts for most of the authorities in this
group.
3–044
Performance of the duty as consideration. Promises to pay rewards
for information that might lead to the arrest of a felon were often
enforced219 though, till 1968, a person who had such information was
bound to communicate it to the police, and indeed committed an
offence220 if he failed to do so. Public policy was not offended by the
enforcement of such promises, as they might induce people to look for
the information and so promote the interests of justice. These cases
show that an act may constitute consideration even though there is a
public duty to do it. The contrary view is, indeed, supported by Collins
v Godefroy221 where an attorney who had been subpoenaed to give
evidence was promised a guinea a day for attendance. This was held to
be “a promise without consideration” as he was already bound to
attend. But the reasoning is hard to reconcile with the reward cases just
mentioned; and the actual decision has long ceased to represent the
3–045
practice in such cases.222 A subpoena must be accompanied by a tender
of “conduct money”;223 this includes the reasonable expenses of
attending the trial, and, in certain cases, compensation for loss of time.
Expert witnesses can validly contract for payment;224 and it seems that
all witnesses who attend in a professional capacity, whether they are
strictly expert witnesses or not, are entitled to compensation for loss of
time.
Other consideration. A person can provide consideration by doing, or
promising, more than he is by law obliged to do. Thus in Glasbrook
Bros Ltd v Glamorgan CC225 mine-owners who feared violence from
strikers asked, and promised to pay, for a greater degree of police
protection than the police reasonably thought necessary. It was held
that the police authority had provided consideration for this promise by
giving the extra protection, and that accordingly the promise was
enforceable. The position in cases of this kind is now regulated by
statute. Section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996 provides that payment
can be claimed for “special police services” rendered at the “request”
of the person requiring them. Such a request can be implied from
conduct, e.g. where a person organises an event which cannot safely
take place without such special services. On this reasoning, a football
club has been held liable to a police authority for the cost of policing
matches played on its ground.226 Such liability arises irrespective of
contract.227
In Ward v Byham228 the father of an illegitimate child promised to
pay its mother £1 per week “providing you can prove that [the child] is
well looked after and happy, and also that she is allowed to decide for
herself whether or not she wishes to come and live with you”. The
mother began to look after the child, and it was held that she could
enforce the father’s promise although she was under a statutory duty to
maintain the child. One basis of the decision is that the mother had
provided consideration by showing that she had made the child happy,
etc.: in this way she can be said to have done more than she was
required by law to do, and to have conferred a factual benefit on the
father or on the child,229 even though she may not have suffered any
detriment.230 But if a son’s promise not to bore his father is not good
consideration,231 it is hard to see why a mother’s promise to make her
child happy should stand on a different footing. There is, with respect,
force in Denning LJ’s view, that the mother provided consideration by
3–046
merely performing her legal duty to support the child. There was
certainly no ground of public policy for refusing to enforce the
promise.
(ii) Duty imposed by contract with promisor
When A was bound