Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1882 |
| Year | 1882 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
67 cases
-
Westacre Investments Inc. v (1) Jugoimport-Skrp Holding Company Ltd (2) Beogradska Banka (3) The Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement of The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (4) Beogradska Banka Dd (5) The State Owned Company Yugoimport Spdr
...Gaisman submits that much the same could be said of the rule that relates to foreign judgments, and yet that rule exemplified by Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co (1882) 10 Q.B.D. 295 does allow a person against whom a foreign judgment has been given to resist enforcement simply on the basis that......
-
House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Waite
...though no newly discovered fraud is relied upon and the fraud might have been, and was, relied upon in the foreign proceedings. See Abouloff v. Oppenheimer (1882) 10 Q.B.D. 295, and Vadala v. lawes (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 310. These cases have been considerably criticised over the years; they were......
- See Hua Daily News Bhd v Tan Thien Chin and Others
-
Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier Inc
... ... The facts giving rise to the action were largely as follows. Les Placements was a company incorporated in Canada. On or about 25 April 1995, it entered into a loan agreement (`the loan ... However, there is a line of authorities starting with Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co [1882] 10 QBD 295 which seemed to say that so long as fraud is alleged the ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
PROBLEMS IN THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF US CLASS ACTION JUDGMENTS IN SINGAPORE
...themselves had engaged in fraud by bribing their witnesses to give false evidence in court. 127 See Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co(1882) 10 QBD 295 and Vadala v Lawes(1890) 25 QBD 310. 128House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Waite[1991] 1 QB 241 at 251. 129House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Waite[1991] 1 ......
-
Conflict of Laws
...fraudulently, the court first acknowledged that Singapore had departed from the typical English position in Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co(1882) 10 QBD 295. In Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier Inc[2002] 1 SLR(R) 515, the Singapore Court of Appeal differentiated between extrinsic......
-
Conflict of Laws
...noted that where there was an allegation of fraud, there appeared to be a line of authority (beginning with Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co(1882) 10 QBD 295) providing an exception to this rule. This exception allowed a court to reopen a foreign judgment even in the absence of new evidence. The......