Allen v Taylor

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1992
Date1992
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
44 cases
  • Pereira v Beanlands
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 27 February 1996
  • Canberra Development Pte Ltd v Mercurine Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 8 September 2008
    ...the setting aside of regular default judgments was concerned. 55 There have been a few noteworthy exceptions, however. In Allen v Taylor [1992] PIQR 255, for instance, the English Court of Appeal declined to adopt the Saudi Eagle test. Dillon LJ expressed the view that “[i]t [was] impossibl......
  • Shocked v Goldschmidt
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • Invalid date
  • Mark Brown v Attorney General of Jamaica and Det. Cons Wayne Wellington
    • Jamaica
    • Supreme Court (Jamaica)
    • 29 March 2001
    ...b to d and p 1016 b c , post). Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co Inc, The Saudi Eagle [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 221 and Allen v Taylor [1992] PIQR P255 considered. (Emphasis mine) 13The applicant proceeded to argue that paragraph 8 of the affidavit of merit sworn by the as......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED AREAS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1996, December 1996
    • 1 December 1996
    ...at p 223. 64 My account is based on the transcript of the hearing before the Court of Appeal on 4 February, 1992. The formal citation is [1992] PIQR 255. 65 [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 221, at p 223. Also note the comment of the Editors of the SCP (UK), 1995, vol 1, at para 13/9/14: ‘The preferred......
  • LAST FLIGHT OF THE EAGLE: NEW PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE SETTING ASIDE OF JUDGMENTS IN DEFAULT
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2009, December 2009
    • 1 December 2009
    ...SGHC 36. 26 [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 621 at 624. The case is considered by the Court of Appeal in Mercurine[2008] 4 SLR 907 at [52]—[54]. 27 [1992] PIQR 255. The case is considered by the Court of Appeal in Mercurine[2008] 4 SLR 907 at [55]. 28 See para 9 of this article. 29 [1999] 1 WLR 2150 a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT