Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Company Ltd v Riche (in Error)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 08 June 1875 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1875] UKHL J0608-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 08 June 1875 |
[1875] UKHL J0608-1
House of Lords
Whereas by virtue of a Suggestion of Error entered upon the Judgment Roll in the Court of Exchequer at the instance of the Defendants there (Plaintiffs in Error), in a Cause wherein Hector Riche was Plaintiff, and the Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Company (Limited) were Defendants, the said Judgment Roll and Proceedings of the said Court of Exchequer were brought into this House on the 8th day of February last, in order to reverse a Judgment given in the Court of Exchequer Chamber affirming a Judgment of the said Court of Exchequer for the said Plaintiff there; and Counsel having been heard, as well on Tuesday as Thursday and Friday last, to argue the Error so suggested as aforesaid; and due consideration being had of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, That the said Judgment given in the said Court of Exchequer Chamber, affirming the said Judgment of the said Court of Exchequer for the said Plaintiff there, and also the said Judgment of the said Court of Exchequer so Affirmed, be, and the same are hereby Reversed, and that Judgment be entered for the said Defendants (Plaintiffs in Error), and that the Record be remitted, to the end that execution may be done thereupon, &c.
Tenor.
On which day, before the same Court of Parliament at Westminster aforesaid, come the parties aforesaid, by their Attorneys aforesaid: Whereupon, all and singular the premises having been seen, and by the said Court of Parliament here fully understood, and as well the Judgment Roll and Proceedings aforesaid, and the Judgment thereupon given, and the Affirmance thereof, as also the Suggestion of Error aforesaid by the said Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Company (Limited), being diligently examined and inspected, and mature Deliberation being thereupon had; It appears to the said Court of Parliament now here, that the Judgments before given are erroneous: Therefore it is considered and adjudged by the same Court of Parliament that such Judgments be, and the same are hereby accordingly Reversed; and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris and Others; PP
-
Re Equipment Maintenance Ltd
...undoubtedly have been aware of the development of the ultra vires doctrine, as laid down in Ashbury Carriage Company v Riche (1874 – 75) L.R. 7 H.L. 653 and the softening of the rigidity of that case by the House of Lords in AG v Great Eastern Rly (1879–80) L.R. 5 App. Cas. 473. The draftsm......
-
Bradshaw v McMullan
... ... The Ilfracombe Railway Company ( 10 ). The plaintiff is estopped by ... void by statute: Barrow's Case ( 5 ); Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Company v. Riche ( 6 ... But his error lay, not in the general principle which he laid ... ...
-
Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment; Brompton Securities Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
...may fairly be regarded as incidental to or consequential upon what has been authorised—this is the well known principle of Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co. v. Riche L.R. 7 H.L. 653: for a recent application see Loweth v. Minister of Housing & Local Government (1970) 22 P. & C. R. 125. B......
-
Monitoring directors' remuneration, fat cat packages and perks of office
...Section 267(1).9. Section 268(1).10. Section 269(1).11. Subsection (2).12. See Ashbury Rly Carriage Co. Ltd v. Riche (1875) L.R 7 H.L. 653. At common law, an ultravires transaction was null and void and of no effect. Even a unanimous resolution ofmembers assenting to the transaction could n......
-
The rise, fall, and reform of the ultra vires doctrine
...even by the unanimous * LLB LLM (London) H Dip Company Law (Witwatersrand). Senior Lecturer in Law, University of the Witwatersrand. (1875) LR 7HL 653. (1916) 1 AC 566 at 577. 3 Act 61 of 1973. 4 For a recent affirmation of this long-established principle, see In Re Horsley & Weight Ltd [19......
-
ULTRA VIRES AND CORPORATE CAPACITY IN SINGAPORE
...HospitalCase (1612). See Gower, Principles of Modern Company Law (4th Ed, 1979), p.162. 2. Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co v. Riche(1875) LR 7 HL 653 (House of Lords). 3. 25 & 26 Vic. c.89. 4. (1875) LR 7 HL 653, 670 (House of Lords). 5. A practice recognised as effective in Cotman v. Br......
-
Company Law and the Myth of Shareholder Ownership
...entity72 See Lord Langdale in Colman vEastern Counties Railway Co (1846) 10 Beav 1.73 Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co vRiche (1874) LR 7 HL 653.74 The shift can be seen in the different approaches adopted in Isle of Wight Railway Co vTahourdin(1883) 25 ChD 320 and Automatic Self-Cleansin......