Bainbridge v Postmaster-General
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1906 |
| Year | 1906 |
| 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
41 cases
- Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners v Ryan
- A-G for the Straits Settlements v Pang Ah Yew
- Ramson v Barker and Another
-
Building and Civil Engineering Holidays Scheme Management Ltd v Post Office
...Mansfield. You could not recover in tort, because the Postmaster-General was not liable for the torts of his subordinates, see Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General. 1906, Queen's Bench, p. 178. Even when you sent a registered letter, you could recover nothing for the loss of it, because any cla......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Of Kings and Officers — The Judicial Development of Public Law
...it does not answer the question whether the Post–Masters General had a duty to ensure that the mail was delivered: see below. 210 [1906] 1 KB 178. 211 Under s 42 of the Telegraph Act 1863 (UK) 26 & 27 Vict, c 112 telegraph companies were liable for all 'accidents, damages and injuries' occa......
-
State proceedings in the Commonwealth Caribbean
...Harry v. Thorn (1966) 9 W.I.R. 470. 33 See Viscount Canterbury v. A.G., supra n. 32. 34 See Bainbridge v. The Postmaster General [1906] 1 K.B. 178. 35 (1964) 7 W.I.R. 109, (S.C.-British Guiana.). 36 Cap. 258, (British Guiana). personal capacity, could stand because they had acted wholly wit......