Biggs et Al v London Loan & Savings Company et Al London Loan & Savings Company v Brickenden et Al

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1934
Date1934
Year1934
CourtPrivy Council

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
95 cases
  • Tenji v Henneberry & Associates Pty Ltd (No 2)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Tenji v Henneberry & Associates Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Quality Assurance Management Asia Pte Ltd v Zhang Qing
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 May 2013
    ...and remoteness did not readily apply when assessing equitable compensation; Brickenden v London Loan & Savings Company of Canada[1934] 3 DLR 465 (‘the Brickenden principle’). But even in equity the test of liability for equitable compensation was whether the loss would have been suffered bu......
  • Stafford v Attorney-General
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 30 October 2024
    ...citing Gilbert v Shanahan [1998] 3 NZLR 528 (CA). This represents a relaxation of the rule in Brickenden v London Loan & Savings Co [1934] 3 DLR 465 (PC), espoused by Lord Thankerston at 469, in which fiduciary defendants were precluded from arguing that even if a plaintiff had been correct......
  • Get Started for Free
12 books & journal articles
  • AN ACCOUNT OF ACCOUNTS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...and Tito v Waddell (No 2)[1977] Ch 106. 59Nocton v Lord Ashburton[1914] AC 932 at 956. 60Nocton v Lord Ashburton[1914] AC 932 at 958. 61[1934] 3 DLR 465. 62Brickenden v London Loans & Savings Co[1934] 3 DLR 465 at 469. See also Magnus v Queensland National Bank(1888) 37 Ch D 466 at 472. 63 ......
  • NAVIGATING THE MAZE *
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...Ltd v Zhang Qing[2013] 3 SLR 631 at [37]–[38]. 77Quality Assurance Management Asia Pte Ltd v Zhang Qing[2013] 3 SLR 631 at [39]–[41]. 78[1934] 3 DLR 465. The Brickenden rule was first mentioned in local jurisprudence by Quentin Loh J in Then Khek Khoon v Arjun Permanand Samtani[2012] 2 SLR ......
  • Credit Advisers, Consumer Credit and Equitable Fiduciary Obligations
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 47-1, March 2019
    • 1 March 2019
    ...sought. Similarly, the facts do not engage the con-tentious approach to causation associated with Brickenden v London Loan & Savings Co [1934] 3 DLR465, 469 (the Board). See generally Matthew Conaglen, ‘Brickenden’ in Simone Degeling and Jason NE Varuhas (eds), Equitable Compensation and Di......
  • Case Note
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...Samtani [2014] 1 SLR 245 The brickenden Rule in singapore The controversial rule in Brickenden V London Loan & Savings Company Of Canada [1934] 3 Dlr 465 was recently introduced into the local jurisprudence on equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty. In then Khek Koon V Arjun Pe......
  • Get Started for Free