Bilbie v Lumley

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1802
Year1802
CourtCourt of the King's Bench
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
27 cases
  • Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 29 October 1998
    ...41 How the rule became established: The origin of the rule is, as is very well known, the decision of the Court of King's Bench in Bilbie v. Lumley (1802) 2 East 469. There an underwriter paid a claim under a policy which he was entitled in law to repudiate for non-disclosure. Although he ......
  • BP Plc v Aon Ltd [QBD (Comm)]
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 13 March 2006
    ... ... Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite LtdELR [1951] 2 KB 314 ... Bilbie v LumleyENR (1802) 2 East 469 ; 102 ER 448 ... Calico Printers' Association v Barclays Bank (1931) 145 LT 51 ... ...
  • R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Woolwich Equitable Building Society
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 May 1991
    ...ICR 419 BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No.2) ELR[1983] 2 AC 352 Barton v Armstrong ELR[1976] AC 104 Bilbie v Lumley ENRENR(1802) 2 East 469; 102 ER 448 Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co v Bispham with Norbreck UDCELR[1910] 1 KB 592 Brocklebank (T & J) Ltd v The King ELR[1924] 1 KB ......
  • Friends' Provident Life Office (A Firm) v Hillier Parker May & Rowden; Estates & General Plc and Others, third parties
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 3 April 1995
    ...that, apart from the exceptional case of a payment made under compulsion, no restitutionary claim may be based on a mistake of law; see Bilbie v. Lumley [1802] 2 East 469; Woolwich Building Society v. IRC [1993] AC 70, HL, per Lords Keith and Goff at 154C-D and 164D-F respectively; see also......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Change of position and restitution for wrongs: 'ne'er the twain shall meet'?
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 33 No. 1, April 2009
    • 1 April 2009
    ...enrichment, was typically actionable only if the mistake was one of fact and not simply a mistake of law: see, eg, Bilbie v Lumley (1802) 2 East 469; 102 ER 448. This restriction was abolished in Australia by David Securities (1992) 175 CLR 353, 385 (Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McH......

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