Bowers v Gloucester Corporation

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtDivisional Court
Judgment Date1963
Date1963
Year1963

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
11 cases
  • Mullins v Harnett
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 April 1998
    ...CONSTITUTION ART 15.5 MAXWELL INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 12ED 239 – 240 BENNION STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 2ED 382 BOWERS V GLOUCESTER CORP 1963 1 QB 881 MCDAID V SHEEHY 1991 1 IR 1 Synopsis Criminal Law Assault contrary to common law; abolition of offence; retrospectivity; statutory intepret......
  • Fingleton v Central Bank of Ireland
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 January 2016
    ...mischief of the statute, the construction of the penal statute differs little, if at all, from that of any other.” In the case of Bowers v. Gloucester Corpn. [1963] 1 Q.B. 881 at p. 887 Lord Parker C.J. stated:- “A provision can only be said to be ambiguous, in the sense that if it be a pen......
  • DPP v Clyne
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 30 September 2020
    ...to the meaning of a word or phrase, referring to Maxwell on The interpretation of Statutes (12 th Edition) and the decision in Bowers v. Gloucester Corporation [1963] 1 QB 881, where it was said by Lord Parker that a provision can only be said to be ambiguous in this context where, having ......
  • Farrell v Alexander
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 July 1975
    ...penal provision is difficult to construe: but only when it is truly ambiguous so as to be capable of two meanings, see Bowers v. Gloucester Corporation (1963) 1 Q. B. 881: Reg, v. Ortewell (1970) A. C. at page 649. It has to give way to the much better rule that the Courts should look to th......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking the Mental Element in Involuntary Manslaughter
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 85-4, August 2021
    • 1 August 2021
    ...(n 104); RvG(n 3). In RvK(n 114); B (A Minor) v DPP (n 114).165. HKSAR v Chow Heung Wing (n 3); RvG(n 3).166. Bowers v Gloucester Corp [1963] 1 QB 881 at 884; Rathbone v Bundock [1962] 2 QB 260 at 272; Attorney-General’sReference No 48 of 1994 (1995) 16 Cr App R (S) 980 at 986. See too G Wi......
  • Accusation as Proof: Uncorroborated Historic Sexual Abuse Allegations
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 84-2, April 2020
    • 1 April 2020
    ...Crime, Proof and Punishment, Essays in Memory of SirRupert Cross (Butterworths, London 1981) at 193 et seq.74. Bowers v Gloucester Corp. [1963] 1 QB 881 at 884; Rathbone v Bundock [1962] 2 QB 260 at 272; Attorney-General’sReference No 48 of 1994 (1995) 16 Cr App R (S) 980 at 986; likewise i......