Bray v Ford

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date18 December 1895
Judgment citation (vLex)[1895] UKHL J1218-1
CourtHouse of Lords
Bray
and
Ford.

[1895] UKHL J1218-1

House of Lords

1

After hearing Counsel as well on Monday the 2nd as Tuesday the 3rd days of this instant December, upon the Petition and Appeal of George Bray, of Belmont, Headingley, near Leeds, in the county of York, Gas Lighting Engineer, praying, That the matter of the Judgment and Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, a Judgment of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, of the 2nd of August 1894, and also an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 10th of November 1894, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Judgment and Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of John Rawlinson Ford, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:

2

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Judgment and Order complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same are hereby, Reversed; and it is hereby Directed that a new Trial be had, the costs of the proceedings in both Courts below to abide the event of the new Trial; And it is further Ordered, That the Respondent do repay or cause to be repaid to the Appellant all such Damages and Costs as the said Appellant has already paid to him; and it is further Ordered, That the Respondent do pay to the Appellant the Costs...

To continue reading

Request your trial
224 cases
  • Cairns v Modi
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 31 October 2012
    ...The traditional approach to assessing damages in a libel action may perhaps conveniently be summed up in the words of Lord Herschell in Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44, 52 (which had been cited by Laws LJ in Purnell): “The damages cannot be measured by any standard known to the law; they must be ......
  • Guinness Plc v Saunders and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 8 February 1990
    ...to say to him that he will not give him his property, or proceed to execute the trust, unless he be paid a bonus." 26 In Bray v. Ford [1896] A.C. 44 a solicitor who was a governor of a charitable college charged profit costs for his professional services under the mistaken belief that the m......
  • 3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al., 2005 BCCA 35
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • 21 January 2005
    ...223 (Ch.), refd to. [para. 25]. Henfrey & Co. v. Law Firm (1983), 149 D.L.R.(3d) 736 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 26]. Bray v. Ford, [1896] A.C. 44 (H.L.), refd to. [para. Warman International Ltd. v. Dwyer (1995), 128 A.L.R. 201 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 46]. Canson Enterprises Ltd.......
  • R. v. Daley, [2007] 3 SCR 523
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 13 December 2007
    ...(2001), 40 C.R. (5th) 338; R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; R. v. Good (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 177. By Fish J. (dissenting) Bray v. Ford, [1896] A.C. 44; Spencer v. Alaska Packers Association (1904), 35 S.C.R. 362; Azoulay v. The Queen, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495; R. v. MacKay, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 607......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Trustee-beneficiaries: Can They Have The Cake And Eat It Too?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 19 August 2021
    ...prophylactic rule; it exists to discourage fiduciaries from preferring their own interests over those of their beneficiaries: Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44. Where trustees have acted in breach of this rule, their purported decision may be voidable at the instance of the prejudiced beneficiary (o......
  • Trustee-beneficiaries: Can They Have The Cake And Eat It Too?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 19 August 2021
    ...prophylactic rule; it exists to discourage fiduciaries from preferring their own interests over those of their beneficiaries: Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44. Where trustees have acted in breach of this rule, their purported decision may be voidable at the instance of the prejudiced beneficiary (o......
  • For Love Nor Money?... A Guide To Trustee Fees, Expenses And Service Agreements
    • Bermuda
    • Mondaq Bermuda
    • 12 January 2016
    ...powers have been reserved or granted by the settlor. This is discussed later in the Guide. 2 The common law and equity. 3 Bray v Ford [1896] A.C. 44. 4 See Carver v Duncan [1985] A.C. 5 In an application of the principle in Saunders v Vautier (1841) 10 L.J. 354. Note that certain jurisdicti......
  • Estate Planning: Understanding Wills & Trust Law In Nigeria
    • Nigeria
    • Mondaq Nigeria
    • 3 April 2024
    ...180 ss. 8 and 9, Adeseye v. Williams (1964) 2 All N.L.R 37 at p.39 5. Re Londonderry's Settlement [1965] Ch. 918 at 928. 6. Bray v. Ford [1896] A.C. 44., H.L., at 7. Underhill and Hayton's Law of Trusts and Trustees 11th Edition at page 5 8. Williams & Anor v. Ogundipe & Ors (2006) LPELR-75......
27 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
    ...Ltd v Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 134; Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46; Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544. (176) Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44, 51 (Lord Herschell); Standard Investments Ltd v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1983) 5 DLR (4th) 452, 481 (Griffiths J); Furs Ltd v Tom......
  • NAVIGATING THE MAZE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...“In Search of the Nature and Function of Fiduciary Loyalty: Some Observations on Conaglen's Analysis”(2007) 27 OxJLS 327. 16Bray v Ford[1896] AC 44 at 51–52. 17Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew[1998] Ch 1 at 17. 18Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew[1998] Ch 1 at 18; Clearlab SG......
  • RECONFIGURING THE NO CONFLICT RULE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2011, December 2011
    • 1 December 2011
    ...and applying the general duties: see Hannigan, Company Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd Ed, 2009) at pp 174–175. 14Bray v FordELR[1896] AC 44 at 51, per Lord Herschell. 15Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v CooleyWLR[1972] 1 WLR 443, [1972] 2 All ER 162; Bhullar v BhullarUNK[2003] 2 B......
  • Preliminary Sections
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1964 Preliminary Sections
    • 11 November 2022
    ...Binney (1936) P. 178; (1936) 2 All E.R. 409. 73 Blay v. Solomon 12 W.A.C.A. 175. 35 Blunt v. Blunt (1943) A.C. 517, 522. 73 Bray v. Ford (1896) A.C. 44, 49 102 Briess v. Woolley (1954) 1 All E.R. 909, 917, 921; (1954) A.C. 333; (1954) 2 W.L.R. 832 62 Clough v. L.N.W.R. L.R. 7 Ex.26, 32, 33,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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