Bray v Ford
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 1895 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1895] UKHL J1218-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1895] UKHL J1218-1
House of Lords
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:
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
-
Cairns v Modi
...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
...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......
-
R. v. Daley, [2007] 3 SCR 523
...(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......
-
3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al., 2005 BCCA 35
...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.......
-
Trustee-beneficiaries: Can They Have The Cake And Eat It Too?
...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?
...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
...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
...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......
-
Change of position and restitution for wrongs: 'ne'er the twain shall meet'?
...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
...“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
...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
...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,......