Brocklesby v Temperance Permanent Building Society and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 1895 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1895] UKHL J0315-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 15 March 1895 |
[1895] UKHL J0315-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel for the Appellant, as well yesterday as this day, upon the Petition and Appeal of George Jobson Brocklesby, of 9, Walbrook, in the City of London, praying, That the matter of the Order and Judgment set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 3rd of July 1893, and also a Judgment of the High Court of Justice of the 7th of March 1893, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order and Judgment, so far as aforesaid, 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 the Temperance Permanent Building Society, and also upon the printed Case of the Nineteenth Century Building Society, lodged in answer to the said Appeal (in which said Appeal the Respondents, the Temperance Permanent Building Society, were, by an Order of this House of the 7th of this instant March, allowed to lodge a separate Case, the question of the costs incurred thereby being reserved to the Hearing at the Bar; and which said Appeal was, in pursuance of an Order of this House of the 3rd of December 1894, heard ex parte as to Joseph Corke, he not having answered the said Appeal); and Counsel appearing for the said Respondents, the Temperance Permanent Building Society and the Nineteenth Century Building Society, but not called on; and due consideration had of what was offered for the said Appellant:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kevin Michael Wishart v Credit & Mercantile Plc
...by reference to the judgment of Farwell J in Rimmer v Webster [1902] 2 Ch 163, at 173, following Brocklesby v Temperance Permanent BS [1895] AC 173 ("the Brocklesby principle"); therefore C&M's charge took effect as against Mr Wishart and C&M succeeded in its claim to be paid the main sum (......
-
Barclays Bank Ltd v T.O.S.G. Trust Fund Ltd
...paid off by T.O.S.G. were in fact paid with moneys derived from the banks. It is said that Brocklesbury v. Temperance Building Society (1895) A.C. 173 is authority for the proposition that where A's money is used to pay B's debt, A is subrogated to the rights of the creditor. For my part, I......
-
UBS AG v Rose Capital Ventures Ltd
...106 Mr Grant relies on what is commonly referred to as the Brocklesby principle after Brocklesby v Temperance Permanent Building Society [1895] AC 173 and the analysis by Newey J in Bank of Scotland v Hussain [2010] EWHC 2812 (Ch) and the Court of Appeal in Wishart v Credit & Mercantile plc......
-
Mortgage Express v Lambert
...means necessary to deal with the third party: see Abigail v Lapin [1934] AC 491 and Brocklesby v Temperance Permanent Building Society [1895] AC 173. The defendant armed the buyers with the means necessary to deal with the mortgagee without taking any steps to inform parties dealing with th......
-
Interference without ownership: The theft of incorporeal money in the South African law of unjustified enrichment
...judg ments in the H igh Court and S upreme Court of A ppeal, see Scott (n 82).84 Brocklesby v Temperan ce Perman ent Building So ciety [1895] AC 173 (HL); Butler v Ric e [1910] 2 Ch 277; and Ghana Commercia l Bank v Chandiram [19 60] AC 732 (PC).85 See paras 41–2 where Ca meron J sum maris ......
-
Interference without ownership: The theft of incorporeal money in the South African law of unjustified enrichment
...judg ments in the H igh Court and S upreme Court of A ppeal, see Scott (n 82).84 Brocklesby v Temperan ce Perman ent Building So ciety [1895] AC 173 (HL); Butler v Ric e [1910] 2 Ch 277; and Ghana Commercia l Bank v Chandiram [19 60] AC 732 (PC).85 See paras 41–2 where Ca meron J sum maris ......