Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Company

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

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
55 cases
  • Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK Plc (also Shell U.K. Ltd & others v Total UK Ltd and Another)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 March 2010
    ...“real” owner, the “legal” owner being little more than a bare trustee of the pipelines. 133 The origin of the modern law is Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Company (1875) LR 10 QB 453. The defendants had laid a water pipe along and under a turnpike road. There was a leak and water became clogg......
  • Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK Plc [QBD (Comm)]
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 20 March 2009
    ...set its face against affording title to sue to a person with merely a contractual interest in property which has been damaged: Cattle v Stockton Waterworks (1875) LR 10 QB. 453, Simpson & Co v Thompson (1877) 3 App. Cas. 279. 72 472 In more recent years, this pragmatic exclusion has bee......
  • Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Company (Contractors) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 June 1972
    ...in Furniss v. Filchett (1958 N.E.L.R. 596, 401.) The starting point usually taken is the judgment of Mr. Justice Blackburn in Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks Co. (1675 L.R. 10 Q.B. 453) where the defendants had laid a defective water pipe under a turnpike road. The resulting leakage of water ......
  • Weller & Company v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The emergence of solicitors’ tortious liability and the award of damages
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Financial Crime Nbr. 10-4, October 2003
    • 1 October 2003
    ...See Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605; [1990] 1 AllER 568; [1990] 2 WLR 358 HL.(48) See Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co. (1875) LR 10 QB 453;La SocieÂteÂAnonyme de Remorquage aÁHeÂlice v Bennets [1911] 1KB 243; Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease ResearchPage 329The Emergence......
  • Pure Economic Loss in Negligence: Has England got it wrong? Does Australia have it right?
    • United Kingdom
    • Southampton Student Law Review Nbr. 1-1, January 2011
    • 1 January 2011
    ...Unjust Enrichment, 1st ed. (Oxford University Press, United States, 2007) 263 21Ibid 263 22 Cattle v Stockholm Waterworks Co. (1875) LR 10 QB 453 23Simpson & Co. v Thomson [1877] 3 AC 279 (HL) 24Anglo-Algerian Steamship Co. Ltd v The Houlder Line, Ltd [1908] 1 KB 659 25R. Bernstein, Eco......

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