Donald Campbell and Company, Ltd and Others v Pollak

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 February 1924
Judgment citation (vLex)[1924] UKHL J0201-1
CourtHouse of Lords
Date01 February 1924

[1924] UKHL J0201-1

House of Lords

Donald Campbell and Company, Limited and Others
and
Pollak.
1

After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday the 24th and Friday the 25th, days of January last, and on Monday and Tuesday last, as yesterday and this day. upon the Petition and Appeal of Donald Campbell and Company, Limited, John Donington Campbell, George Charles Skeates, and George Islay campbell. all of No. 10, St. Mary Axe, in the City of London, praying. That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 2d of February 1923, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, and that the Petitioners might have the relief prayed for in the Appeal, or such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Raymond Pollak, lodged in answer to the said Appeal (in which said Appeal the matter of the Petition of the Respondent, presented on the 14th day of May last, praying that he might have leave to adduce a certain document as evidence on the hearing of the Appeal, was, by an Order of this House, of the 24th day of January last, reserved to the hearing of the Appeal at the Bar); and due consideration had 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 His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 2d day of February 1923, complained of in the said Appeal, be and the same is hereby, Reversed, so far as regards the Action (hereinafter called "the First Action"), the short title whereof is " 1921 C. No. 2469, Campbell and others v. Pollak and another," and that the Order of Mr. Justice Darling, of the 20th day of October 1922, thereby set aside, be, and the same is hereby, Restored so far as regards that Action: And it is further Ordered, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 2d day of February 1923, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, so far as regards the Action (hereinafter called "the Second Action"), the short title whereof is " 1921 D. No. 1456, Donald Campbell and Company, Limited v. Pollak and another," and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, so far as aforesaid, dismissed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
287 cases
  • Evans v Bartlam
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 30 April 1937
    ...Lord Justice, I am unable to accept what he said as a correct statement of the law or practice in this matter. Donald Campbell v. Pollak (1927) A.C. 732, is no authority for that proposition. If it were it would have changed the law and the practice. But in truth it did not. It is dealing m......
  • Ruddock v Vadarlis and Others
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 18 September 2001
    ... ... to resume residence in Australia, returned to New South Wales in company with other Chinese people on board a vessel from which, by government ... ...
  • Wootton v Central Land Board
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 January 1957
    ...strictly limited by terms of the Judicature Acts. So much was made by the House of Lords in the case of ( Donald Compbell & Co. v. Pollak 1927 A.C. 732,809), where the House, particulary in the speech of Lord Chancellor. set out the relvent provisions of the Judicature Act then in force, in......
  • Bettito Frett Appellant v [1] Allen Wheatley Dba Wheatley Consulting [2] Wesley Penn Dba Accurate Construction [3] National Education Services Company Ltd [4] John Schultheis Respondents
    • British Virgin Islands
    • High Court (British Virgin Islands)
    • 1 June 2006
    ...of US$ 2,000.00 to the claimants. Denys Barrow, SC Justice of Appeal 1 Chapter 80, Laws of The Virgin Islands 1991 Revised Edition 2 [1927] A.C. 732 3 At p. 732 4 At p.741 5 At p. 739 6 Instead, the claimants submit, the proper order should have been and the usual order would have been that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Cases referred to in 1965
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1965 Preliminary Sections
    • 11 November 2022
    ...(1954) A.C. 378. ........................................................................ 248 Donald Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. Pollack (1927) A.C. 732, 810. ...................... 137 Draper v. Trist and others (1939) 3 All E.R. 513. ............................................... 137 Dyson v.......
  • PUBLIC INTEREST COSTS ORDERS IN FEDERAL CLASS ACTIONS: TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 45 No. 2, April 2022
    • 1 April 2022
    ...1994) 7 [2.2] n 1. (48) Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, 541 (Mason CJ) ('Latoudis'). (49) Donald Campbell & Co Ltd v Pollak [1927] AC 732, 811 (Viscount Cave LC) ('Donald (50) Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [No 2] (1996) 66 FCR 128, 131 (Einfeld J). (51) Latoudis (n 48) 540 (Ma......
  • THE 'PRICE' OF JUSTICE? COSTS-CONDITIONAL SPECIAL LEAVE IN THE HIGH COURT.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 42 No. 1, August 2018
    • 1 August 2018
    ...1998) (1) Transcript of Proceedings, Freidin v St Laurent [2007] HCATrans 251, 366-72. (2) See, eg, Donald Campbell & Co Ltd v Pollak [1927] AC 732, 811-12 (Viscount Cave LC); Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, 569 (McHugh J). The principle that costs follow the event has a long histo......
  • LADEGA V. AKINLIYI
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1969 Cases reported in 1969
    • 12 November 2022
    ...the defendants could not later ask for relief against forfeiture. CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT. 1. Campbell & Co. v. Pollark (1927) A.C. 732, 811. 30 2. Worbi v. Asarnanvuah 14 W.A.C.A. 669. 3. Wurno v. United Africa Co. Ltd. (1956) 1 F.S.C. 33. 4. lnneh v. Obaraye 2 F.S.C. 58. Mr. G.E. Sh......

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