Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Eastern Telegraph Company v Dent

The Law Reports Cited in 27 Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1899
Date1899
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
9 cases
  • Tan Soo Leng David v Wee, Satku & Kumar Pte Ltd and Another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 11 February 1993
    ...consent. See Lehmann v McArthur, [1868] LR 3 Ch App 496 Barrow v Isaacs & Son [1891] 1 QB 417 and Eastern Telegraph Co Ltd v Dent & Ors. [1899] 1 QB 835In Lehmann v McArthur 1 a lease contained the restriction that the lessee would not assign the lease without the previous consent in writin......
  • BG Global Energy Ltd (Formerly BG International (Nsw) Ltd) and Others v Talisman Sinopec Energy UK Ltd (Formerly Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd) and Others Talisman Sinopec North Sea Ltd (Seventh Party) Rigel Petroleum UK Ltd (Eighth Party)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 27 January 2015
    ...requires in seeking consent, the issue of reasonableness or unreasonableness in withholding consent simply does not arise. i) In Eastern Telegraph v Dent [1899] 1 QB 835, all three members of the Court of Appeal were clear on this point at pages 838–839 in the context of a breach of covenan......
  • Samuel Properties (Developments) Ltd v Hayek
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 July 1972
    ...was due to forgetfulness, or whether the lease would have been sharply referred to the observations of Lord Justice Romer in Eastern Telegraph Co. v. Dent (1899) 1 Queen's Bench, p.835, at p.839. Be that as it may, for my part I do not consider that the failure to give proper notice here ca......
  • Hendry v Chartsearch Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 July 1998
    ...refused it. The distinction between leases and contractual obligations simpliciter may be relevant here, and I note that in Eastern Telegraph Co. Ltd v. Dent [1899] 1 Q.B. 835 the purported assignee in fact had moved into occupation of the premises. I must emphasise, however, that I do not ......
    • 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