Foster v Driscoll ; Lindsay v Attfield ; Lindsay v Driscoll

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
Date1929
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
95 cases
  • JSC Zestafoni G Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant and Others v Ronly Holdings Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 16 February 2004
    ...for shipment to South Africa which would be contrary to the law of India. The application by the House of Lords of the reasoning in Foster v. Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470 to the facts in Regazzoni turned substantially on the fact that the underlying illegality involved was the carrying out of a......
  • ABDA Airfreight Sdn Bhd v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2001
  • Regazzoni v K. C. Sethia (1944) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 October 1957
    ...in a foreign and friendly State which violates the law of that State. For this they cite the authority of the well known case of Foster v. Driscoll and Others [1929] 1 K.B. 470, and much of the debate in this House has been whether that case was rightly decided, and if so whether it is dist......
  • Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (HongKong) Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 19 May 2014
    ...the HKMLO. The Appellant’s pleaded case was based on the principle of international comity established in Foster v Driscoll and others [1929] 1 KB 470 (“Foster”). Sankey LJ explained the principle in the following terms: ..an English contract should and will be held invalid on account of il......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
7 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACTUAL ILLEGALITY AND CONFLICT OF LAWS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 1995, December 1995
    • 1 December 1995
    ...115, a decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber. 12 Ibid., at 129. 13 By reason of the operation of the rule in Foster v. Driscoll[1929] 1 K.B. 470 and the rule in Ralli Brothers v. Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar[1920] 2 K.B. 287. 14 Chapter 97, 1990 Edition. 15 See Amalgamated Steel Mills......
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 December 2000
    ...case just mentioned has been conflated with that embodied within yet another (not unproblematic) English decision, viz, Foster v Driscoll[1929] 1 KB 470. Significantly, perhaps, the Singapore Court of Appeal had, in its recent decision in Peh Teck Quee v Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale[2......
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...Bv [2002] EWCA Civ 15. 86 [2016] 3 SLR 361. 87 Cap 178, 1985 Rev Ed. 88 [2016] SGHC 114. 89 [2016] 5 SLR 719. 90 [1999] 3 SLR(R) 842. 91 [1929] 1 KB 470. 92 Ralli Brothers v Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 KB 287. 93 Peh Teck Quee v Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale [1999] 3 SLR(R) ......
  • RESTITUTION, FOREIGN ILLEGALITY AND FOREIGN MONEYLENDERS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 1996, December 1996
    • 1 December 1996
    ...purely on factual grounds in the Kartika case, supra, note 31, at 273—275. 33 See Palmer, supra, note 17, at 72. 34 Ibid. 35 [1929] 1 KB 470. 36 The Court of Appeal cited Rajah J’s judgment in Patriot Pte Ltd v Lam Hong Commercial Co[1980] 1 MLJ 135, which, though Foster v Driscoll was also......
  • 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