Garnett v Bradley
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1878 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1878] UKHL J0606-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 06 June 1878 |
[1878] UKHL J0606-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel as well on Monday the 27th as Tuesday the 28th days of May last upon the Petition and Appeal of Edward Garnett, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 2d of June 1877, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order 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 joint printed Case of the said Appellant and William Bradley, the Respondent, lodged in the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 2nd of June 1877, complained of in the said Appeal, be and the same is hereby reversed: And it is Ordered, That the said Respondent do pay or cause to be paid to the said Appellant the following Costs: 1. The Costs of the Appeal to the Court below, including the Costs (if any) paid by the Appellant to the Respondent under the Order now reversed; 2. The Costs of the Appellant reserved by the Order of the 3rd of May 1877 to be subject to the decision of the Court of Appeal: And it is further Ordered, that the Respondent do pay or cause to be paid to the said Appellant the Costs incurred by him in respect of the Appeal to this House, the amount thereof to be certified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
[1] Halliwel Assets Inc. [2] Panikos Symeou [3] Marigold Trust Company Ltd Appellants/Defendants v Hornbeam Coproration Claimant Vadim Shulman Respondent
...in England." 7 BVIHCVAP2007/0008 ( delivered 29th October 2005, unreported). 8 4 th edn. (Butterworth, 1982) Volume 37, para. 14. 9 (1878) 3 App Cas 944. 10 At pp. 11 [1986] AC 965 . 12 The 1925 Act was said to be identical for all material purposes to earlier Supreme Court of Judicature A......
-
DPP v District Judge Elizabeth McGrath
...to reconcile with the case law and, indeed, principle. 40 . The award of costs requires statutory authorisation: Garnett v. Bradley (1879) 43 J.P. 20. In some cases the only relevant statute which permits the grant of costs in proceedings such as this are the 1924 and 1961 Acts, themselves.......
-
O'Neill v Commissioner of Valuation; Council of Alexandra College v Same
...16 Q. B. D. 379. (1) I. R. 2 C. L., p. 585. (2) [1910] A. C. 7. (3) [1891] A. C. 531. (4) [1892] 2 Q. B. 152. (1) I. R. 2 C. L. 577. (2) 3 App. Cas. 944. (1) I. R. 2 C. L. (2) I. R. 6 C. L. 420. (3) 7 A. C. 633. (4) [1892] 2 Q. B. 152. (5) 3 E. & B. 346. (6) [1891] 1 Q. B. 339. (7) 5 Q. B. ......
-
Health Service Executive (HSE) v A (O)
...v Crawford [1940] IR 335; TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR. 259; Dillane v Ireland [1980] ILRM 167; Garnett v Bradley (1878) 3 App Cas 944; Henehan v Allied Irish Banks Ltd (Unrep, Finlay P, 19/10/1984); Law Society of Ireland v Competition Authority [2005] IEHC 455, [2006] 2 IR 26......