Gilbert v McKay

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1946
Year1946
CourtKing's Bench Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
4 cases
  • Howe v Kavanaugh
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
    ...6 C.P. 481. F18(1869) 4 Ex. 319. F19Ibid. 323. F20(1871) L.R. 6 Q.B. 357. F21Ibid. 359. F22Ibid. 360. F23Ibid. F24[1946] 1 All E.R. 458; 62 T.L.R. 226. F25(1899) 16 T.L.R. F26Ibid. 157. F2745 T.L.R. 109. F28Ibid. 111. F2945 T.L.R. 109. F30[1946] 1 All E.R. 458. F3145 T.L.R. 109. F32L.R. 6 C......
  • R United Trade Action Group Ltd v Transport for London
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 Julio 2022
    ...It is clear from this that the vehicle itself did not need to be visible to the customer to be plying for hire. c) In Gilbert v McKay [1946] 1 All ER 458, Lord Goddard C.J. held that: “It is quite possible that there can be a plying for hire where [the vehicle] is not exhibited, but where i......
  • Sulaiman bin Mohd Hassan v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 Junio 2021
    ...Liang (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent. Case(s) referred to Cogley v Sherwood [1959] 2 QB 311 (refd) Gilbert v McKay [1946] 1 All ER 458 (refd) Lim Cheng Wai v PP [1988] 2 SLR(R) 123; [1988] SLR 731 (refd) Muhammad Faizal bin Rahim v PP [2012] 1 SLR 116 (refd) Nottingham Cit......
  • Rose v Welbeck Motors Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
    ...circumstances, prevent a finding that the vehicle on view to the public was plying for hire. Gilbert v. McKay (1946) 62 T.L.R. 226; [1946] 1 All E.R. 458, and Foinett v. Clark (1877) 41 J.P. 359 CASE STATED by Essex justices sitting at Stratford, E.15. On October 13, 1961, informations were......

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