Gleeson v J. Wippell & Company Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date1977
Date1977
Year1977
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
306 cases
2 firm's commentaries
  • Not So Fast ' English Commercial Court Finds That LCIA Award Does Not Bind Third Parties
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 30 June 2022
    ...Arbitration were "Gleeson privies." Foxton J applied the test for issue estoppel laid out by Megarry VC in Gleeson v Wippell & Co Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 510, Ch D. In that case, Megarry VC described the doctrine of privity as being "narrow" and went on to state that "having due regard to the subj......
  • Madison Pacific Trust v Shakoor Capital: A More Nuanced Approach To Illegality?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 3 August 2020
    ...had sought to claim trust property from a third party are binding on all the beneficiaries of a trust, see Gleeson v Wipple & Co Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 510 at Zacaroli J found that there was a sufficient degree of identification between the interests of the trustee (Madison) and all the UAHs such......
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Restrictions on the Use of Land Preliminary Sections
    • 30 August 2016
    ...978, ChD 27 Gleaston Green, Aldingham, North Lonsdale RD, Lancashire, Re (20/D/3), Re; 20 July 1972 114 Gleeson v J Wippell & Co Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 510, [1977] 3 All ER 54, [1977] FSR 301, ChD 85 GLN (Copenhagen) Southern Ltd v ABC Cinemas Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1279, [2005] LLR 282 285 Gold......
  • Criteria for Registration in Commons Act 2006, Section 15
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Restrictions on the Use of Land Part II. Town and village greens
    • 30 August 2016
    ...be given, and the 53 Wakefield Corporation v Cooke [1904] AC 31 at 36. 54 Applying the test of Megarry V-C in Gleeson v J Wippell & Co [1977] 1 WLR 510 at 515G (which was approved by Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2000] UKHL 65, [2002] 2 AC 1 at 32E–G). 55 Wakefield Corporation v......
  • PROBLEMS IN THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF US CLASS ACTION JUDGMENTS IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...at 252; see also Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 3)[1970] Ch 506 at 541. 121[1967] 1 AC 853. 122[1967] 1 AC 853 at 910. 123[1977] 1 WLR 510 at 516. 124[1991] 1 QB 241. 125 Specifically, the plaintiffs commenced a first round of proceedings in Ireland against the three defendan......
  • The Recognition, and Res Judicata Effect, of a United States Class Actions Judgment in England: A Rebuttal of V ivendi
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 75-2, March 2012
    • 1 March 2012
    ...by proving one128 Dadourian Group Intl vSimms [2006] EWHC 2973 (Ch) at [715] citing Carl Zeiss n above 79,909–910 and Gleeson vWhippell [1977] 1 WLR 510 (Ch) 515.129 Barnett, n 78 above,70–71, and Gleeson ibid, requiring‘a sufficient degree of identification betweenthe two’.Views differ on th......
  • 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