Godard v Gray

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1865
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
56 cases
  • Krishnappa Chettiar and Others; Murugappa Chettiar
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 d1 Janeiro d1 1940
  • Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier Inc
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 21 d4 Março d4 2002
    ...is conclusive as to any matter thereby adjudicated upon and cannot be impeached for any error, whether of fact or of law: Godard v Gray [1870] LR 6 QB 139. In respect of such an action, an application for summary judgment may be made on the ground that the defendant has no defence to the cl......
  • Du Pont (E.I.) de Nemours & Company v Agnew (No. 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 d3 Março d3 1988
    ...Pont would be so bound and they rely in particular on an analysis of the decision in The Sennar, (1985) 1 Weekly Law Reports 490 and on Godard v. Gray Law Reports 6 Queen's Bench 139. Du Pont argue to the contrary on the footing that a decision which in the eyes of English law the English ......
  • Tracomin S.A. v Sudan Oil Seeds Company Ltd (Nos. 1 and 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Enforcing US judgments in Australia
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 24 d1 Junho d1 2013
    ...obtain evidence in Australia for use in foreign court proceedings Enforcing foreign judgments in Australia: A case study 1Godard v Gray (1870) LR 6 QB 139, Ainslie v Ainslie (1927) 39 CLR 381 at 402, Norsemeter Holdings v Boele (No 1) [2002] NSWSC 370 at [14], Benefit Strategies Group Inc v......
  • Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In Bermuda At Common Law
    • Bermuda
    • Mondaq Bermuda
    • 2 d2 Janeiro d2 2018
    ...includes a company, partnership, association or other like body. 3 Williams v. Jones (1845) 13 M & W 628, 633; Goddard v. Gray (1870) LR 6 QB 139,147; Adams v. Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433, 513; Owens Bank Ltd v. Bracco [1992] 2 AC 443; Rubin v. Eurofinance SA & Ors [2012] UKSC......
13 books & journal articles
  • CONTEMPT ORDERS AND JUDICIAL “ATTACHMENT” OF EQUITABLE PROPERTY
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 d5 Dezembro d5 2017
    ...bringing of proceedings to enforce a foreign judgment. 76 See Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc[2010] 1 SLR 1129. 77 See Godard v Gray(1870) LR 6 QB 139; Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc[2010] 1 SLR 1129. 78 See Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier Inc[2002] 1 SLR(R) 515; Bellez......
  • The Problem with Preferable Procedure
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 2-2, December 2005
    • 1 d4 Dezembro d4 2005
    ...considered final and are not to be reviewed on the merits even if there is an obvious error in the proceedings as in Godard v. Gray (1870), LR 6 Q.B. 139 (Q.B.). 57 A prior inconsistent judgment will prohibit the enforcement or recognition of a later judgment if a contrary earlier judgment,......
  • Les Recours Collectifs et le Droit International Privé Au Québec
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 2-2, December 2005
    • 1 d4 Dezembro d4 2005
    ...considered final and are not to be reviewed on the merits even if there is an obvious error in the proceedings as in Godard v. Gray (1870), LR 6 Q.B. 139 (Q.B.). 57 A prior inconsistent judgment will prohibit the enforcement or recognition of a later judgment if a contrary earlier judgment,......
  • In a Class All its Own: The Advent of the Modern Class Action and its Changing Legal and Social Mission
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 2-2, December 2005
    • 1 d4 Dezembro d4 2005
    ...considered final and are not to be reviewed on the merits even if there is an obvious error in the proceedings as in Godard v. Gray (1870), LR 6 Q.B. 139 (Q.B.). 57 A prior inconsistent judgment will prohibit the enforcement or recognition of a later judgment if a contrary earlier judgment,......
  • 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