Goldman v Hargrave
Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
Judgment Date | 1966 |
Date | 1966 |
Court | Privy Council |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
146 cases
-
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
...recent developments in the common law of nuisance. The old distinction between misfeasance and non-feasance no longer rules the day. Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645 and Leakey v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty [1980] QB 485, building on the decision in ......
-
Leakey v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty
...has held that that view of the law is wrong. He bases his decision on the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Goldman v. Hargrave (1967) Appeal Cases 645 . The main issue in this appeal is whether Goldman v. Hargrave accurately states the law of England. If it does......
-
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd; Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
...in general terms by Lord Radcliffe in Bolton v. Stone [1951] A.C. 850, 868 and expanded in more particularity by Lord Wilberforce in Goldman v. Hargrave [1967] 1 A.C. 645 when dealing with a fire upon premises caused by an outside agency. I refrain from citing these passages as both appea......
-
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd; Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
...in general terms by Lord Radcliffe in Bolton v. Stone [1951] A.C. 850, 868 and expanded in more particularity by Lord Wilberforce in Goldman v. Hargrave [1967] 1 A.C. 645 when dealing with a fire upon premises caused by an outside agency. I refrain from citing these passages as both appea......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Basic rules about landslips
...a hazard to neighbours is known to a landowner, they have to act as is reasonable in their individual circumstances: Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645 (PC) at Councils are entitled to take cost and public benefit into account when assessing landslip prevention or response. J L Tindall v Fa......
10 books & journal articles
-
Easements and Nuisance
...of land, it had no responsibility 69 [1940] UKHL 2, [1940] AC 880 at 897. 70 [1940] UKHL 2, [1940] AC 880 at 904. 71 [1966] UKPC 2, [1967] 1 AC 645. 72 [1980] QB 485. 88 Positive Covenants and Freehold Land for any damage caused. A few weeks later, a large quantity of earth and some tree st......
-
Table of Cases
...SJ 176, ChD 200, 203 Glass v Kencakes [1966] 1 QB 611, [1965] 2 WLR 363, [1964] 3 All ER 807, QBD 178 Goldman v Hargrave [1966] UKPC 2, [1967] 1 AC 645, [1966] 3 WLR 513, [1966] 2 All ER 989, PC 87, 90 Goodhart v Hyett (1883) 25 Ch D 182, 48 JP 293, 53 LJ Ch 219, ChD 190 Gordon v Selico Ltd......
-
Particular Easements and Examples of Analogous Remedies of Relevance to Development
...was 50 Brace v South East Regional Housing Association Ltd [1984] 1 EGLR 144. 51 Bond v Nottingham Corporation [1940] Ch 429 at 438. 52 [1967] 1 AC 645. 53 [1980] QB 485. a major landslip and the defendant was found to have been in breach of its duty of care to the claimants and was liable ......
-
Table of cases
...SCJ No 53 ........................................................................................... 30 Goldman v Hargrave (1966), [1967] 1 AC 645, [1966] 3 WLR 513 (PC) ...................................................................................376, 412 THE LAW OF TORTS 506 Good-We......
Request a trial to view additional results