Goldsack v Shore

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date1950
Year1950
Date1950

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
28 cases
  • Verrall v Farnes
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Colchester Borough Council v Smith
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Duek ak Atin v Rick Ventures Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • January 1, 2013
  • Cordle v Cordle
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • December 6, 2002
    ...modifications" could not occur; see Harrison-Broadley v Smith [1964] 1 W.L.R. 456 at 467, citing Lord Evershed M.R. in Goldsack v Shore [1950] 1 K.B. 708 where Lord Evershed said:— "If the subsection applies to it, it must be capable of being so modified (and that must mean modified consist......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Interpretation Of Statutes
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Sasegbon's Laws of Nigeria. Volume 12 Interpretation Of Statutes
    • July 3, 2016
    ...must not be excluded unless there is clear language in the statute which is alleged to have that effect (see Goldsack v. Shore (1950) 1 All E.R. 276, 277 per Evershed, M.R.” - Per Obaseki, J.S.C. in Salami v . Chairman L.E.D.B. & Ors. & Ors. Suit No. S.C. 226/1985; (1989) 20 N.S.C.C. (Pt. I......