Gosling v Gaskell and Grocott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1897 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1897] UKHL J0727-1 |
| Date | 27 July 1897 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1897] UKHL J0727-1
House of Lords
Gosling
and
Gaskell and Grocott.
1
After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday the 6th as Friday the 7th day of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Francis Gosling, of 19, Fleet Street, in the City of London, Esquire, praying, That the matter of the Judgment and Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, a Judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the High Court of Justice, of the 2nd of December 1895, so far as regards the words "and the said The Right Honourable Charles Lord Russell of Killowen having ordered that Judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs for 488 l. 9 s. 3 d. against the Defendant Francis Gosling alone;" and also the words "Therefore it is adjudged that the Plaintiffs recover against the Defendant Francis Gosling 488 l. 9 s. 3 d. and their costs to be taxed;" and also an...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
28 cases
-
Listowel U.D.C., Nolan v Lynch v Ardmore Studios (Ir.) Ltd
...followed; conclusions of McLoughlin J. in Ardmore Studios (Ir.) Ltd. v. Lynch and OthersIR [1965] I. R. 1 followed; Goslingv. GaskellELR [1897] A. C. 575 distinguished. (1966. No. 138 P.) Lynch and Others v. Ardmore Studios (Ir.) Ltd. GEORGE LYNCH, ANTHONY KELLY, DERMOT MOLONEY, LEO MURPHY ......
-
Ratford v Northavon District Council
... ... This is shown by the dissenting judgment of Lord Justice Rigby in Gaskell v. Gosling , [1896] 1 Queen's Bench 669 , which was upheld by the House of Lords, [1897] Appeal ... ...
-
Yorkshire Bank Plc v Hall
... ... 295 ; [ 1993 ] 2 W.L.R. 86 ; [ 1993 ] 3 All E.R. 626 , P.C ... Gaskell v. Gosling [ 1896 ] 1 Q.B. 669 , C.A ... Greenalls Management Ltd. v. Canavan , The ... ...
-
Julie Anne Davey v James Money
...law is well stated by Rigby L.J. in Gaskell v. Gosling [1896] 1 Q.B. 669, a dissenting judgment which was approved by the House of Lords [1897] A.C. 575. The receiver is the agent of the company, not of the debenture holder, the bank. He owes a duty to use reasonable care to obtain the best......
Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
-
The barbados companies act, cap. 308 and receivers' duties
...2 All E.R. 938. 24 [1993] 2 A.C. 295. 25 S. 283(b). See also, Re B. Johnson & Co. (Builders) Ltd. [1955] Ch. 634, Gosling v. Gasket [1897] A.C. 575. 26 See, e.g., Newhart Development Ltd. v. Cooperative Commercial Bank Ltd. [1970] Q.B. 814, 819 per Shaw L.J. of this duty, the receiver has a......
-
Bankruptcy and insolvency
...2001 (Cth) section 419A. See also Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 7. 66 Gosling v Gaskell [1897] AC 575. 67 See Bacal Contracting Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd [1980] 2 All ER 655 at 660–661, per Judge Edgar Fay QC; GPT Realisations Ltd......
-
DUTIES OF A MORTGAGEE AND A RECEIVER: WHERE SINGAPORE SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT FOLLOW ENGLISH LAW
...imposed upon a mortgagee in possession”). The dissenting judgment of Rigby LJ was affirmed by the House of Lords in Gosling v Gaskell[1897] AC 575 (HL) at 589. 54 Medforth v Blake [2000] Ch 86 (CA) at 99 (“particularly onerous duties constructed by courts of equity for mortgagees in possess......
-
RECEIVERSHIP, LIQUIDATION AND TORRENS LAND: MAPPING THE BOUNDARIES
...v Gosling[1896] 1 QB 669 at 692; this dissenting judgment was later approved by the House of Lords allowing the appeal: Gosling v Gaskell[1897] AC 575. See also United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd v Roland Choong(1991) 1 MSCLC 90,697. 7 See Jenkins LJ in Re B Johnson & Co (Builders) Ltd[......
Get Started for Free