Groom v Crocker

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1937
Year1937
CourtCourt of Appeal

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
198 cases
  • Midland Bank Trust Company Ltd v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
    ...Arenson [1977] A.C. 405, 434, H.L.(E.) applied. Groom v. Crocker [1939] 1 K.B. 194, C.A.; Clark v. Kirby-Smith [1964] Ch. 506; Bagot v. Stevens Scanlan & Co. Bagot v. Stevens Scanlan & Co. Ltd. [1966] 1 Q.B. 197; Cook v. Swinfen [1967] 1 W.L.R. 457, C.A. and Heywood v. Wellers [1......
  • Ross v Caunters
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
    ...2 All E.R. 5, C.A. Fish v. Kelly (1864) 17 C.B.N.S. 194. Glanzer v. Shepard (1922) 135 N.E. 275. Groom v. Crocker [1939] 1 K.B. 194; [1938] 2 All E.R. 394, Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964] A.C. 465; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 101; [1963] 2 All E.R. 575, H.L.(E.). Heywood v. Wel......
  • Ramsook v Crossley
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 30 April 2018
    ...the point received short shrift in the light of the judge's findings that Mrs Crossley had never been served. The court distinguished Groom v Crocker [1939] 1 KB 194 as a case where the proceedings had been served on the defendant. 8 Clause 15 of the insurance policy reads: “ REPRESENTATION......
  • Loh Bee Tuan v Shing Yin Construction (Kota Kinabalu) Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors
    • Malaysia
    • Unspecified court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • Concurrent Duties
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 82-1, January 2019
    • 1 January 2019
    ...Boorman vBrown (1844) 8 ER 1003 (HL); Godefroy vJay (1831) 131 ER 159 (KB); Grant vAustralian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 (PC).16 [1939] 1 KB 194 (CA).17 Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd vHeller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (HL).18 Their Lordships relied on the concept of ‘assumption of responsibility......
  • Legal Profession
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...the circumstances makes it so clear an implication [that the solicitor himself] ought to have appreciated it. (See also Groom v Crocker[1939] 1 KB 194 at 222.) Incidentally, the requirement that the solicitor himself ought to have appreciated that an implied retainer has arisen contrasts sh......
  • APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1991, December 1991
    • 1 December 1991
    ...Medley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd[1963] 2 All ER 575, notwithstanding an earlier English Court of Appeal decision in Groom v Crocker[1938] 2 All ER 394 that a client’s action against his solicitor arose in contract only. Lloyd LJ in the Court of Appeal case of Lee v Thompson[1989] EG 89,......