Hannah v Peel

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1945
Year1945
CourtKing's Bench Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
8 cases
  • Daniel s/o D William v Luhat Wan and Others and Luhat Wan v Social and Welfare Services Lotteries Board and Others
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1990
  • Parker v British Airways Board
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 December 1981
    ...against all parties except the real owner; and we think that rule must prevail…'. Bridges v. Hawkesworth was followed by Birkett, J., in Hannah v. Peel, (1945) 1 K.B. 509. It follows that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the pump, unless the defendant asserts and proves a title to......
  • City of London Corporation v Appleyard
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
    ...860, D.C. F19(1851) 21 L.J.Q.B. 75. F20(1886) 33 Ch.D. 562; 2 T.L.R. 782. F21[1896] 2 Q.B. 44; 12 T.L.R. 402, D.C. F22[1945] K.B. 509; 61 T.L.R. 502; [1945] 2 All E.R. F23(1958) 12 D.L.R.(2d) 727. F2421 L.J.Q.B. 75. F2533 Ch.D. 562. F26[1896] 2 Q.B. 44. F27Ibid. 46. F28[1896] 2 Q.B. 44, 47.......
  • Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 13 July 1995
    ...to land to unattached objects found on it, subject to an additional requirement of a manifest intention to exercise control. See Hannah v. Peel [1945] KB 509, per Birkett J at 519–9; Grafstein v. Holme and Freeman (1958) 12 DLR (2d) 727, at per LeBel JA at 734; and Parker, per Donaldson LJ ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles

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