Hastingwood Property Ltd v Saunders Bearman Anslem (A Firm)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1990
Date1990
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
17 cases
  • Datuk Haji Abdul Karim bin Abdul Ghani v M-Con Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2013
  • Various North Point Pall Mall Purchasers v 174 Law Solicitors Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 10 January 2022
    ...UKPC 23, [2021] 1 WLR 5741 Gribbon v Lutton [2001] EWCA Civ 1956, [2002] QB 902 Hastingwood Property Ltd v Saunders Bearman Anselm [1991] Ch 114 Howkins & Harrison v Tyler [2001] PNLR 27, CA Manzanilla Ltd v Corton Property & Investments Ltd unrep., 13 Nov 1996, CA Potters v Loppert [19......
  • Gribbon v Lutton
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 December 2001
    ...who owes contractual obligations to the depositors: Potters v Loppert [1973] Ch. 399, 406; Hastingwood Ltd. v Saunders Bearman [1991] Ch. 114, 123. The underlying relationship is that of debtor and creditor, and is closely analogous to the relationship between a banker and his customer." ......
  • Bank of Scotland v Alfred Truman (A Firm)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 17 March 2005
    ...a trustee or agent; he is a principal who owes contractual obligations to the depositors: Potters v Loppert [1973] Ch 399, 406; Hastingwood Ltd v Saunders Bearman [1991] Ch 114, 123. The underlying relationship is that of debtor and creditor, and is closely analogous to the relationship bet......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Legal Profession
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2002, December 2002
    • 1 December 2002
    ...obligation to pay it to one or the other parties according to the event: see Hastingwood Property Ltd v Saunders Bearman Anselm[1990] 3 All ER 107. However, the plaintiff was suing not the common solicitor but the lessor as defendant and the court could only observe incidentally that if the......

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