Hillman v London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1920 |
| Date | 1920 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
7 cases
-
Shotts Iron Company Ltd v Fordyce
...the provision of the statute." 7 That decision was followed by the English Court of Appeal in Hillman v. L. B. & S. C. R. Company, (1920) 1 K. B., p. 284, where Lord Warrington said— "The facts are sufficiently found by the judgment of the County Court Judge, and are not in dispute. It is ......
-
Shotts Iron Company Ltd v Fordyce
...we should not be if there was evidence upon which he could come to that conclusionSee also KingELR, [1920] A. C. 1, and HillmanELR, [1920] 1 K. B. 284. In Livingstone v. Summerlee Iron Co.2 these cases were not cited, and the question was put by the arbitrator, In these circumstances was I ......
-
Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour
...of the statute.” That decision was followed by the English Court of Appeal in Hillman v. London, Brighton and South Coast Ry. Co. [[1920] 1 KB 284 at 288], where Warrington L.J. said: “The facts are sufficiently found by the judgment of the county court judge, and are not in dispute. It is ......
-
Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour
...of the statute.” That decision was followed by the English Court of Appeal in Hillman v. London, Brighton and South Coast Ry. Co. [[1920] 1 KB 284 at 288], where Warrington L.J. said: “The facts are sufficiently found by the judgment of the county court judge, and are not in dispute. It is ......
Request a trial to view additional results