Holder v Holder
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | LORD JUSTICE HARMAN,LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS,LORD JUSTICE SACHS |
Judgment Date | 08 December 1967 |
Judgment citation (vLex) | [1967] EWCA Civ J1208-4 |
Date | 08 December 1967 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
-
- 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
47 cases
-
Golden Village Multiplex Pte Ltd v Phoon Chiong Kit
...that the plaintiff had consented to his concurrent directorships are irrelevant as can be seen from their facts. In Holder v Holder [1968] Ch 353, the English Court of Appeal held that a beneficiary cannot be heard to complain about a trustee allegedly acting in breach of trust when he had ......
-
Mrs Shanatabi Kashinath Bhusate (personally and as personal representative of the estate of Kashinath Bhusate deceased) v Dr Managala Patel (personally and as personal representative of the estate of Kashinath Bhusate deceased)
...not equivalent to cash. 43 An example of very exceptional circumstances can be seen from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Holder v Holder and others [1968] 1 Ch 353. In Holder ‘V’ was one of the deceased's 10 children and an executor of his will with one of his siblings. The deceased'......
-
Re Freeston's Charity
...of the Minister to put the matter right. 56 But it does not rest there, because the position was reviewed by this court in the case of Holder v. Holder (1968) Chancery Division, page 353. There each member of the court held that thetrue view of the matter was that one had to have regard to ......
-
Re Cotorro Trust
...(5) -Diplock, In re, Wintle v. Diplock, [1940] Ch. 988. (6) -Douglas-Menzies v. Umphelby, [1908] A.C. 224. (7) -Holder v. Holder, [1968] Ch. 353; [1968] 1 All E.R. 665, followed. (8) -Lemos v. Coutts & Co. (Cayman) Ltd., 1992–93 CILR 460, dicta of Kerr J.A. applied. (9) -McDonald v. Horn, [......
Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
-
SELF-DEALING AND NO-PROFIT RULES: COMPANIES ACT 2016
...respectful view, is a tidying exercise as the section is only to impose a criminal sanction against defaulters. 68 Holder v Holder [1968] Ch 353. In this case, it was held that acquiescence and estoppel are not necessarily coterminous and from which assent may be inferred. See the judgment ......
-
Table of Cases
...Ltd’s Air Raid Distress Fund, Re [1946] Ch 194, [1946] 1 All ER 501, 174 LT 428, 62 TLR 313, [1946] WN 65, CA 201, 207 Holder v Holder [1968] Ch 353, [1968] 2 WLR 237, [1968] 1 All ER 665, CA 176 Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) [2003] UKHL 12, [2004] 1 AC 715, [200......
-
Administrative Powers for Personal Representatives and Trustees
...which are quoted on the stock market. There are some circumstances in which a court may authorise such a purchase (see Holder v Holder [1968] Ch 353, CA and Ex parte Lacey (1802) 6 Ves 625). It is also possible for beneficiaries to authorise a purchase. PRs should be particularly careful if......
-
Fiduciary Conduct - A Tailored Application Lord Upjohn's Dissent in Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
...refusing to impose liability. Such safeguards are sufficient to protect the 90 Kane v Radley-Kane [1999] Ch 274. 91 Holder v Holder [1968] Ch 353. 92 Ibid, at pp 395–400. 93 Above, n 91, at p 398. integrity of the rules, and would work to the advantage of some beneficiaries by preserving co......
Request a trial to view additional results