Hughes v Justin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1894 |
| Year | 1894 |
| 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
53 cases
- Hong Leong Finance Bhd; Lee Tain Tshung
- Malayan United Bank Bhd. v Mohammed Salleh Mohammed Yusoff and Others
-
Bolt & Nut Company (Tipton) Ltd v Rowlands Nicholls & Company Ltd
...to him. And he thought that those were costs thrown away, and the Plaintiffs ought to have them in any event. But Lord Esher's case of Hughes v. Justin, 1894, 1 Queen's Bench, page 667, shows quite clearly that, according to that great authority, a defendant who is entitled to have the writ......
- Hara Industries Sdn Bhd and Another; Public Bank Bhd
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
Preliminary Sections
...1 Ch. D. 537; (1908) 1 Ch. D. 1. (C.A.) 62 Hughes v. Chatham Overseers (1843) (5 Man. & Gr.54), 134 E.R. 479,488. 46 Hughes v. Justin (1894) 1 Q.B. 667. 20 Hutton v. Harper (1875-76) 1 App. Cas. 474, 474. 220 In re Bank of Syria (1901) 1 Ch D 115 153 In re Tweeds Garages Ltd (1962) 1 Ch. 40......
-
Action
...the representative or the named defendant when it said: - “The cases of Anlaby v. Praetorious (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 764 and Hughes v. Justin (1894) 1 Q.B. 667 on which Mr Araka for the appellants relied, are not an authority for saying that a named defendant may appeal for the purpose of protect......
-
ADENLE V. OYEGBADE & ANOR
...judgment on that point is given below. CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT: 1. Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 Q.B.D 764. 2. Hughes v. Justin (1894) 1 Q.B. 667. E.O. Araka and F. Nwadialo, appeared for the defendants/appellants. A.I. Aseme, for the plaintiffs/respondents. BRETT, J.S.C. (Delivering......