Jacobs v London County Council
Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
Judgment Date | 1950 |
Court | House of Lords |
Date | 1950 |
-
- 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
86 cases
- Arulpragasan a/l Sandaraju v PP
- Athappen a/l Arumugam v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia and Others
-
Hunter et al. v. Canary Wharf Ltd.; Hunter et al. v. London Docklands Development Corp., (1997) 215 N.R. 1 (HL)
...20 W.A.L.R. 129, refd to. [para. 113]. Mint v. Good, [1951] 1 K.B. 517 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113]. Jacobs v. London County Council, [1950] A.C. 361 (H.L.), refd to. [para. Hale v. Jennings Brothers, [1938] 1 All E.R. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114]. Benning v. Wong (1969), 122 C.L.R. 249......
- Jyothy Laboratories Ltd v Perusahaan Bumi Tulin Sdn Bhd
Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
-
Table of Cases
...Society; Armitage v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896, [1998] 1 All ER 98, [1998] 1 BCLC 531, HL 114–115 Jacobs v LCC [1950] AC 361, [1950] 1 All ER 737, 48 LGR 323, HL 182 Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd (Case 96/80) [1981] 1 WLR 972, [1981] ICR 592, [1981] 2 C......
-
Public Rights of Way
...person causing the nuisance that such a nuisance exists, whether that person has a way of abating the 254 Jacobs v London County Council [1950] AC 361 at 375. 255 See e.g. Attorney-General v Gastonia Coaches [1977] RTR 219. Sixteen coaches, owned by the defendant, were parked in residential......
-
Table of Cases
...CR 125, (1982) 264 EG 533, [1982] JPL 577, QBD 281 xxxviii Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook Jacobs v London County Council (No 2) [1950] AC 361, [1950] 1 All ER 737, 48 LGR 323, HL 571 Jarmain v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions (No 1) [2000] 2 PLR 126, [2......
-
Analysing Judgments: Reasoning, Argument and Legal Logic
...given by all the members of the Court of Appeal for their decision and we are not entitled to pick out the first 78 [1976] 1 WLR 1. 79 [1950] AC 361 HL at 369 and 370. reason as the ratio decidendi and neglect the second, or to pick out the second reason as the ratio decidendi and neglect t......
Request a trial to view additional results