London County Council v Attorney-General and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1902 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1902] UKHL J0207-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1902] UKHL J0207-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel for the Appellants, as well yesterday as this day, upon the Petition and Appeal of the London County Council, of the County Hall, Spring Gardens, in the County of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 28th of February 1901, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed case of His Majesty's Attorney-General, and William Henry Birch, John Manley Birch, William Samuel Birch, T. and H. Cane, G. and H. Glover, Philip Willing Tibbs, Charles William French, William and Henry Clinch, Samuel Crews, Edward Burridge and Son, Goode and Cooper, Tom Brickland, The Omnibus Proprietors, Limited, The London Omnibus Carriage Company, The Star Omnibus Company, London, Limited, The London Road Car Company, Limited, and the London General Omnibus Company, Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and Counsel appearing for the said Respondents, but not being called on; and due consideration being had of what was offered for the said Appellants:
It is Ordered and Adjudged by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 28th day of February 1901, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General ex rel. McWhirter v Independent Broadcasting Authority
... ... injunction viewed the programme, as had also the General Advisory Council, and that with one dissentient had decided that the programme was suitable ... generally, a private citizen with no interest greater than that of others could only apply for an injunction if he had first obtained the fiat of ... 356B–H , 363H ) ... London County Council v. Attorney-General [ 1902 ] A.C. 165 , H.L.(E.) ... ...
- Lower Perak Co-operative Housing Society Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri
-
Dunnes Stores v Revenue Commissioners
...[2004] 2 I.L.R.M. 481. Laurentiu v. Minister for Justice [1999] 4 I.R. 26; [2000] 1 I.L.R.M. 1. London County Council v. Attorney-General [1901] A.C. 26. McGrath v. McDermott [1988] I.R. 258; [1988] I.L.R.M. 647. Meulendijks v. Netherlands CE:ECHR:2002:0514JUD003454997. Minister for Justice......
-
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Apollo Fuels Ltd and Another
...3 Income tax is a tax on income, or so it is generally understood. As Lord Macnaghten said in London County Council v Attorney-General [1901] AC 26 at 35: "Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income. It is not meant to be a tax on anything else." Income is not confin......
-
The origins and development of the general deduction formula in income tax legislation of the Cape Colony
...discussion on how the income/capital distinction in UK tax lawdeveloped.27S II and Schedule D.28London County Council v Attorney-General [1901] A.C. 26.29London County Council v Attorney-General [1901] A.C. 26 at 37.30Holmes, at 154 (n 5) describes such an approach as requiring ‘aggregation......