Maharani Woollen Mills Company v Anchor Line
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1927 |
| Year | 1927 |
| 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
8 cases
-
The Hollandia (Haico Holwerde, Morviken)
...was followed in the Australia Star (1940) 67 Lloyd's List Law Reports 110 at page 116, by Mr. Justice Bucknill. 73In the Maharani Woollen Mills Co. and Anchor Line, 29 Lloyd's List Law Reports at page 169, the Court of Appeal had to consider an interlocutory appeal from an order of Mr. Just......
-
Owners of Cargo on Board The Merak v The Merak(Owners); The Merak
...the same. All that has happened is that the parties have chosen their forum. The observations of Lord Justice Scrutton in Maharani Woollen Mills Co. v. Anchor Line (1927), 29 Lloyd's List page 169, would appear to be moot apposite. That was a case where the shipowners were setting up a clau......
-
Sierra Leone (Government of) v Marmaro Shipping Company Ltd (Amazona, Yayamaria)
...lessen liability. 43 For the defendants it was submitted that the clause is purely procedural, and reliance was placed on Maharani Woollen Mills Co. v. Anchor Line (1927) 29 Lloyd's List Reports, 169; The "Merak" (1965) P. 223, and a further passage in Lord Diplock's speech in The "Hollandi......
-
Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd v UCO Bank and Another Appeal
... ... Ltd (“SOM”), a Singapore incorporated company. SOM was controlled by Mr Som Nath Sood ... connote that. It is entirely in line with common sense and practicality for a claim to ... Maharani Woollen Mills Co v Anchor Line [1927] 29 ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Conflict of Laws
...‘suits’ and ‘disputes’. 8.8 The Court of Appeal was aided in its construction by the cases of Maharani Woollen Mills Co v Anchor Line(1927) 29 Ll L Rep 169 and The Media(1931) 41 Ll L Rep 80. Both these cases had exclusive jurisdiction clauses which were significantly similar to cl 17. Afte......