Martin v Bannister

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
Date1878
Year1878

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
9 cases
  • Jennison v Baker
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • Invalid date
    ...High Court could commit for a past disobedience of its injunction, so could the county court. Dictum of Bramwell L.J. in Martin v. Bannister (1879) 4 Q.B.D. 491, 492, C.A. applied. Seaward v. Paterson [1897] 1 Ch. 545, C.A. and Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Amusement Caterers (Peckham) L......
  • Whitter v Peters; Peart v Stewart
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 December 1981
    ...of a court is not a penalty, strictly so-called, and that failure to obey such an order is not properly described as an offence. In Martin v. Bannister 1879 4 QBD 212 and 491 a very strong Court of Appeal (Bramwell, Brett and Cotton LL.JJ.) affirmed the opinion of an equally strong Division......
  • Shell E & P Ireland Ltd v McGrath (No. 2)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 December 2006
  • Whitter v Peters; Peart v Stewart
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 10 March 1983
    ... ... Court of Appeal there is a certain irony in the fact that it was precisely because a county court was an "inferior court" that it was held in Martin v. Bannister (1879) 4 Q.B.D. 212 (D.C.) and 491 (C.A.) that it was invested with the power to grant injunctions and enforce them by attachment under ... ...
  • Get Started for Free