Massey v Heynes

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1888
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
43 cases
  • ICICI Bank UK Plc v Mihir Mehta and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 18 April 2017
    ...(2) The action against Manisha at least is not bound to fail, for the reasons I have explained above. (3) Applying the cited test in Massey v Heynes & Co (1888) 21 QBD 330, the claim against Mona and Manisha as heirs is identical to that against Mihir as an heir and will indeed "involve on......
  • JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Teck Hock & Co (Pte) Ltd and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 December 1989
    ... ... opinion that the third defendant is clearly a proper party to the action and on this point I would adopt what was said by Lord Esher MR in Massey v Heynes & Co (1888) 21 QBD 330 at p 338: ... The question, whether a person out of the jurisdictions is a `proper party` to an action ... ...
  • Short v Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1997
    ...d'Alimentacion SA (Case 106/89) [1990] E.C.R. I-4135; [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 305. Massey v. Heynes (1881) 21 Q.B.D. 338; 57 L.J.Q.B. 468; 59 L.T. 470; 26 W.R. 834. O'Toole v. Ireland [1992] I.L.R.M. 218. Porzelack KG v. Porzelack (UK) Ltd. [1987] 1 W.L.R. 420; [1987] 1 All E.R. 1074. R. v. Secre......
  • Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd v The International Tin Council and Another
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1987
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT