McHenry v Lewis

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1881
Year1881
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
25 cases
  • Bank of Canton Ltd v Dart Sum Timber (Pte) Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 9 March 1982
    ... ... the court and vexatious and would put the plaintiff to his election as to which action he will continue and will stay one of the actions.In McHenry v Lewis (1883) 22 Ch D 397 at p 400, Jessel MR said: ... In this country, where the two actions are by the same man in courts governed by the ... ...
  • Muduroglu Ltd v T. C. Ziraat Bankasi
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 3 July 1986
    ...On both the burden of proof is on the defendant. These propositions are, I think, consistent with and supported by the following cases: McHenry v. Lewis 22 CH.d. 397; Peruvian Guano Co. v. Rockwoldt [1883] 23 Ch.D. 225; Hyman v. Helm [1883] 24 Ch.D. 531; Thornton v. Thornton 11 P.D. 176; an......
  • Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boorenleenbank Binding Authority
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 2 December 2003
  • Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boorenleenbank Binding Authority
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 January 2004
    ... ... immediately after the passage in Aerospatiale at p.894B-C, Lord Goff went on to refer with approval to the words of caution of Bowen LJ in McHenry v. Lewis 22 Ch.D. 397 , 407–408, and to say, in their light, both that it was "wise to remember the breadth of the jurisdiction" (being to ... ...
  • 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