Mint v Good
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Court | Court of Appeal |
Date | 1950 |
-
- 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
19 cases
-
Sleafer v Lambeth Borough Council, C.A.
...been made the subject of an express term. 24 Mr. Beney relied strongly on something said by Lord Somervell in this Court in the case of Mint V. Good, 1951, 1 King's Bench, page 517. The question which there arose was in reference to liability for a nuisance on premises to a passer - by on t......
-
Brew Brothers Ltd v Snax (Ross) Ltd
...to the less dogmatic views expressed in other textbooks cited to the Court. Mr. Drake, on the other hand, referred to ( Mint v. Good 1951 1 King's Bench 517) and the cases there cited: he then submitted that even if the older authorities supported Mr. Blundells submission (which he conteste......
-
McAuley v Bristol City Council
...Further, it was argued that an implied right to enter and to do repairs to the garden, including the step, should be implied at law: see Mint v. Good [1951] 1 K.B. 517. The council, in the circumstances of this case, should be held to have had the implied right to do any repairs which they ......
-
Hunter et al. v. Canary Wharf Ltd.; Hunter et al. v. London Docklands Development Corp., (1997) 215 N.R. 1 (HL)
...(1992), 419 S.E.2d 661 (Va.), refd to. [para. 107]. Martin Davies Case (1990), 20 W.A.L.R. 129, refd to. [para. 113]. Mint v. Good, [1951] 1 K.B. 517 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Jacobs v. London County Council, [1950] A.C. 361 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 113]. Hale v. Jennings Brothers, [1938] 1 Al......
Request a trial to view additional results