Mogul Steamship Company v McGregor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1888 |
| Date | 1888 |
| Year | 1888 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
-
- 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
13 cases
-
Total Network SL v. United Kingdom (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs), (2008) 385 N.R. 310 (HL)
..."chequered history" between the first-instance decision of Lord Coleridge, C.J., in Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1888), 21 Q.B.D. 544 (" Mogul ") and Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. v. Veitch , [1942] A.C. 435 (H.L.) (" Crofter "). The decision of this House in Crofte......
-
Norris v Government of the United States of America
..."nothing illegal", and not deserving to be characterised as a conspiracy. 11 The case of Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co (1888) 21 QBD 544 was tried at first instance by Lord Coleridge CJ without a jury. The plaintiff company claimed damages for a conspiracy to prevent it carryi......
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Total Network SL
...as a young barrister, during its chequered history between Lord Coleridge C.J.'s judgment at first instance in Mogul Steamship Co.Ltd. v McGregor, Gow & Co. (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 544, and the Crofter case, the civil tort of conspiracy attracted more controversy among academic writers than succes......
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Total Network SL
...tort's "chequered history" between the first-instance decision of Lord Coleridge CJ in Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co. (1888) 21 QBD 544 ("Mogul") and Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] AC 435 ("Crofter"). The decision of this House in Crofter can, I think......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Table of Cases
...v. JSW Steel (USA) Inc., 806 F.3d 835, 849 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied 137 S. Ct. 372 (2016), 48 Mogul S.S. Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co., 21 Q.B.D. 544, 554 (1888), aff’d , 23 Q.B.D. 598, 632 (C.A. 1889), aff’d , [1892] A.C. 25 (1891), 7 , 9 State ex rel. Monnett v. Buckeye Pipe-Line Co., 6......