Monk v Warbey

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1934
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
82 cases
  • Michael Howe v Motor Insurers' Bureau
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 20 d3 Abril d3 2016
    ...case. 19 In the case of Norman v Ali and Aziz [2000] Lloyds Rep IR 395 the Court of Appeal decided that a claim based on the principle in Monk v Warbey came within the provisions of section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980. The material wording of section 11 is "Whether damages claimed by the ......
  • Richardson v Pitt-Stanley
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 29 d5 Julho d5 1994
    ...for each day that an offence is committed. 12 The ratio of the judgment of the Learned Judge was that this case is on all fours with Monk v Warbey (1935) 1 QB75 and that consequently civil liability attaches to the employers who are in breach of Section 1 of the Act. Having referred to Sect......
  • Coote v Stone
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 d4 Dezembro d4 1970
    ...I cannot see that it gives rise to any private liability. 9 We were referred in answer by Sir Joseph Molony to the well-known cases of Monk v. Warbey (1935 1 King's Bench, 75) and London Passenger Transport Board v. Upson (1949 Appeal Cases, 155), where a breach of a duty was held to give r......
  • All persons in occupation of the house and the wooden stores erected on a portion of land held under Grant No 26977 for Lot 4271 in the Township of Johor Bahru, Johor v Punca Klasik Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 d1 Janeiro d1 1996
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Misfeasance in public office: a very peculiar tort.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 35 No. 1, April 2011
    • 1 d5 Abril d5 2011
    ...Act 1958 (Vic) ss 84(2), (4). (180) K M Stanton, Breach of Statutory Duty in Tort (Sweet & Maxwell, 1986) 26, citing Monk v Warbey [1935] 1 KB 75. The replacement work does not pursue the issue: see Stanton et al, above n (181) Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra (2009) 237 CLR 215, 263-4 (Crenn......
  • Tort law, risk, and technological innovation in England.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 59 No. 4, June - June 2014
    • 1 d0 Junho d0 2014
    ...(61) Ibid at 667. (62) See Phillips v Britannia Hygienic Laundry Co Ltd (1923), 2 KB 832 (CA) [Phillips], (63) See e.g. Monk v Warbey, [1935] 1 KB 75 (owner's failure to (64) Spencer, supra note 51 at 80-82. (65) See generally Peter Bartrip, "No-Fault Compensation on the Roads in Twentieth ......
  • “ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE”
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1998, December 1998
    • 1 d2 Dezembro d2 1998
    ...not exceeding 3 months or to both … 15 See further, MacGillivray & Parkington on Insurance Law (8th Ed, 1988), at paras 2105—2108. 16 [1935] 1 KB 75. 17 However, the mere existence of this means of claiming from the MIB does not, of itself, absolve the person in breach of his statutory duty......

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