Monk v Warbey

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
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 April 2016 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 July 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 December 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 January 1996
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Misfeasance in public office: a very peculiar tort.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 35 No. 1, April 2011
    • 1 April 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......
  • The Jamaica fair competition act 1993 and consumer protection from false and misleading advertising: a legal and economic analysis
    • Barbados
    • Caribbean Law Review No. 11-2, December 2001
    • 1 December 2001
    ...185 Compare Infochannel Ltd. v. TelecommunicationofJamaica Ltd. (Unreported) (SCCA No. 49/95, CA July 1995). 186 Monk v. Warbey [1935] 1 KB 75, 85 per Green L.J. (but see the same L.J.'s approval in the same case of a dictum of Atkin,L.J., in Philhps v. Britannia Hygenic Laundry Co. [1923] ......
  • Tort law, risk, and technological innovation in England.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 59 No. 4, June - June 2014
    • 1 June 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 ......
  • Failure of the basis for breach of statutory duty in tort
    • Barbados
    • Caribbean Law Review No. 11-1, June 2001
    • 1 June 2001
    ...was due to a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Victoria County Council, the relevant section invoked being Monk v. Warbey [1935] 1 K.B. 75. The action failed in Lonrho and was also not successful in many cases, as for instance, Phillips v. Britannia Hygienic Laundry [1923] 2 K.B. ......
  • 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