Moody v Cox and Hatt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1917 |
| Date | 1917 |
| Year | 1917 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- 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
131 cases
-
Sharon Scally v Odilla Rhatigan
...[2005] UKHL 8, [2005] 1 WLR 567 approved; Flood v Flood [1999] 2 IR 234, Spencer v Kinsella [1996] 2 ILRM 401, Moody v Cox and Hatt [1917] 2 Ch 71, O'Carroll v Diamond [2005] IESC 21, [2005] 4 IR 41, Carroll v Carroll [1999] 4 IR 241, and Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998......
-
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd
...as in a moral sense”: see Dering v Earl of Winchelsea [1775–1802] All ER Rep 140. This principle was similarly followed in Moody v Cox [1917] 2 Ch 71 where it was held by Warrington LJ at [I]n order to prevent a man coming for relief in connection with a transaction so tainted it must be sh......
-
United Overseas Finance Ltd v Victor Sakayamary and Others
...acting for two or more parties to a transaction even though there is no rule prohibiting such a practice - see Moody v Cox and Hatt [1917] 2 Ch 71 in which Scrutton LJ said at p It may be that a solicitor who tries to act for both parties puts himself in such a position that he must be liab......
-
Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood (A Firm)
...Counsel for Mr Hilton, in submitting that the judge was wrong, drew our attention to a number of authorities to which I should refer. In Moody v Cox [1917] 2 Ch.71 Hatt was, as trustee of the settlement which owned the relevant property, a vendor thereof to Moody as well as a solicitor acti......
Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
-
Subject Index
...225Mohammed v The State [1999] 2 WLR552..................................................... 49Moody v Cox [1917] 2 Ch 71 ............ 235Moore v R. Fox & Sons [1956] 1 QB 596........................................................ 228Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22EHRR 29 .....................
-
THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF LAWYERS for THEIR CLIENTS' MISSTATEMENTS AND OMISSIONS TO THE SECURITIES MARKET IN SINGAPORE
...(12 December 2002), available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s74502/ckirby1.htm (accessed 15 November 2013). 43 See, eg, Moody v Cox[1917] 2 Ch 71 at 91, per Scrutton LJ; Spector v Ageda[1973] Ch 30 at 48, per Megarry J; Boyce v Rendells(1983) 268 EG 268 at 272, per Lawton LJ. 44 See ......
-
Burden of Proof in Undue Influence: Common Law and Codes on Collision Course
...to establish affirmatively that the transaction was a fair one: see e.g.Demerara Bauxite Co. Ltd v Hubbard [1923] AC 673; Moody v Cox [1917] 2 Ch 71. 236 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOFBURDEN OF PROOF IN UNDUE INFLUENCE70 Above n. 65.intention that the concept of ‘active confi......
-
RECONCEPTUALISING FIDUCIARY REGULATION IN ACTUAL CONFLICTS.
...to the reasons. (50) See, eg, Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood [2005] 1 WLR 567, 569 [4] (Lord Scott) ('Hilton'), quoting Moody v Cox [1917] 2 Ch 71, 91 (Scrutton LJ) (51) See Stewart (n 34) 690 (Foster J). (52) Ibid 709. (53) Ibid 711. (54) [1934] 3 DLR 465, 469 (Lord Thankerton) (Priv......
Request a trial to view additional results