Pittman v Prudential Deposit Bank Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1896 |
| Date | 1896 |
| 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
16 cases
-
William Kurt Wallersteiner (Plaintiff Appellant) M. J. G Moir (Defendant Respondent) M. J. G Moir (Plaintiff on counterclaim) William Kurt Wallersteiner Hartley Baird Ltd and Another (Defendants on counterclaim)
...sum or advantage which was to be received if he won but not if he lost, that, too, was unlawful - see Pittman v. Prudential Debit Bank (1896) 13 T.L.R. 110 by Lord Eaher. Master of the Rolls, It mattered not whether the sum to be received was to be his sole remuneration, or to be an added r......
-
Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise
... [1994] 1 AC 142, it is said on behalf of Ms. Morris that there is no longer a strict principle such as Lord Esher laid down in Pittman 13 TLR 110 and the Court of Appeal affirmed in Wallersteiner (No. 2) [1975] QB 373; it is further said that the correct approach is now to look at the CFA ......
-
David Rees and Another v Gateley Wareing (A Firm)and Another
...were champertous. 166 The parties cited to me the leading cases on maintenance and champerty, in particular, the decisions in Pittman v Prudential Deposit Bank Ltd (1896) 13 TLR 110, In re Trepca Mines Ltd (No. 2) [ 1963 Ch 199, Wallersteiner v Moir (No. 2) [1975] QB 373, Trendtex Trading ......
-
Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member Ltd
... ... really were, if they had been reasonably forecasted”: see Bank Line, Limited. v Arthur Capel and Company [1919] A.C. 435 per Lord ... Sale could have been prevented by the deposit of bail, but this would have involved a huge speculation on the value of ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Champerty, Public Policy, And The Winds Of Change Out Of Breath'
...was successful or under which they took a share of the proceeds. As set out by Lord Esher MR in Pittman v Prudential Deposit Bank Ltd (1896) 13 TLR 110, (cited at [26]): "In order to preserve the honour and honesty of the profession it was a rule of law which the court had laid down and wou......