Poyser v Minors

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date1881
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
19 cases
  • R (on the application of Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 13 November 2020
    ...mode of proceeding by which a legal right is enforced and the “the law which gives or defines the right” (per Lush LJ in Poyser v Minors(1881) 7 QBD 329, 333) is not apt in relation to coronial proceedings, which are not concerned with the enforcement of a legal right. Nonetheless rules whi......
  • R v Queen's County Justices
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 22 January 1908
    ......Hislop (2) ; Poyser v. Minors (3) ; Flitters v. Allfrey (4) ; Hume v. Burton (5) ; Wakefield Corporation v. Cooke (6) ; Irish Land Commission v. Ryan (7) ; The ......
  • First Active Plc v Cunningham
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 22 February 2018
    ...the Rules of the Superior Courts, the courts' right to order a withdrawal remains extant. 69 The appellant refers to Posner v. Moynes (1881) 7 Q.B.D. 329, where it was said that a non-suit at common law 'decided nothing as regard the matters in dispute, but merely got rid of the pending act......
  • R Ahuja v Cambridge County Court
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 31 January 2008
    ..."the mode of proceeding by which a legal right is enforced," and "the law which gives or defines the right:" see Poyser v. Minors (1881) 7 Q.B.D. 329, 333, per Lush L.J. Such a distinction is scarcely apt in relation to a coroner's inquisition, which is not concerned with the enforcement of......
  • 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