R v Cotham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1898 |
| Year | 1898 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
32 cases
-
Wilson v Crewe Justices
... ... had sufficiently kept the premises as an inn to satisfy the provisions of the section, notwithstanding that he had sold no liquor there; and that under the circumstances the justices had jurisdiction to grant the transfer to S ... Reg. v. Cotham, [1898] 1 Q. B. 802, distinguished ... CASE stated by the quarter sessions for the county of Chester ... On March 8, 1904, an application was made at the general annual licensing meeting for the borough of Crewe by H. J ... Wilson for a renewal licence by way of transfer authorizing him to apply ... ...
- R v Great Yarmouth Licensing Justices, ex parte Hamilton
-
R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd
...Guardians of Lewisham Union [1897] 1 Q.B. 498, Reg. v. Russell [1969] 1 Q.B. 342); sometimes that he must have a sufficient interest ( Reg. v. Cotham [1898] 1 Q.B. 802,804 (mandamus), Ex parte Stott [1916] 1 K.B. 7 (certiorari)). By 1977 when R.S.C. 0.53 was introduced the courts, guide......
-
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
...if they thought that the person was de jure an officer and entitled to compensation their order was not removable. 54 In his judgment in Reg. v. Cotham (1898) 1 Q.B. 802 Kennedy J. (at page 808) noted the distinction between, on the one hand, disregarding the provisions of a statute and con......
Get Started for Free