Radcliffe v Bartholomew
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1892 |
| Year | 1892 |
| Date | 1892 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
-
- 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
-
DPP (Clarke) v Stafford
...- Dodds v Walker [1981] 1 WLR 027; Williams v Burgess (1840) 12 Ad &El 635; Young v Higgon (1840) 6 M & W 49; Radcliffe v Bartholomew (1892) 1 Q B 161 and Frew v Morris (1897) 34 ScLR 527 followed - Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 (14 & 15 Vict, c 93), s 10(4) - Interpretation Act 1937 (N......
-
CRIMINAL ASSETS BUREAU (CAB) v McS (P)
...excluded in computing a limitation period thereafter was established by the decision of the Divisional Court in Radcliffe v. Bartholomew (1892) 1 QB 161." 58 Having then cited Section 11(h) of the Interpretation Act, 1937, the learned judge went on to say (again at p. 292/3):- " I would gla......
-
Peter Matthew v Barrie Sedman
... ... 17 The principle of excluding the day of accrual of an action is of long-standing. It was followed in Radcliffe v Bartholomew [1891] 1 QB 161 ... The Divisional Court was considering computation of a limitation period of one month in criminal proceedings. In ... ...
-
Suresh s/o Suppiah v Jiang Guoliang
...v S Russell & Sons Ltd [1973] 1 QB 336 (“Pritam Kaur”). The decision drew support from various older cases: In Radcliffe v Bartholomew [1892] 1 QB 161, the statutory provision in issue was s 14 of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1849 (c 92) (UK), where complaints were to be made “within one cale......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
-
Limitation Periods After Midnight Deadlines: The Saga Continues In The Supreme Court
...be excluded from the calculation of limitation. Gelmini therefore was not wrongly decided; not inconsistent with Radcliffe v Bartholomew [1892] 1 QB 161; ought to have been distinguished in Marren v Dawson Bentley & Co Ltd [1961] 2 QB 135; and was not expressly disapproved in Pritam Kaur v ......
-
Limitation Periods After Midnight Deadlines: The Saga Continues In The Supreme Court
...be excluded from the calculation of limitation. Gelmini therefore was not wrongly decided; not inconsistent with Radcliffe v Bartholomew [1892] 1 QB 161; ought to have been distinguished in Marren v Dawson Bentley & Co Ltd [1961] 2 QB 135; and was not expressly disapproved in Pritam Kaur v ......
-
Matthew And Others (Appellants) v Sedman And Others (Respondents) [2021] UKSC 19
...commencement of that day..." The Appellants sought to argue that Gelmini was: inconsistent with the case of Radcliffe -v- Bartholomew [1892] 1 QB 161, expressly disapproved in the case of Marren Dawson Bentley & Co Ltd [1961] 2 QB 135; and implicitly disapproved in the case of Pritam Kaur -......