Re Bramblevale Ltd (Note)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1971 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1970] Ch.
The following corrections should be made in the report of the judgment of Lord Denning M.R. in In re Bramblevale Ltd. [
p. 136F, |
line 33: |
for “November 28” substitute “November 19” |
line 34: |
for “December 5” substitute “November 26” |
|
p. 137C, |
line 13: |
for “November 28 to December 5” substitute “November 19 to 26” |
p. 137D, |
lines 18 and 19: |
for “November 28 to December 5” substitute “November 19 to 26” |
The alterations made in the Law Report followed representations that counsel had argued the whole case on the basis that the relevant dates were November 28 and December 5 and those dates are retained in the rest of the report.
M. M. H.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heatons Transport (St. Helens) Ltd v TGWU (Interim Proceedings)
... ... It is important to note that there is no question here of contumacious or insulting behaviour or interference with the administration of justice. There has been simply a ... ...
-
Comet Products U.K. Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd
...v. Yiammi (1966) Volume 1, Weekly Law Reports, page 120, so decided; and furthermore we ourselves in this Court,in the case of In re Bramblevale Limited., (1969) Volume 5, Weekly Law Reports, page 699, said that it must he proved with the same degree of satisfaction as in a criminal charge.......
- Uthayakumar Ponnusamy v Abdul Wahab Abdul Kassim
-
Airbus Operations Ltd Qbe Insurance Company (uk) Ltd v Adam Lee Roberts
...defendant is in contempt rests on the claimant and the facts constituting any contempt must be proved to the criminal standard: see Re Bramblevale Limited [1970] 1 Ch 128. The claimant must also prove, again to the criminal standard, that the defendant acted with the intention of interferin......