Re South Eastern Railway Company and London County Council's Contract. South Eastern Railway Company v London County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1915 |
| Date | 1915 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
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
33 cases
- BP Petroleum Developments Ltd v Ryder
- Mercury Communications Ltd v London and India Dock Investments Ltd
-
Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd
...the undertaking for or in connection with which the purchase is made must be disregarded" ( South Eastern Ry Co v London County Council [1915] 2 Ch 252, at 258, per Eve 103 In this case there can be no doubt that Bocardo will have suffered no quantifiable physical loss. It has no property ......
-
Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd
...253. 107 “Colliery Guardian” 30 November 1928. 108 BP v Ryder at page 245D. 109 [1935] 2 KB 42 110 [1950] Ch 567 111 Ibid. page 578 112 [1915] 2 Ch 252 at 113 [1919] 1 KB 16 at 30 114 [1914] AC 1056 at 1065 115 [1950] Ch 567 at 581 116 [1966] 1 Ch 308 117 [1987] 2 EGLR 233 at 246 right han......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Land Law
...Pointe Gourde, it would have done so more clearly as it did in s 33(1)(b) in overriding [South Eastern Railway Co v London County Council[1915] 2 Ch 252], rather than leaving it to implications.” 17.47 In regard to s 33(5)(e) of the Act, he was of the opinion that it has nothing to do with ......