Riordan v War Office (Note)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Judgment Date1959
Year1959
Date1959

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
39 cases
  • JW Evelyn v William Chichester
    • Guyana
    • Court of Appeal (Guyana)
    • Invalid date
  • Mary Williams Claimant v Attorney General Defendant
    • British Virgin Islands
    • High Court (British Virgin Islands)
    • 22 June 2011
    ...England, Vol 16 (4 th ed. 2000 reissue) Employment: 437; Harris & Russell Ltd v Slingsby [1973] 3 All ER 31; Riordan v The War Office [1959] 3 All ER 552, 557I-558A per Lord 18 CPR 14.1 and CPR 14.4. 19 Privy Council Appeal No. 54 of 2000. Judgment delivered on 4 February 2002. 20 See Exhib......
  • Alpstream AG and Others v PK Airfinance Sarl and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 31 July 2013
    ...sum of $1.4m is now sought. It is not suggested that any estoppel arises, but Mr Béar relies on a principle drawn from Riordan v War Office [1959] 1 WLR 1046 to assert that once notice of a claim for debt in a contract has been given it is not open for the creditor subsequently to increase ......
  • Konsortium Perkapalan Bhd v Aziah Anis
    • Malaysia
    • Unspecified court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Get Started for Free