Rudd v Lascelles

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division
Year1900
Date1900

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
13 cases
  • Chang Fook Shen v Tan Suan Sim
    • Malaysia
    • Unspecified court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Chong Ah Kwee and Another v Viva Realty Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 19 March 1990
    ...(folld) Owmist Pty Ltd v Twynam Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 196 (refd) Palmer v Johnson (1884) 13 QBD 351 (refd) Rudd v Lascelles [1900] 1 Ch 815 (folld) Rutherford v Acton-Adams [1915] AC 866 (folld) Sykes v Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Co Ltd [1971] 1 QB 113 (refd) Yeo Brother......
  • Tay Joo Sing v Ku Yu Sang
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 16 September 1994
    ...interest could not be said to be a conveyance of a part of the fee simple in the land. As was said by Farwell J in Rudd v Lascelles [1900] 1 Ch 815, `... the court should confine this relief [ie part specific performance] to cases where the actual subject matter is substantially the same as......
  • The “Asia Star”
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 19 March 2010
    ...Yul Cher Yeow [1997] 3 SLR (R) 906; [1998] 1 SLR 826 (refd) Patel v Hooper & Jackson (a firm) [1999] 1 WLR 1792 (refd) Rudd v Lascelles [1900] 1 Ch 815 (refd) Sivand, The [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 97 (refd) Smailes and Son v Hans Dessen and Co (1906) 94 LT 492 (refd) Companies Act (Cap 50,2006 R......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2011, December 2011
    • 1 December 2011
    ...remedy of specific performance of contracts relating to land (see, eg, Hexter v PearceELR[1900] 1 Ch 341 at 346 and Rudd v LascellesELR[1900] 1 Ch 815 at 819). 11.111 The Court of Appeal's reliance on the matters set out in these five paragraphs is not, however, completely immune to critici......