Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No. 3)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division
Judgment Date1968
Year1968
Date1968

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
314 cases
3 firm's commentaries
12 books & journal articles
  • 'The receipt of what?': Questions concerning third party recipient liability in equity and unjust enrichment.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 31 No. 1, April 2007
    • 1 April 2007
    ...(59) See, eg, Lee v Sankey (1873) LR 15 Eq 204, 211 (Bacon V-C). (60) See, eg, Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock [No 3] [1968] 2 All ER 1073; Consul (1975) 132 CLR 373. This was despite the fact that the rules had developed in the context of proprietary claims concerning land; an......
  • UNAUTHORISED FIDUCIARY GAINS AND THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...92 Including those cited by the High Court: Barnes v Addy(1874) LR 9 Ch App 224; Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3)[1968] 1 WLR 1555; Karak Rubber Co Ltd v Burden (No 2)[1972] 1 WLR 602; Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Herbert Smith & Co (No 2)[1969] 2 Ch 276. 93 See Charles Mitchell......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Partnerships and Corporations. Fourth Edition
    • 5 August 2018
    ...214, 6 BCLR (3d) 97 (SC) ....................................... 325 Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (A Bankrupt) (No 3), [1968] 2 All ER 1073, [1968] 1 WLR 1555, [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 289, 112 Sol J 744 (Ch) ............................................................................
  • VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — THE INTERACTION OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1998, December 1998
    • 1 December 1998
    ...1 AC 340 (in the context of the law of trusts; reference may also be made to Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3)[1968] 1 WLR 1555). 450 See generally Phang, supra, note 364 at 66—71. And cf the rejection of the “public conscience test” in Tinsley v Milligan[1994] 1 AC 340. 4......
  • Get Started for Free