Shocked v Goldschmidt

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Year1998
Date1998

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
96 cases
  • Demag (M) Sdn Bhd v Greenlinx Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 25 June 2007
    ... ... This general categorisation is recognised by the English courts, for example, in Shocked v Goldschmidt [1998] 1   All ER 372 (“ Shocked ”) at 377 and the local courts, for example, in Vallipuram Gireesa Venkit Eswaran v Scanply ... ...
  • Nguyen v Pascoe
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Onyenmezu v Firstcare Ireland Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 September 2019
    ...on 12th September, 2019. Held by Humphreys J that, as Leggatt LJ for the English Court of Appeal emphasised in Shocked v Goldschmidt [1998] 1 All E.R. 372, there is a significant difference between a tactical decision not to attend court compared with failure to attend that is down to mere ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2007, December 2007
    • 1 December 2007
    ...reason for the party”s absence, other considerations are also relevant. Referring to the Leggatt LJ”s judgment in Shocked v Goldschmidt[1998] 1 All ER 372, the other relevant factors are (Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew at [44]): (a) whether the successful party would be irremediably prejudiced b......