Showlag v Mansour

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeLord Keith of Kinkel,Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle,Lord Browne-Wilkinson,Lord Woolf,Lord Nolan
Judgment Date15 March 1994
CourtPrivy Council
Date15 March 1994
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
12 cases
  • Limerick Vocational Educational Committee v Carr
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 July 2001
    ...LITTONDALE LTD V WICKLOW CO COUNCIL 1996 2 ILRM 519 REPUBLIC OF INDIA V INDIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY LTD 1993 AC 410 SHOWLAG V MANSOUR (PC) 1995 1 AC 431 SPENCER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA 2ED 1969 MCDERMOTT RES JUDICATA & DOUBLE JEOPARDY 163 TAXES CONSOLIDATED ACT 1997 S997 INCOME TAX (EMPL......
  • R PML Accounting Ltd v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 October 2018
    ...estoppel (whether reached through ignorance, misapprehension or defiance) should logically be ignored, see Showlag v Mansour [1995] 1 A.C. 431. If an analogy is to be sought, a second determination reached in ignorance, misapprehension or defiance of an earlier determination is more similar......
  • Peoples' Insurance Company of China and Another v Vysanthi Shipping Company Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 10 July 2003
    ...[1977] 1 WLR 510 and the approval of that judgment by the House of Lords in Johnson v Gore Wood [2000] UKHL 65. 54 In Showlag v Mansour [1995] 1 AC 431, the Privy Council held that where there are conflicting final decisions each pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction the earlier i......
  • Air Foyle Ltd and Another. v Center Capital Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 3 December 2002
    ...of lack of familiarity. (4) With regard to competing foreign judgments, the position was summarised in the headnote to Showlag v Mansour [1995] 1 AC 431 (PC), as follows: "…..the correct general rule was that where there were two competing foreign judgments, each pronounced by a court of co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT