Sinclair v James
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1894 |
| Date | 1894 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
10 cases
-
Irwin v Deasy
...LJ CH 519 LANGDALE, IN RE 1871 IR 5 EQ 572 FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING SOCIETY v RING 1992 IR 375 GIBBS v HAYDON 47 LT 184 SINCLAIR v JAMES 1894 3 CH 554 REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) 1891 S21 REGISTRATION OF TITLE ACT 1964 S71 JUDGE MAHON & ORS v LAWLOR UNREP SUPREME 25.11.2010 2010/33/8157 ......
-
M.C v B.S
...& ORS v JONES & ORS 1879-80 5 APP CAS 651 RICHARDSON v FEARY 1888 39 CH D 45 SWAN v SWAN 1820 8 PRICE 518 146 ER 1281 SINCLAIR v JAMES 1894 3 CH 554 MCC (D) v MCC (M) 1986 ILRM 1 1984/5/1409 C v C 1976 IR 254 1977 111 ILTR 133 POWER v CONROY 1980 ILRM 31 1980/9/1685 KELLY v CAHILL 2001 1 IR......
-
Lum Kai Heng v Quek Peng Chai and Others
...amendment (Wood v. Earl of Durham (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 501). An inconsistent or useless amendment will not be allowed (Sinclair v. James [1894] 3 Ch. 554 at 557; Durham v. Robertson [1898] 1 Q.B. 765 at 774; Bevan v. Barnett (1897) 13 T.L.R. 310; C.H. Pearce and Sons Ltd v. Storechester Ltd (19......
-
V N Ram and Company v Nourul Asia Trading Co Pte Ltd and another matter
...Among other things, a proposed amendment will be disallowed if it: is inconsistent, immaterial, useless or purposeless (Sinclair v James [1894] 3 Ch 554 at 557; Hong Leong Finance v Famco (S) [1992] 2 SLR(R) 224 per Judith Prakash JC (as she then was); RBS Coutts Bank Ltd v Shishir Tarachan......
Request a trial to view additional results