Smith, Coney & Barrett v Becker, Gray & Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1916 |
| Year | 1916 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- 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
3 cases
-
Harbour Assurance Company (U.K.) Ltd v Kansa General International Insurance Company Ltd
... ... 845 ; [ 1973 ] 1 All E.R. 355 ... Smith, Coney & Barrett v. Becker, Gray & Co. [ 1916 ] 2 Ch ... ...
-
Wright v Bank of Nova Scotia Jamaica Ltd
...Plaintiff as one of putting before the Court compelling reasons why he should not be held to his contract. (See also Smith, Coney and Barratt v. Beecher, Gray and Co. [1916] 2 Ch. 86. 58 In The Eleftheries [1970] P.94 the headnote reads in part: “Held (1) That where plaintiffs sued in breac......
-
The Rhodesian Railways Ltd v Mackintosh
...The Courts will never refuse to stay an action when the case must go to arbitration. See Smith, Coney and Barrett v Becker Gray & Co. (1916, 2 Ch. 86 at p. 101). Our Courts have held that an arbitration clause is always a condition precedent. See King v Harris (1909, T.S. 292 at p. 300). Th......
1 books & journal articles
-
SEPARABILITY, COMPETENCE-COMPETENCE AND THE ARBITRATOR’S JURISDICTION IN SINGAPORE†
...Rachel Launders, “Separability — the Indestructible Arbitration Clause”(1994) 10 Arb Int’l 77 at 82—6; Rosen, supra, n 11, at 627—35. 19 [1916] 2 Ch 86 (CA). 20 (1942) 72 L1 L Rep 65 (HL). 21 Supra, n 20, at 75. 22 Ibid, at 77 col 2. See also Lord Porter’s comments at 85. 23 [1981] 1 Lloyd’......