Southam v Smout
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE HARMAN,LORD JUSTICE PEARSON |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1963 |
| Neutral Citation | [1963] EWCA Civ J0621-4 |
| Date | 21 June 1963 |
| 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
19 cases
-
Blackburn and Others v Bowering and Another
...clear that section 14(1)(b) enables the County Court to exercise what is in effect a contempt jurisdiction. It was so described in Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at 319. That is why an appeal lies to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal under section 13 of the Administration of Justic......
-
Kuru v State of New South Wales
...80; Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275 at 291 [ 95 ER 807 at 817]; Great Central Railway Co v Bates [1921] 3 KB 578 at 581–582; Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at 320; Morris v Beardmore [1981] AC 446 at 464; Eccles v Bourque [1975] 2 SCR 739 at 26Halliday (1984) 155 CLR 1 at 10. 27 A......
- Affin Bank Bhd v Tan Sri Kishu Tirathrai (No.2)
-
R (Bempoa) v London Borough of Southwark
...his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose.” 1612. As the Earl of Chatham said (see Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at p 320): “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may ......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Fundamental Rights and Necessary Implication
...635, 647 (Gaudron and McHugh JJ) citing Semayne’s Case (1604) 77 ER 194, 195;Entick v Carrington (1765) 95 ER 807,817; Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308, 320; Eccles v Bourque [1975] 2 SCR739; Morris v Beardmore [1981] AC 446.171. Semanyne’s Case (1604) 77 ER 194, 195; Entick v Carrington (17......
-
Fundamental Rights and Necessary Implication
...635, 647 (Gaudron and McHugh JJ) citing Semayne’s Case (1604) 77 ER 194, 195;Entick v Carrington (1765) 95 ER 807,817; Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308, 320; Eccles v Bourque [1975] 2 SCR739; Morris v Beardmore [1981] AC 446.171. Semanyne’s Case (1604) 77 ER 194, 195; Entick v Carrington (17......