Strickland v Hayes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Divisional Court |
| Year | 1896 |
| Date | 1896 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
11 cases
-
DPP v Hutchinson
...of the byelaw, which is perfectly good and reasonable. I think, therefore, the conviction should stand." 12In Strickland v. Hayes [1896] 1 Q.B. 290, 292, Lindley L.J. said: "I have no doubt whatever that those words are bad. But that being so, is the rest of the byelaw bad? There is plenty......
-
Thames Water Authority v Elmbridge Borough Council
...part of the text when it is able to do so. The same policy has been followed in relation to byelaws where the text permitted ( Strickland v. Hayes (1896) 1 Queen's Bench 290), and to a demand for a return, part of which could be struck out from a form ( Potato Marketing Board v. Merricks (1......
-
Arderne Scott Thesen Ltd v Cape Provincial Administration
...from this accepted test. For example let us take the test of grammatical severability suggested by LINDLEY, L.J., in Struckland v Hayes (1896, 1 Q.B. 290). One can well imagine cases where separation on this principle will result in the preservation of a scheme of taxation radically differe......
-
Secretary for Law v Tenalom [1965–66] PNGLR 414
...However, as the matter was argued I would say that I am inclined to think that reg34(2)(c) is severable: see, eg, Strickland v Hayes [1896] 1 QB 290; Owners of SS Kalibia v Wilson (1910–1911) 11 CLR 689 and Commonwealth v Grunseit (1943) 67 CLR 58 at 67. I should say that it is not to be co......
Get Started for Free
