Stroms Bruk Aktie Bolag v John and Peter Hutchison (A Firm)
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 04 August 1905 |
Date | 04 August 1905 |
Docket Number | No. 12. |
Court | House of Lords |
-
- 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
110 cases
-
Barbara Kiddell v Windjammer Landing Company Ltd
...common law relating to awards for general and special damages was pronounced by Lord Mac Naughten inStroms Bruks Aktie Bolag v Hutchinson [1905] A.C. 515 at pages 525–526. "General Damages … are such as the law will presume to be a direct natural or probable consequence of the action compla......
-
Fiona George v Linda Cannell
...as required by section 3(1) that pecuniary loss will be inferred or (rebuttably) presumed. As stated by Lord Macnaghten in Ströms Bruks Aktie Bolag v Hutchison [1905] AC 515, 525: “‘General damages’…are such as the law will presume to be the direct natural or probable consequence of the act......
-
Roselyne Cecil Kusa v Motor Vehicle Insurance (PNG) Trust (2003) N2328
...claimed and proved strictly. This principle was stated by Lord Macnaugton in Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolag –v- John and Peter Hutchinson [1905] A.C 515 at page 525. “Special damages ….. are such that as the law will not infer from the nature of the act. They do not follow in the ordinary course.......
- Siti Sarinah bt Sibun v Azizah bt Kamaruddin
Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
-
Clark v. Macourt: defective sperm and performance substitutes in the High Court of Australia.
...legislation operates in Australia: see above n 54. (105) [1920] 2 KB 11. (106) [1914] AC 510. See also Stroms Bruks AB v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515, 526 (Lord (107) [1998] QB 87. (108) See Treitel, above n 18 (expressing a preference for Thorpe LJs dissenting speech); Stevens, 'Damages and th......
-
Environmental Law
...is a matter of law. This distinction is manifest from the following two English decisions: - (a) Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolag v. Hutchison (1905) A.C. p. 515 and; (b) British Transport Commission v. Gourley (1956) A.C. p. 185. In Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolag v. Hutchison, Lord MacNaughton, at pages......
-
SPECIAL DAMAGES AND GENERAL DAMAGES, DISTINCTION BETWEEN
...in Emirate Airline v. Ngonadi (No. 2) Suit No. CA/L/124/2010; (2014) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1413) 506 at 545. (6) "In Bolag v. Hutchinson (1905) A.C. 515 LORD MACNAUGHTEN at page 525 stated that: "It seems to me that this argument is founded on an inaccurate use or perhaps I should say a less accu......
-
GENERAL DAMAGES AND SPECIAL DAMAGES, DISTINCTION BETWEEN
...and proved strictly. There are too many decided authorities in this regard. But see the cases of Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolag v. Hutchisom (1905) A.C. 515 at 525 - 526 - per Lord Machnaghten; Admiralty Commissioners v. Susquehanna (1926) A.C. 655 at 661 - per Lord Dunedin, Messrs. Dumez (Nig.) ......
Request a trial to view additional results