Tombling v Universal Bulb Company Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1951
Year1951
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
25 cases
  • Meek v Fleming
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 26 June 1961
    ...or been mislod by speeches of counsel, those are undoubtedly sufficient grounds for interfering with the verdict". 18 In Tombling v. Univarsal Bulb Company Ltd. (1951 volume 2 Times Law Reports, page 289) it was sought to adduce fresh evidence on the ground that there had not been revealed ......
  • Cheah Cheng Hoc v PP
    • Malaysia
    • Supreme Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Hoo Lin Coln v Wong Weng Woh
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2006
  • Law Society of Ireland v Walker
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 July 2006
    ...S24 R v O'CONNELL & ORS 1844 7 ILR RONDEL v WORSLEY 1967 1 QB 502 MEEK v FLEMING 1961 3 AER 148 TOMBLING v UNIVERSAL BULB COMPANY LTD 1951 2 TLR 289 RE GRUZMAN EX PARTE PROTHONOTARY 1968 SR (NSW) 70 GIANNARELLI & ORS v WRAITH & ORS 1987-1988 165 CLR 543 UNIOIL INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD & ORS v ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Adversarialism goes West
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 19-3, July 2015
    • 1 July 2015
    ...‘the ‘‘adversarial dialectic’’ and the ‘‘principleof orality’’ have been elevated13. Lord Denning in Tombling vUniversal Bulb Co Ltd [1951] 2 TLR 289: ‘He must not, of course, knowingly mislead the court,either on the facts or on the law, but short of that, he may put such matters in eviden......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT