Whittam v W. J. Daniel & Company Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date1961
Date1961
Year1961

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
35 cases
  • Singh (Santosh Kumari) v Atombrook Ltd (trading as Sterling Travel)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 June 1988
    ...of that kind. That is fanciful and I reject it. The matter is put beyond doubt by a further decision of this court in Whitton v. W.J. Daniel & Co. Ltd., (1962) 1 Queen's Bench 271. In that case a limited company was sued within the limitation period but without adding the word "limited......
  • Yew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas Mara
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • Invalid date
    ... ... 116 ; [ 1966 ] 3 W.L.R. 546 ; [ 1966 ] 2 All E.R. 349 ... Whittam v. W. J. Daniel & Co. Ltd. [ 1962 ] 1 Q.B. 271 ; [ 1961 ] 3 W.L.R. 1123 ; [ 1961 ] 3 ... Carter-Fea v. Graham ( 1964 ) 62 L.G.R. 279 , D.C ... Coleman v. Shell Company of Australia Ltd. ( 1943 ) 45 S.R. (N.S.W.) 27 ... Director of Public Prosecutions v ... ...
  • Thew (R & T) Ltd v Reeves
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 6 May 1981
    ...2 Peere Williams 151. It has corrected a misnomer or misdescription by giving the right name or the right description, see Whittam v. W. Daniel & Go. Ltd. (1962) 1 Queen's Bench 171. The general principle is that, when the object and intent of a document is obvious—and known to all conc......
  • Liberty Mercian Ltd v Cuddy Civil Engineering Ltd (1st Defendant) Cuddy Demolition and Dismantling Ltd (2nd Defendant)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 3 September 2013
    ...do not allow people to take advantage of a misnomer when everyone knows what was intended. I will only refer to one authority, Whittam v. WJ Daniel & Co. Ltd., [1962] 1 QB 271at p. 277, where Lord Justice Donovan cited the words of Lord Justice Devlin: I think that the test must be: ho......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • MISNOMER THAT CAN VITIATE PROCEEDINGS
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Sasegbon’s Judicial Dictionary of Nigerian Law. First edition M
    • 6 February 2019
    ...349; Mitchell v. Harris Engineering Co. Ltd. (1967) 2 Q.B. 703, (1967) 2 All E.R. 682, C.A.; Whittam v. W.J. Daniel & Co. Ltd. (1962) 1 Q.B. 271, (1961) 3 All E.R. 796, C.A." - Per Sulu-Gambari, J.C.A., in A.B. Manu & Co. v. Costain (W.A.) Ltd. Suit No. CA/ L/62/92; (1994) 8 N.W.L.R......