Williams v Williams & Nathan

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1937
Date1937
CourtCourt of Appeal

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
12 cases
  • Moore v Lambeth County Court Registrar (No. 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 31 October 1969
    ...and by reference to cases of wrongful distress for rent. But mere presence does not bring liability: see ( Williams v. Williams 1937 2 All England Reports, 559). Their presence was referable to the delivery of possession of the property. There was no evidence that they had any part in the l......
  • South East Enterprises (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hean Nerng Holdings Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 15 March 2013
    ...78 (folld) Steel Linings Ltd v Bibby & Co [1993] RA 27 (folld) Watson v Murray & Co [1955] 2 QB 1 (folld) Williams v Williams & Nathan [1937] 2 All ER 559 (folld) Wilson v South Kesteven District Council [2001] 1 WLR 387 (refd) Wilson v Tumman (1843) 6 Man & G 236; 134 ER 879 (refd) Wong Ch......
  • Barclays Bank Ltd v Roberts
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 30 July 1954
    ...stated then, The learned County Court Judge was of opinion that on such facts the case was governed by the case in this Court of Williams v. Williams and Nathan, reported in 1937 All England Reports, Volume 2, at page 559, and he dismissed the Appellant's Counterclaim with costs. 11 The App......
  • Dr Mathew Sebastian v Metroplex Leasing & Credit Corporation Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1996
  • Get Started for Free