Source: https://id.b-ok.org/book/2366435/bbd9b4
Timestamp: 2020-06-04 04:42:53
Document Index: 469162372

Matched Legal Cases: ['ewca ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKPC ', 'EWCA ', 'UKPC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'arth 90', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKPC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKPC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'Arts 9']

Deceit: The Lie of the Law | Peter Macdonald Eggers | download
Utama Deceit: The Lie of the Law
ltd1455
lord983
deceit771
representation658
fraud614
law591
misrepresentation591
para506
ewhc461
fraudulent451
moral436
paras393
company386
ewca civ373
defendant336
bank325
contract312
claimant291
tort282
damages272
representee240
intention223
morality220
wlr209
plaintiff209
smith208
upon203
representor190
liability186
damage180
comm179
representations175
false174
conduct170
cases168
transaction168
co ltd166
fraudulent misrepresentation159
induced158
plc145
inducement141
rescission139
edn137
corporation131
untrue121
app cas120
peek120
tort of deceit114
misrepresentations107
disclosure107
So you Really Want to be an Arbitrator
by D. Mark Cato
Arbitration Practice and Procedure:
Interlocutory and Hearing Problems
by Philip Capper
by Ben Horn and Roger Hopkins
by Hilary Heilbron QC
LL.B.(Syd.), LL.M.(Cantab.)
Barrister of the Middle Temple,
Visiting Lecturer, University College London
law.enquiries@informa.com
© Peter MacDonald Eggers 2009
ISBN 978–184311–795–9
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Informa Law.
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this book is correct, neither the editors and contributors nor Informa Law can accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions or for any consequences resulting therefrom.
For Sarah, Harriet, Sam and Madeleine
BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE RIX
Peter MacDonald Eggers has turned his incisive pen from good faith (Good Faith and Insurance Contracts, First Edition 1998; Second Edition, 2004) to deceit, from an obligation to tell the truth (or at any rate to make a fair presentation) to ; the legal consequences of lying. He describes deceit as “this emotive tort” and refers to its “medicinal flavour”. He is concerned by the puritanical timbre with which judges, once speaking or even still speaking in Victorian tones, have indiscriminately lashed the perpetrators of all-knowing untruths. He describes two basic shortcomings of the law as its tendency towards moral indignation and its imposition of harshly extensive penalties. With the assistance of a detailed examination of the morality of lying, which is as much philosophy or jurisprudence as law, he analyses the complexity of a world in which we lie for all kinds of reasons, not only to deceive, and sometimes for benign ends. His well-argued prescription is for the law to restrain its opprobrium for the really deserving cases of deliberate dishonesty and for a more careful delineation of remedies to match the seriousness of the case. He observes that such seriousness is as much a matter of impact as of cause.
This excellent book is based on a meticulous knowledge of the cases. It is also timely as there has, it seems, recently been a great upsurge of claims based in deceit. I do not know why that should be, especially in an era when negligent and even entirely innocent misrepresentations have their remedies and when statute and presently binding authority in respect of negligent misrepresentation are very helpful to the claimant.
It may be that there are elements about the tort of deceit, perhaps matters of practice rather than principle, which ameliorate the author’s criticisms. Thus there has, at any rate in the past, been a reluctance to plead fraud, and the pleader is put under a strict duty to require proper evidence on which to found the pleading. The representation in question has to be clearly identified. The dishonesty has to be properly particularised and proved. Although the standard of proof remains the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, jurisprudence warns, in one way or the other, of the special importance of sufficient proof of dishonesty. Judges may be deceived by false evidence and misled by good or poor performances in the witness box, as the author rightly observes, but judges are conscious of those problems and therefore do not lightly make the findings necessary for fraud. Jurisprudence also emphasises the critical importance of the element of dishonesty, as Lord Herschell said in the leading case of Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 at 374, “there must be proof of fraud and nothing short of that will suffice”. That, as Lord Herschell went on to say, depends on knowledge: the law of course has struggled, as have all philosophers, with the concept of knowledge, but Devlin, J has emphasised, in Armstrong v. Strain [1951] 1 TLR 856 at 871, that there must be conscious knowledge of falsity. It might be said: if after all that, there is a finding of fraud, judges and others might be entitled to be offended.
Fraud, of course, may arise in circumstances outside the tort of deceit, for instance in the scuttling of a ship and the making of a fraudulent insurance claim. But the second essential aspect of the tort of deceit is that the victim must have been induced by the fraud to have changed his position, typically to have entered into a contract in reliance on the false representation. Thus, the interest of the law is in the harm caused. The critical importance of inducement (as well as of the element of dishonesty) goes back at least to the great case of Attwood v. Small (1838) 6 Cl & F 232 (HL), which the author appropriately enough first mentions as early as footnote 11 of his first chapter. I remember reading that case as a young barrister. I sought it out in Middle Temple’s library. What a pleasurable hour I there spent with Lord Brougham’s wonderful speech. The case involved the sale of an estate containing coal mines for the then enormous price of (originally) £600,000. The question was whether the sellers had been fraudulent. The buyers had performed what is now called due diligence and on completion had worked the mines for a number of months, before discovering that the rich seams of coal which had been anticipated had evaporated. They sought rescission. The Court of Exchequer had given judgment in fraud against the sellers. The House of Lords reversed that decision on two grounds: first, because there was no proof of fraud (Lords Lyndhurst and Wynford dissenting) and secondly, because the purchasers had not relied on what they had been told but had made their own investigations.
The case in their Lordships’ House was fought for 16 days in the session of 1835 and for a further 30 days in the session of 1836. Lord Brougham was absent through illness for that latter session. The matter came on for judgment on 22 March 1838. The Earl of Devon spoke first. It then fell to Lord Brougham to speak second, but he claimed the indulgence of their Lordships if others went before him, as, owing to his absence through illness, he was uncertain whether he wanted to address the House at all (at 346/7). Lord Cottenham, LC spoke next, and then Lord Lyndhurst (who had given judgment against the appellants in the court below). Late in the day Lord Brougham asked for an adjournment since, given Lord Lyndhurst’s opinion in favour of a finding of fraud, the House was now divided and he was resolved himself to speak. Lord Lyndhurst’s “very powerful statement” had “certainly somewhat unsettled my opinion on this subject” and he wished for a few days (until the following Monday) “to look more at large into the case” (at 436/7). When the House convened again on 26 March 1838, Lord Brougham gave a magnificent speech in favour of reversal of the Exchequer Chamber. His opening paragraphs are highly interesting, even entertaining. He said (at 437/440):
“My Lords, I approach the consideration of this case with very great anxiety . . . It is without any example... It has lasted now for about seventy days in hearing in the Court below and in this House, forty-six of which have been at your Lordships’ bar. The printed papers exceed 2,600 folio pages. The notes of arguments in this House alone, with which I have been furnished, occupy about 10,000 brief pages; and instead of diminishing in prolixity, and lightening in weight of materials as the cause proceeded through its successive stages,—when it might have been expected that, as matters came to be better apprehended on the one side or the other—as parties came nearer to an understanding of what the real matters in issue were—as the mists, which always exist at the outset of a case, were by mutual communication and further discussion cleared away—as points that were immaterial, though at first supposed to be otherwise, came to be dropped out of the cause, and as thus the points really in dispute between the parties came to be diminished and the ground of real conflict narrowed,—it might have been expected that in each successive stage, for these reasons, the prolixity should have been less, and the mass of matter that encumbered the questions in issue become lighter; on the contrary, at each successive step, greater elaborateness has been shown, the zeal of parties on either side contending has augmented; the prolixity of statement and of argument has been enlarged, and the mass of materials under which we may be said almost to be exhausted, if not confounded, has been augmented...”
Lord Brougham then said that his own absence from the 1836 session had increased his anxiety, as had “the most able argument that I almost ever heard of my noble and learned friend who decided the cause in the Court below” (i.e. Lord Lyndhurst). (Did Lord Brougham pause between the words “I almost ever heard” and his next words “of my noble and learned friend”?) Nevertheless,
“if I feel difficulties and embarrassments from these causes, there are one or two circumstances of an opposite nature which comfort and bear me up under that pressure. In the first place, I have gone through the whole of the case, both the note which assists my recollection of what I heard of the argument, and the printed papers as far as I have been able—and I believe that there is no part of them of the least importance that I have not read...”
and away he went for a further 60 pages!
Lawyers of every kind, and non-lawyers too, will read the present author’s book with equal fascination, for its erudition, for its coverage, for its analysis and for its suggestions for reform: one example of which is that a lie told with the best of intentions and motives should be able to receive the defence of justification. It is a remarkable work of scholarship and insight, which may generate debate but will repay much study.
And, after all, what is a lie? ‘Tis but
Don Juan, canto XI, st. xxxvii
To a lawyer’s mind, the House of Lords’ decision in Derry v. Peek,1 is synonymous with the common law notion of fraud. No matter the area of law, and no matter the legal relationship, the law of deceit may apply to render cheats, fraudsters and rogues liable to their victims. The remedies are penal in scope. This legal responsibility against lying is based on a general or “universal obligation” of honesty, as Viscount Haldane held in Nocton v. Lord Ashburton.2 This tort’s panacea potential can render deceit as a cause of action both protective and oppressive.
I conceived the idea for this book after having prepared and delivered a lecture to an undergraduate class at the University of Nottingham in March 2006. Before that time, I had regarded the tort as both salutary and necessary. After considering it further, a number of oddities began to emerge in connection with this area of the law. My principal concern was that the classic definition of a deceit—a knowing and intentional misrepresentation —plainly catered for the serious cases of fraud, but also applied to those less egregious cases where a lie has been told, but the circumstances surrounding the misrepresentation did not warrant the avowedly penal remedies which the courts automatically apply upon a finding of deceit. The orthodox view of the tort provided no flexibility in the application of the tort or its remedies.
Upon examining the development of the cause of action, it became apparent that the tort’s foundation is a moral one. The ethical nature of this right of action has been asserted and reasserted by the courts regularly over the past two centuries since the modern law was laid down by the Court of King’s Bench in Pasley v. Freeman,3 and even recently by the House of Lords in Smith New Court Securities Ltd v. Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd,4 and Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp (Nos 2 and 4).5
The law and morality can be a heady mix. If, however, the tort’s application has been and is to be guided by moral considerations, it ought to follow that where the misrepresentation was morally justified, there should be no liability. The law, however, has the advantage of providing certainty, and in many instances morality can be uncertain. This was made clear to me during the lecture at Nottingham, when I put some of the examples referred to in Chapter 9 to the hundred or so students attending the lecture, asking them to indicate by a show of hands whether they thought there ought to be a moral and legal responsibility for each of the scenarios described. Although one or two examples invited a relative consensus, most of the examples demonstrated the variety of moral judgments which might be made. This diversity of opinion is reflected in the world’s literature. Dante had condemned liars into the tenth bowge of the eighth circle of hell; Homer celebrated Odysseus’s wiles; and Oscar Wilde, perhaps with tongue in cheek, described lying for one’s immediate personal advantage as lying for a moral purpose.
This book is not, however, limited to a reconsideration of the tort’s rationale and future. The major part of this work is concerned to describe the existing law of deceit. The review of the law reveals that, although the central ingredients of the tort are well established, there has not been an exhaustive explanation of their reach and application, leaving numerous aspects of the law uncertain. Those aspects may be developed with an eye on the tort’s moral foundations, ensuring that the tort’s application to commercial transactions retains its strict controls, albeit not without some flexibility, and allowing the tort to respond more sympathetically outside the contractual realm.
The curious aspect of the tort of deceit is the degree to which it has been relied upon over the past two centuries. I have tried to review as many of the cases as I could find dealing with allegations of fraud and deceit since Pasley v. Freeman. The incidence of such cases increased markedly after that decision, only to decrease substantially after Derry v. Peek. Yet, in recent years, the tort has been lent a renewed vigour, as the following graph shows:
It may be that the recent increase in claims in deceit is accounted for by the more extensive reporting of cases today. Yet the statistic remains a striking one. The cases are not limited to claims between contracting parties, although those cases account for the majority. Some 30 per cent of the decisions concern claims between non-contracting parties. It remains a universal tort.
With the growing prevalence of claims in deceit, not to mention the prevalence of lying in society (as Lord Byron recognised), and the uncertainties attending the basis and formulation of the cause of action, it is important that conscious attention is dedicated to the tort’s future development.
1. (1889) 14 App Cas 337.
2. [1914] AC 932, 947, 954–955.
3. (1789) 3 TR 51.
4. [1997] AC 254.
5. [2002] UKHL 43; [2003] 1 AC 959.
CHAPTER 1. DECEIT: NATURE, RATIONALE AND FORMULATION
Deceit and the House of Lords
The nature and rationale of the tort of deceit
Fraud and damage
The moral tort
The formulation of the tort of deceit
The ingredients of the tort of deceit
Deceit viewed against the genesis of the law of misrepresentation
Alternative causes of action based on a fraudulent misrepresentation
Deficiencies in the current law of deceit
Considerations affecting a restatement of the law of deceit
CHAPTER 2. LIES, LAW AND MORALITY
Lies and morality’s relationship with the law
Approaches to the content of a moral rule against lying
Fundamental principles and the relevance of reason
Lying as a social constant
Various moral assessments on lying
Absolute condemnations of lying
Lies are not always immoral
The chief elements for a moral examination of a lie
Expectation of truth
The morality of non-disclosures
The influence of morality
CHAPTER 3. THE REPRESENTATION
The nature of the representation
Express and implied representations
Representations of existing fact
Representations of states of mind
The context of the representation
The representation must be false
Deceit by non-disclosure
CHAPTER 4. EXAMPLES OF REPRESENTATIONS
Sale and purchase, leasing and other transactions concerning property
Sale and purchase of a business or issue or sale of shares in a company
Letters of credit and performance bonds
Bills of exchange and financial investments
Credit and character references
Cases tantamount to theft
Marital and familial fraud
CHAPTER 5. FRAUDULENT KNOWLEDGE AND FRAUDULENT INTENTION
Fraudulent knowledge
The representor’s intended meaning
The second limb of fraudulent knowledge: recklessness
Present to the representor’s mind
Intended manner of reliance
A defence based on justification?
Reconsideration of the fraudulent intention
Dishonesty as an ingredient of the tort
CHAPTER 6. THIRD PARTIES
Representations by third parties
Procuring a fraudulent misrepresentation
The agent’s representations prior to the principal’s authority
The agent’s personal liability
Representation to third parties
CHAPTER 7. INDUCEMENT
Inducement and the resultant damage: two types of causation
The representation need not be the sole inducement
The strong and weak senses of inducement
Early judicial statements
Later judicial statements
The case for a requirement of strong inducement
The representee’s negligence or means of knowledge
CHAPTER 8. REMEDIES FOR DECEIT
Causation, remoteness and mitigation
Date at which damages assessed
Loss-making and profitable transactions
Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967
Contributory deceit and public policy
Exemplary and aggravated damages
Avoidance and rescission
The nature and effect of the remedies
The legal and equitable rights
The traditional bars to equitable relief
Exclusion of liability for deceit
Exclusion by statute
The accrual of the cause of action in deceit
CHAPTER 9. TOWARDS A RESTATEMENT OF THE TORT OF DECEIT
Testing the boundaries of the tort of deceit
A suggested restatement of the law of deceit
(all references are to paragraph number)
4 Eng Ltd v. Harper [2007] EWHC 1568 (Ch); [2008] EWHC 915 (Ch)
1.55, 4.5, 7.59, 8.18, 8.19, 8.22, 8.69, 8.94, 8.109
A v. B [2007] EWHC 1246 (QB); [2007] 2 FLR 1051
1.31, 1.34, 1.51, 1.83, 4.25, 7.1, 8.16, 8.17, 8.46, 9.4
A&D Douglas Pty Ltd v. Lawyers Private Mortgages Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 520
A/S D/S Svenborg v. Akar [2003] EWHC 797 (Comm)
1.58, 4.21, 4.23
Aaron’s Reefs Ltd v. Twiss [1896] AC 273
3.3, 3.5, 4.5, 8.64
AB v. South West Water Services Ltd [1993] QB 507
8.43, 8.45
Abbotts v. Barry (1820) 2 Brod & H 368
Abou-Rahmah v. Abacha [2006] EWCA Civ 1492; [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 115
Abram Steamship Company Ltd v. Westville Shipping Company Ltd [1923] AC 773
8.57, 8.58
Abu Dhabi Investment Company v. H Clarkson & Company Ltd [2007] EWHC 1267 (Comm); rev’d [2008] EWCA Civ 699, CA
1.58, 3.21, 3.44, 3.50, 3.58, 4.8, 5.7, 5.8, 5.19, 6.25, 6.31, 7.57, 8.19
Adam v. Newbigging (1886) 34 Ch D 582; (1888) 13 App Cas 308
8.1, 8.69
Adamson v. Evitt (1830) 2 Russ & M 66
3.57, 3.61, 4.11
Adamson v. Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing 66
1.21, 4.2, 4.24
Adamson, Ex parte; in re Collie (1878) 8 Ch D 807
4.11, 4.24
Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd v. Bond Street Jewellers Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 923
3.4, 3.58, 4.4
Aegeon, The. Agapitos v. Agnew [2002] EWCA Civ 247; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 42; [2003] QB 556
1.39, 2.69, 5.7, 5.43, 5.60, 7.37
Agapitos v. Agnew (The Aegeon) [2002] EWCA Civ 247; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 42; [2003] QB 556
Agnew v. Llänsförskäkringsbolagens AB [2001] AC 223
8.56, 8.113
Agriculturists’ Cattle Insurance Company; Smallcombe’s Case, In re (1867) LR 3 Eq 769
1.24, 4.18, 5.40, 8.70
Agriculturists’ Cattle Insurance Company; Stewart’s Case, In re (1866) LR 1 Ch App 511
Ahmed v. Addy [2004] EWHC 1465 (QB)
1.57, 4.11
AIC Ltd v. ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (The Kriti Palm) [2006] EWCA Civ 1601; [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 555
1.51, 1.58, 3.4, 3.13, 3.14, 3.21, 3.38, 3.39, 3.44, 3.58, 3.65, 4.1, 4.2, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12, 5.19, 5.25, 5.69, 5.72, 7.1
Akerhielm v. De Mare [1959] AC 789
1.6, 4.4, 4.5, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11
Alati v. Kruger (1955) 94 CLR 216
8.69, 8.81
Alec Lobb Ltd v. Total Oil GB Ltd [1983] 1 All ER 944
Allen v. Flood [1898] 1 AC 1
Allen v. M’Pherson (1847) 1 HLC 191
1.6, 1.31, 4.25
Alliance & Leicester Building Society v. Edgestop [1993] 1 WLR 1462
4.1, 4.14, 8.36
Amaltal Corporation Ltd v. Maruha Corporation [2006] NZCA 112; rev’d in part [2007] NZSC 40
1.12, 1.51, 1.52, 1.58, 3.2, 3.11, 3.58, 3.61, 4.8, 5.19, 5.22, 8.16, 8.18, 8.37, 8.115
Ames v. Milward (1818) 8 Taunt 637
1.19, 4.15, 5.35
Ampthill Peerage Case, The [1977] 1 AC 547
Anderson v. Gorrie [1895] 1 QB 668
4.1, 5.5
Andrew v. Boughey (1552) 1 Dyer 75a
Andrews v. Mockford [1896] 1 QB 372
4.5, 6.25, 6.27, 8.4
Anglo Scottish Beet Sugar Corp Ltd v. Spalding Urban DC [1937] 2 KB 607
Angus v. Clifford [1891] 2 Ch 449
1.61, 3.14, 4.5, 5.1, 5.12, 5.22, 5.72, 7.24
Anon. (1683) Skin 119
Anon. Case XLVI (1465) Jenk 122
Arab Bank plc v. Zurich Insurance Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 262
Archer v. Brown [1985] QB 401
1.12, 1.79, 4.5, 8.2, 8.18, 8.21, 8.43–8.46, 8.48
Ariffin v. Yeoh Ooi Gark [1916] 2 AC 575
Arkwright v. Newbold (1881) 17 Ch D 301
1.46, 1.47, 3.36, 3.58, 3.61, 4.5, 5.7, 5.10, 7.2, 8.56, 8.71
Armagas Ltd v. Mundogas SA [1986] 2 WLR 1063
1.6, 6.8, 6.15, 6.16
Armitage v. Nurse [1998] 1 Ch 241
1.4, 1.46, 5.19, 5.2, 5.28, 5.71, 5.72
Armory v. Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra 505
Armstrong v. Jackson [1917] 2 KB 822
5.32, 8.69, 8.70, 8.113
Armstrong v. Strain [1951] 1 TLR 856; aff’d [1952] 1 KB 232, CA
vii, 1.26, 1.57, 1.71, 3.14, 3.15, 3.36, 4.2, 5.12, 5.17, 5.25, 5.69, 6.4
Arnison v. Smith (1889) 41 Ch D 348
1.28, 1.37, 1.47, 1.49, 1.55, 1.56, 3.21, 3.43, 3.50, 3.52, 4.5, 5.1, 5.11, 5.28, 5.47, 7.23, 7.40, 7.48, 8.72
Arnot v. Biscoe (1743) 1 Ves Sen 95
Ashlin v. White (1816) Holt 387
1.5, 1.11, 1.47, 4.15, 5.23
Ashville Investments Ltd v. Elmer Contractors Ltd [1989] 1 QB 488
Assicurazioni Generali SpA v. Arab Insurance Group (BSC) [2002] EWCA Civ 1642; [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 131
1.55, 3.21, 3.43, 7.27, 7.40, 7.48
Attorney-General of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai [2007] EWHC 952 (Ch)
8.100, 8.115, 8.116
Attorney-General v. Blake [1998] Ch 439; [2001] 1 AC 268
8.62, 8.73, 8.77, 8.78
Attwood v. Small (1838) 6 Cl & F 232
viii, 1.6, 1.32, 1.35, 1.46, 1.49, 3.50, 4.2, 5.38, 5.63, 7.10, 7.15, 7.43, 7.56, 7.57, 8.39, 8.55, 8.63
Australian Steel & Mining Corporation Pty Ltd v. Corben [1974] 2 NSWLR 202
Avon Insurance plc v. Swire Fraser Ltd [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 573
1.55, 1.66, 1.70, 1.78, 1.85, 3.40, 3.53, 7.27, 7.40, 8.33
Axa General Insurance Ltd v. Gottlieb [2005] EWCA Civ 112; [2005] Lloyd’s Rep IR 369
Baglehole v. Walters (1811) 3 Camp 154
4.2, 6.7, 8.93
Baily v. Merrell (1615) 3 Bulst 94
1.10, 1.45, 4.20, 7.43
Bain v. Fothergill (1874) LR 7 HL 158
Banbury v. Bank of Montreal [1918] AC 626
1.6, 1.12, 8.2, 8.102–8.104
Bank Tejarat v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (CI) Ltd [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239
3.4, 4.1, 4.10, 8.114
Banks v. Cox [2002] EWHC 2166 (Ch)
3.21, 4.5, 8.9, 8.18, 8.22, 8.24, 8.44, 8.46, 8.47
Banque Belge Pour L’Etranger v. Hambrouck [1921] 1 KB 321
4.11, 8.81, 8.82
Banque Financière de la Cité v. Westgate Insurance Co Ltd [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 69; [1989] 2 All ER 952
1.27, 1.30, 8.55
Banque Keyser Ullmann SA v. Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd [1990] 1 QB 665, CA; aff’d [1991] 2 AC 249, HL
Barclays Bank Ltd v. Cole [1967] 2 QB 738
1.60, 3.57, 5.43, 7.42
Barclays Bank plc v. Boulter [1999] 1 WLR 1919
Barclays Bank plc v. O’Brien [1994] 1 AC 180
Bardell v. Spinks (1846) 2 Car & K 646
6.9, 7.2
Barings plc (in liq) v. Coopers & Lybrand [2002] EWHC 461 (Ch); [2002] Lloyd’s Rep PN 395
1.12, 3.51, 4.24, 5.32, 6.16, 8.2
Barings plc v. Coopers & Lybrand [2003] EWHC 1319 (Ch); [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 566
7.45, 7.52, 7.53
Barley v. Walford (1846) 9 QB 197
1.22, 3.23, 4.1, 4.24, 5.6, 5.34, 5.42
Barlow Clowes International Ltd (in liq) v. Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37; [2006] 1 WLR 1476
1.48, 5.75, 5.77
Barnstaple Boat Co Ltd v. Jones [2007] EWCA Civ 727; [2008] 1 All ER 1124
4.2, 4.24, 8.114, 8.115, 8.116
Barry v. Croskey (1861) 2 J & H 1
1.23, 4.5, 5.47, 6.9, 6.25, 6.31, 8.4
Bartlett v. Salmon (1855) 6 De G M & G 33
3.56, 4.2, 5.17, 8.55
Bartlett v. Wells (1862) 1 B & S 836
7.23, 7.32, 7.40
Barton v. County NatWest Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 408
1.55, 4.14, 5.12, 7.27, 7.40
Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867) LR 2 Ex 259
4.15, 6.9, 6.16
Bates v. Todd (1831) 1 M & Rob 106
Bath and Mountague’s Case (1693) 3 Chan Cas 55
Bawden v. London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Assurance Co [1892] 2 QB 534
Beachey v. Brown (1860) El Bl & El 796
3.57, 4.25
Beaman v. ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550
Beattie v. Lord Ebury (1872) 7 Ch App 777; aff’d (1874) LR 7 HL 102
3.5, 3.12, 6.23, 7.57
Beckett v. Cordley (1784) 1 Bro CC 353
1.5, 7.8
Bedford v. Bagshaw (1859) 4 H & N 538
4.5, 6.25, 8.10
Bedouin, The [1894] P 1
Begbie v. The Phosphate Sewage Company (1875) LR 10 QB 491
4.4, 7.57, 8.39
Behn v. Burness (1863) 3 B & S 751
1.70, 4.20
Behn v. Kemble (1859) 7 CB NS 260
Bell v. Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161
3.57, 3.61, 8.54
Bellairs v. Tucker (1884) 13 QBD 562
Benham v. The United Guarantie and Life Assurance Company (1852) 7 Ex 743
Bentinck v. Fenn (1887) 12 App Cas 652
1.52, 4.5
Bernard v. Attorney General of Jamaica [2004] UKPC 47
Berrisford v. Milward (1740) 2 Atk 49
Beyers v. Green [1936] 1 All ER 613
1.31, 4.25
Bezant v. Rausing [2007] EWHC 1118 (QB)
3.15, 4.2, 8.17
BHP Billiton Ltd v. Dalmine SpA [2003] EWCA Civ 170; [2003] BLR 271
1.59, 4.2, 7.4, 7.28
Biddle v. Levy (1815) 1 Stark 20
4.14, 4.15, 6.9
Biggs v. Sotnicks [2002] Lloyd’s Rep PN 331
4.1, 4.24, 8.114, 8.115
Billing v. Ries (1841) Car & M 26
3.57, 4.24, 8.75
Bishop v. The Balkis Consolidated Company (1890) 25 QBD 512
4.15, 8.103
Bisset v. Wilkinson [1927] 1 AC 177
3.14, 4.2
Black v. Davies [2005] EWCA Civ 531
3.18, 4.1, 4.2, 7.34, 8.55, 8.88
Blackburn, Low & Co v. Vigors (1887) 12 App Cas 531
Blacklocks v. JB Developments (Godalming) Ltd [1982] 1 Ch 183
Blofield v. Payne (1833) 4 B & Ad 410
1.72, 6.35
Borders (UK) Ltd v. Comr of Police of the Metropolis [2005] EWCA Civ 197
Bottin International Investments Ltd v. Venson Group plc [2006] EWHC 3112 (Ch)
1.58, 3.3, 3.4, 3.14, 3.15, 3.50, 4.5, 5.30, 7.30, 7.46, 7.48, 7.57, 8.18, 8.2, 8.69, 8.70, 8.94
Bowmakers Ltd v. Barnet Instruments Ltd [1945] KB 65
Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Society v. Borders [1941] 2 All ER 205
1.7, 1.25, 1.50, 1.79, 3.2, 3.15, 3.58, 3.61, 4.1, 4.14, 5.33, 5.49, 6.4, 6.9, 6.25, 6.31, 7.1, 7.37, 9.4
Bray v. Patrid (1599) Cro Eliz 836
Bree v. Holbech (1781) 2 Dougl 654
Brennan v. Bolt Burdon [2004] EWCA Civ 1017; [2005] 1 QB 303
Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co Ltd [1962] AC 600
Briess v. Woolley [1954] AC 333
1.6, 3.16, 3.18, 3.19–3.21, 3.43, 3.44, 3.48, 4.5, 4.7, 5.7, 6.9, 6.11, 6.20, 6.24, 7.2, 8.85, 8.109, 8.110
Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew [1998] 1 Ch 1
7.30, 8.81
British & Commonwealth Holdings plc v. Quadrex Holdings Incorporated, unreported, 10 April 1995 (CA)
3.44, 3.58, 4.5, 5.25
British Mutual Banking Co Ltd v. Charnwood Forest Railway Co (1887) LR 18 QBD 714
4.14, 6.9
British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd v. KernkraftwerkBrokdorf GmbH [2007] EWHC 2245 (Ch)
British Telecommunications plc v. One in a Million Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 903
Britten v. Hughes (1829) 5 Bing 460
Broderick v. Broderick (1713) 1 P Wms 239
Broome v. Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
Broome v. Speak [1903] 1 Ch 586, aff’d Shepheard v. Broome [1904] AC 342
3.63, 8.18
Brown Jenkinson & Co Ltd v. Percy Dalton (London) Ltd [1957] 2 QB 621
3.56, 4.20, 5.43, 6.31, 8.94
Brown v. Edgington (1841) 2 Man & G 279
Brown v. Raphael [1958] Ch 636
Brown v. Smitt [1924] VLR 333
Brownlie v. Campbell (1880) 5 App Cas 925
1.6, 3.12, 3.21, 3.44, 3.58, 3.61, 4.2, 5.8, 5.24, 8.93
Buckland v. Farmar [1979] 1 WLR 221
Bulli Coal Mining Company v. Osborne [1899] 1 AC 351
Burnard v. Haggis (1863) 14 CB (NS) 45
Burnes v. Pennell (1849) 2 HLC 495
1.6, 1.52, 3.36, 4.5, 6.3, 7.19
Burrowes v. Lock (1805) 10 Ves 470
Burrows v. Rhodes [1899] 1 QB 816
3.13, 4.1, 8.8, 8.39
Bwlch-y-Plwm Lead Mining Company, The v. Baynes (1867) LR 2 Exch 324
1.24, 8.51, 8.70
Campbell v. Fleming (1834) 1 Ad & E 40
Campden Hill Ltd v. Chakrani [2005] EWHC 911 (Ch)
Canham v. Barry (1855) 10 CB 597
3.50, 3.54, 4.2
Cann v. Wilson (1888) 39 Ch D 39
Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v. Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525
8.53, 8.81
Cargill v. Bower (1878) 10 Ch D 502
3.58, 4.5, 5.6, 5.15, 5.17, 6.3–6.5, 6.9, 6.17, 6.23
Carr, Ex parte (1814) 3 V & B 108
1.5, 1.71, 4.15
Cavell USA Inc v. Seaton Insurance Co [2008] EWHC 3043
Cemp Properties (UK) Ltd v. Dentsply Research & Development Corporation (No 2) [1989] 2 EGLR 196; rev’d [1991] 2 EGLR 197, CA
3.51, 5.26, 5.33, 7.36, 8.18, 8.19, 8.33, 8.34
Central Railway of Venezuela v. Kisch (1867) LR 2 HL 99
3.31, 3.61, 3.63, 4.5, 7.47, 8.70
Chagos Islanders v. The Attorney-General [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB); aff’d [2004] EWCA Civ 997, CA
2.6, 8.116
Chandelor v. Lopus (1603) Cro Jac 4
1.45, 4.2
Charlton v. Fisher [2001] EWCA Civ 112; [2002] QB 578; [2001] Lloyd’s Rep IR 387
2.72, 8.39, 8.97
Charter plc v. City Index Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1382; [2008] 2 WLR 950; pet. allowed [2008] 1 WLR 1334
Chatham Furnace Co v. Moffatt 147 Mass 403, 18 NE 168
Cheese v. Thomas [1994] 1 WLR 129
Cherry v. Colonial Bank of Australasia (1869) LR 3 PC 24
Cheshire Building Society v. Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd [2008] EWHC 51 (Comm)
4.1, 4.14, 5.19, 5.69
Chesneau v. Interhome Ltd (1983) 134 NLJ 341
Chetcuti v. Scarf [2000] NSWSC 637
Chettiar v. Chettiar [1962] 2 WLR 548
China Pacific SA v. Food Corporation of India [1981] QB 403; rev’d [1982] AC 939 Chittenden v. Clayton [2007] EWHC 2271 (QB)
4.5, 4.24, 8.89
CIBC Mortgages plc v. Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200
1.14, 1.63, 8.56
Citizens Life Assurance Co Ltd v. Brown [1904] AC 423
CK v. JK [2004] 1 IR 224 (SC)
Clapham v. Shillito (1844) 7 Beav 146
3.24, 7.53, 7.57
Clark v. Woor [1965] 2 All ER 353
Clark v. Urquhart [1930] AC 28
1.6, 1.61, 4.5, 4.5, 8.18, 8.25
Clarke v. Dickson (1859) 6 CB (NS) 453
4.5, 6.25, 7.22, 8.69, 8.72
Clef Aquitaine SARL v. Laporte Materials (Barrow) Ltd [2001] QB 488
4.3, 6.35, 8.16, 8.17, 8.19, 8.24, 8.88, 8.115
Clements v. Bawns Shipping Company (1948) 81 Ll L Rep 232
4.2, 8.5, 8.46, 8.94
Clermont v. Tasburgh (1819) 1 Jac & W 112
8.39, 8.58, 8.63
Clifford v. Brooke (1806) 13 Ves Jun 131
1.17, 3.14, 4.5, 5.6,8.55
Clinicare Ltd v. Orchard Homes and Developments Ltd [2004] EWHC 1694 (QB)
1.40, 3.4, 3.21, 3.43, 3.50, 4.4, 7.37, 7.45, 7.57, 8.34
Clough v. The London and North Western Railway Company (1871) LR 7 Exch 26
3.5, 4.2, 4.26, 8.53, 8.55, 8.64, 8.68, 8.70, 8.81
Club Travel 2000 Holdings Ltd v. Murfin [2008] All ER (D) 56
1.58, 3.2, 4.5, 5.19
Clydesdale Bank Ltd v. Paton [1896] AC 381
1.6, 3.15, 4.11, 4.15
Coaks v. Boswell (1886) 11 App Cas 232
3.25, 3.58, 3.61
Coastal Estates Pty Ltd v. Melevende [1965] VR 433
Cobbe v. Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55
4.2, 8.16, 8.82
Cockshott v. Bennett (1788) 2 TR 763
Coleman v. Riches (1855) 16 CB 104
3.2, 4.20, 6.13
Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd v. Marcus de Berg [2003] EWHC 839 (QB)
1.51, 1.52, 1.58, 3.15, 4.2, 5.6, 5.23, 8.39
Collings v. Lee [2001] 2 All ER 332
Collins v. Cave (1860) 6 H & N 131
4.1, 4.24, 8.3
Collins v. Evans (1844) 5 QB 820
1.46, 4.1, 4.24, 5.6, 5.17, 6.4
Colt v. Woollaston (1723) 2 P Wms 154
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v. Amadio (1983) 46 ALR 402 (HC of Australia)
Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd v. R H Brown & Co [1972] HCA 24; (1972) 126 CLR 337
3.14, 4.15, 6.30, 6.31
Commissioner for the New Towns v. Cooper (Great Britain) Ltd [1995] Ch 259
Commonwealth Insurance Co of Vancouver v. Groupe Sprinks SA [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 67
3.21, 3.44, 3.58, 5.8
Compagnie Francaise des Chemins de Fer Paris-Orleans v. Leeston Shipping Co Ltd (1919) 1 Ll L Rep 235
Conlon v. Simms [2006] EWHC 401 (Ch); [2006] 2 All ER 1024; rev’d in part [2006] EWCA Civ 1749; [2008] 1 WLR 484, CA
3.62, 3.64, 4.1, 4.5, 4.24
Connolly Ltd v. Bellway Homes Ltd [2007] EWHC 895 (Ch)
1.51, 3.14, 3.30, 4.2, 7.1, 7.45, 8.18
Connop v. Holmes (1835) 2 C M & R 719
4.11, 8.74
Container Transport International Inc v. Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 476
Contex Drouzhba Ltd v. Wiseman [2006] EWHC 2708 (QB); [2007] BCLC 758; aff’d [2007] EWCA Civ 1201; [2008] BCLC 631, CA
1.58, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.15, 5.32, 6.24, 8.19, 8.104, 9.4
Cooper v. Phibbs (1867) LR 2 HL 149
Corbett v. Brown (1831) 8 Bing 33
Corking v. Jarrard (1807) 1 Camp 37
Cornfoot v. Fowke (1840) 6 M & W 358
1.22, 3.57, 4.2, 5.17, 6.4, 6.6, 6.16
Cornish v. Thornett (1929) 33 Ll L Rep 281
Corporacion Nacional del Cobre de Chile v. Sogemin Metals Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 139
1.71, 8.36
Cowen v. Simpson (1795) 1 Esp 290
4.2, 7.56
Craig v. Phillips (1876) 3 Ch D 722
Crawshay v. Thompson (1842) 4 Man & G 357
1.24, 1.72, 5.42, 5.67, 6.35
Crédit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v. Export Credits Guarantee Department [2000] 1 AC 486
1.6, 4.1, 4.11, 6.17
Credit Suisse First Boston Corp v. Al Rawi [2002] EWHC 222 (Comm)
1.55, 1.58, 4.24, 6.8, 8.5, 8.17, 8.35
Credito Italiano v. M Birnhak & Sons Ltd [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 314
Cresswell v. Parker [1978] 1 WLR 255
Crockford v. Winter (1807) 1 Camp 124
Crosse v. Gardner (1689) Carth 90; Comb 142; 3 Mod 261
Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd v. Vedatech Corporation [2007] EWHC 1062 (Ch); [2007] All ER (D) 128
Crystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd v. Dowie [2007] EWHC 1392 (QB)
1.51, 1.58, 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 3.19, 3.21, 3.38, 3.58, 4.19, 5.13, 7.11, 8.1, 8.58, 8.69, 8.81, 8.109
Cullen v. Thomson (1862) 6 LT 870
1.6, 3.57, 4.5, 5.32, 6.23
D, In re [2008] UKHL 33
D’Aranda v. Houston (1834) 6 Car & P 511
3.36, 4.5
Dadourian Group International v. Simms [2006] EWHC 2973 (Ch); [2006] All ER (D) 351
1.55, 1.56, 4.2, 7.28, 7.39, 7.40, 8.9, 8.19
Daido Asia Japan Company Ltd v. Rothen [2002] BCC 582
3.15, 4.2, 6.23, 6.24
Dairy Containers Ltd v. NZI Bank Ltd [1995] 2 NZLR 30
Dale’s Case (1585) Cro Eliz 44
1.45, 4.2, 5.6
Dalgety & Co Ltd v. Australian Mutual Provident Society [1908] VLR 481
3.17, 3.21
Daly v. Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 371
Danepoint Ltd v. Underwriting Insurance Ltd [2005] EWHC 2318 (TCC); [2006] Lloyd’s Rep IR 429
Daraydan Holdings Ltd v. Solland International Ltd [2004] EWHC 622 (Ch)
1.71, 8.76
Davidson v. Tulloch (1860) 2 LT 97
1.10, 4.5, 7.35, 8.18
Davies v. London and Provincial Marine Insurance Company (1878) 8 Ch D 469
3.18, 3.21, 3.44, 3.58, 5.8
Davy v. Garrett (1878) 7 Ch D 473
Dawes v. Harness (1875) LR 10 CP 166
Dawes v. King (1815) 1 Stark 75
1.52, 4.11, 5.28
De Graves v. Smith (1810) 2 Camp 533
4.15, 8.8
De Lassalle v. Guildford [1901] 2 KB 215
De Manneville v. Crompton (1813) 1 V & B 353
De Molestina v. Ponton [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 271
3.15, 4.5, 8.58, 8.69
De Souza v. Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd [1995] LRLR 453
De Symons v. Minchwich (1796) 1 Esp 430
Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v. Koshy [2001] All ER (D) 389; rev’d in part Gwembe Valley Development Company Ltd v. Koshy [2003] EWCA Civ 1048; [2004] 1 BCLC 131, CA
1.58, 4.11, 7.45, 8.15, 8.110, 8.115
Delamar v. Mannerings [1951] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 40
1.52, 1.57, 4.2
Demetriades & Co v. Northern Assurance Co (The Spathari) (1925) 21 Ll L Rep 265
Dent v. Glen Line Ltd (1940) 67 Ll L Rep 72
Denton v. The Great Northern Railway Company (1856) 5 E & B 860
1.46, 1.49, 3.3, 4.21, 5.7, 9.4
Deposit and General Life Assurance Company v. Ayscough (1856) 6 El & Bl 761
Derksen v. Pillar [2003] EWHC 3050 (Ch); [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 25
4.2, 4.24, 8.82
Derry v. Peek (1887) 37 Ch D 541, CA; rev’d (1889) 14 App Cas 337, HL
vii, xi, xii, 1.5–1.7, 1.10, 1.16, 1.17, 1.24, 1.26, 1.32, 1.35, 1.41, 1.45, 1.47–1.51, 1.60–1.63, 1.67, 1.79, 2.2, 2.7, 2.11, 2.50, 3.15, 3.2, 3.35, 3.42, 3.50, 3.65, 4.5, 5.2, 5.6, 5.7, 5.18, 5.2, 5.21, 5.23, 5.24, 5.26–5.28, 5.32, 5.33, 5.35, 5.43, 5.59, 5.61, 5.69, 5.71, 5.72, 7.24, 8.1, 8.55, 8.56, 8.116, 9.1, 9.5, 9.8
Design Progression Ltd v. Thurloe Properties Ltd [2004] EWHC 324 (Ch); [2005] 1 WLR 1
Devaux v. Steinkeller (1839) 6 Bing (NC) 84
3.54, 4.14, 4.15
Devenish Nutrition Ltd v. Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) [2007] EWHC 2394 (Ch); [2008] 2 WLR 637; [2008] EWCA Civ 1086
8.45, 8.73, 8.78, 8.79
Dhak v. Insurance Co of North America [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 632
Diamond v. Bank of London and Montreal Ltd [1979] 1 QB 333
4.15, 8.103, 8.109
Dickinson v. Burrell (1866) LR 1 Eq 337
Dickson v. Reuter’s Telegram Co Ltd (1876) LR 2 CPD 62
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ray [1974] 1 AC 370
Dobell v. Stevens (1825) 3 B & C 623
4.2, 4.5, 7.45
Dodd Properties Ltd v. Canterbury City Council [1980] 1 WLR 433
Doe, dem. Roberts v. Roberts (1819) 2 B & Ald 367
8.39, 8.51
Doe, dem. Willis v. Martin (1790) 4 TR 39
6.9, 8.55
Donegal International Ltd v. Zambia [2007] EWHC 197 (Comm); [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 397
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] 1 AC 562
1.38, 1.62, 2.7, 5.6, 5.23, 6.28
Dora, The. Inversiones Manria SA v. Sphere Drake Insurance Co plc [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 69
Downs v. Chappell [1997] 1 WLR 426
3.53, 3.55, 4.5, 4.7, 7.1, 7.28, 7.29, 7.39, 7.50, 8.5, 8.10, 8.16, 8.22, 8.24, 8.31, 8.36
Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158
4.5, 7.36, 7.52, 8.5, 8.10, 8.11, 8.16, 8.22
Dubai Aluminium Ltd v. Salaam [2002] UKHL 48; [2003] 2 AC 366
6.13–6.16, 8.36
Duffell v. Wilson (1808) 1 Camp 401
Dufour v. Ackland (1830) 9 LJ KB 3
4.24, 8.75
Duke of Leeds, The v. The Earl of Amherst (1850) 20 Beav 239
Duke of Norfolk, The v. Worthy (1808) 1 Camp 337
Duncan, Terry v. Sweeting, In re [1899] 1 Ch 387
4.5, 8.2, 8.70, 8.82
Dyer v. Hargrave (1805) 10 Ves Jun 505
E A Grimstead & Son Ltd v. McGarrigan [1999] All ER (D) 1163
Eaglesfield v. Marquis of Londonderry (1876) 4 Ch D 693
1.37, 3.12, 3.13, 4.5, 5.6, 7.34
Earl Beauchamp v. Winn (1873) LR 2 HL 223
8.58, 8.69
Earl of Aylesford v. Morris (1873) LR 8 Ch 484
Earl of Bristol v. Wilsmore (1823) 1 B & C 514
3.4, 3.5, 4.2, 4.11, 4.26, 8.51
Earl of Chesterfield v. Janssen (1751) 2 Ves Sen 125
1.46, 1.63, 8.55
Earle v. Kingscote [1900] 2 Ch 585
Early v. Garrett (1829) 9 B & C 928
1.12, 1.52, 2.64, 3.57, 3.61, 4.2
East v. Maurer [1991] 1 WLR 461
8.5, 8.10, 8.16, 8.18, 8.19, 8.24
Eastgate, In re; ex parte Ward [1905] 1 KB 465
3.15, 8.70
Eastwood v. Bain (1858) 3 H & N 738
1.11, 1.12, 4.11, 8.2
Economides v. Commercial Union Assurance Co plc [1998] QB 587
3.14, 5.18, 5.23
Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459
1.46, 1.52, 3.15, 3.52, 4.5, 5.7, 5.47, 7.11, 7.22, 7.23, 7.27, 7.40, 7.45
Edwards v. Brown (1831) 1 C & J 307
3.13, 4.2, 4.24
Edwards v. Footner (1808) 1 Camp 530
3.21, 3.44
Edwards v. M’Leay (1815) Coop 308; (1818) 2 Swans 287
4.2, 5.21, 8.72
Edwards v. Porter [1925] 1 AC 1
5.3, 6.22
Egger v. Viscount Chelmsford [1965] 1 QB 248
El Ajou v. Dollar Land Holdings plc [1993] 3 All ER 717; rev’d on other grounds [1994] 2 All ER 685
5.15, 8.81
Elena D’Amico, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75
8.15, 8.26
Ellard v. Andrews [2002] EWHC 2842 (QB)
3.64, 4.1
Elliot v. Von Glehn (1849) 13 QB 632
1.52, 1.70, 4.20
Emanuel v. Dane (1812) 3 Camp 299
4.2, 8.50, 8.51, 8.74
Emerald Construction Co Ltd v. Lowthian [1966] 1 WLR 691
Enron (Thrace) Exploration and Product BV v. Clapp [2005] EWCA Civ 1511
3.58, 4.8, 5.17, 6.4, 6.12, 6.20
Erlanger v. New Phosphate Co (1878) 3 App Cas 1218
8.57, 8.69, 8.70
Erven Warnink Besloten Vennootshcap v. J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd [1979] AC 731
Essa v. Laing Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 2
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v. Mardon [1976] QB 801
Evans v. Bicknell (1801) 6 Ves Jun 174
1.47, 1.58, 4.14, 5.23, 8.55
Evans v. Carrington (1859) 1 J & H 598; rev’d in part (1860) 3 De G F & J 481
1.23, 1.52, 3.15, 3.28, 4.25
Evans v. Collins (1844) 5 QB 804
1.46, 5.17, 6.4
Evans v. Edmonds (1853) 13 CB 777
1.52, 3.28, 3.57, 4.25, 5.21
Evans v. Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd (1936) 52 Ll L Rep 51
Eyre v. Dunsford (1801) 1 East 318
1.20, 2.73, 4.15, 5.35
F v. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council [1991] 1 Fam 69
4.1, 4.25, 8.2
Facta v. Prew-Smith [2006] EWHC 730 (Comm)
Farina v. Silverlock (1858) 4 K & J 650
5.8, 6.4, 6.35
Fellowes v. Lord Gwydyr (1826) 1 Sim 63; aff’d (1829) 1 Russ & My 83
4.2, 7.34
Feret v. Hill (1854) 15 CB 207
3.15, 4.4
Ferguson v. Carrington (1829) 9 B & C 59
3.5, 4.2, 8.51, 8.64
Field v. Shoalhave Transport Pty Ltd [1970] NSWLR 96
Filby v. Mortgage Express (No 2) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 759
8.50, 8.54, 8.81
Finers v. Miro [1991] 1 WLR 35
First Discount Ltd v. Cranston [2002] EWCA Civ 71
Fitzherbert v. Mather (1785) 1 TR 12
Flack v. Pattinson [2002] EWCA Civ 1762
4.2, 4.3, 7.45, 7.48, 7.58
Flood v. Jackson [1895] 2 QB 21
Fortune Hong Kong Trading Ltd v. Cosco-Feoso (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Freja Scandic) [2002] EWHC 79 (Comm)
4.3, 8.18
Foster v. Charles (1830) 6 Bing 396; (1830) 7 Bing 105
1.10, 1.12, 1.46, 2.64, 2.74, 3.58, 4.15, 5.6, 5.36, 5.37, 5.42, 5.67
Foster v. Mackinnon (1869) LR 4 CP 704
Fowke v. Boyle (1652) Style 348
Fowkes v. Manchester & London Life Assurance & Loan Association (1862) 3 F & F 440
Fox v. Mackreth (1788) 2 Bro CC 400; (1791) 2 Cox Eq Cas 320
1.25, 1.36, 1.37, 3.60, 4.2
Fray v. Blackburn (1863) 3 B & S 576
Frazer v. Jones (1846) 5 Hare 475
4.14, 8.53
Freeman v. Baker (1833) 5 B & Ad 797
4.2, 5.6, 6.7, 8.93
Fry v. Lane (1888) 40 Ch D 312
Fuller v. Wilson (1842) 3 QB 58; rev’d (1843) 3 QB 68
Fullwood v. Fullwood (1878) 9 Ch D 176
1.72, 8.70
Furnis v. Leicester (1619) Cro Jac 474
Gainsford v. Blachford (1819) 7 Price 544
3.5, 4.15
Gale v. Lindo (1687) 1 Vern 475
Gallaher International Ltd v. Tlais Enterprises Ltd [2008] EWHC 804 (Comm)
1.12, 1.51, 1.58, 3.15, 4.3, 5.13, 5.32, 8.2, 9.4
Galloway v. Guardian Royal Exchange (UK) Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 209
2.69, 3.56
Garden Neptune Shipping Ltd v. Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330
Garnac Grain Company Incorporated v. HMF Faure and Fairclough Ltd [1965] 2 WLR 696; [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 296; rev’d [1966] 1 QB 650; [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 229, CA; aff’d [1968] AC 1130; [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 495, HL
1.6, 1.59, 4.2, 6.17, 8.64
GE Commercial Finance Ltd v. Gee [2005] EWHC 2056 (Comm); [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 337
1.51, 1.52, 1.58, 4.14, 5.20, 5.32, 7.1, 7.52, 8.5, 8.24
Geddes v. Pennington (1817) 5 Dow 159
3.50, 4.2
Geipel v. Peach [1917] 2 Ch 108
General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v. Tanter (The Zephyr) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58
George Whitechurch Ltd v. Cavanagh [1902] 1 AC 117
1.6, 4.1, 4.18, 6.13
George Wimpey UK Ltd v. VI Construction Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 77
Gerhard v. Bates (1853) 2 E & B 476
1.10, 4.5, 5.51, 6.25
Gerson v. Simpson [1903] 2 KB 197
1.61, 8.36
Gibson v. D’Este (1843) 2 Y & C CC 542
3.57, 4.2, 7.44
Gilbert v. Stanislaus (1816) 3 Price 53
Gipps v. Gipps [1978] 1 NSWLR 454
4.25, 7.36, 7.56, 7.57
GL Baker Ltd v. Medway Building and Supplies Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1216
Glamorganshire Iron and Coal Company, The v. Irvine (1866) 4 F & F 947
1.46, 3.50, 4.5, 5.18, 5.40, 8.70
Glasier v. Rolls (1889) 42 Ch D 436
1.26, 1.47, 1.52, 4.5, 5.6, 5.23, 5.72
Gleaner Co Ltd, The v. Abrahams [2003] UKPC 55; [2004] 1 AC 628
Gloken Holdings Ltd v. The CDE Co Ltd (1997) 6 NZBLC 102
Glubb; Bamfield, In re v. Rogers [1900] 1 Ch 354
Goff v. Gauthier (1991) 62 P & Cr 388
Goldrei, Foucard & Son v. Sinclair [1918] 1 KB 180
1.50, 8.1, 8.55, 8.56, 8.66, 8.111
Goode v. Harrison (1821) 5 B & Ald 147
Goose v. Wilson Sandford & Co [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep PN 189
1.51, 1.52, 1.56, 1.58, 3.50, 4.1, 4.14, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12, 5.31–5.33, 5.49, 7.1, 7.27, 9.4
Gordon Hill Trust Ltd v. Segall [1941] 2 All ER 379
3.36, 4.2, 5.17, 6.4
Gordon v. Selico Co Ltd [1985] 2 EGLR 79; aff’d [1986] 1 EGLR 71 CA
1.42, 3.2, 3.61, 4.4, 5.17, 5.72, 6.4, 6.13, 7.45
Gordon v. Street [1899] 2 QB 641
3.51–3.53, 4.14, 8.64, 8.70
Gould v. Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215
1.55, 7.2, 7.13, 7.40, 7.56, 8.11
Government of Zanzibar v. British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2333
8.94, 8.99
Grammar v. Nixon (1725) 1 Stra 653
4.2, 6.9
Gran Gelato Ltd v. Richcliff (Group) Ltd [1992] Ch 560
8.5, 8.36
Grant v. Norway (1851) 10 CB 665
Grant v. Aetna Insurance Co (1862) 15 Moo PC 516
Grant v. Travellers Cheque Association Ltd, unreported, 16 March 1995
Granville Oil and Chemicals Ltd v. Davies Turner and Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 570; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 819
Gravenor v. Mete (1601) Cro Eliz 885
Gravil v. Carroll [2008] EWCA Civ 689
Gray v. Cox (1824) 1 Car & P 491
Great Future International Ltd v. Sealand Housing Corporation [2002] EWHC 2454 (Ch)
1.59, 4.5, 8.11, 8.18, 8.22, 8.23
Green v. Gosden (1841) 3 Man & G 446
3.50, 3.54, 4.14, 7.34
Green v. Nixon (1857) 23 Beav. 530
Greer v. Kettle [1938] AC 156
Gregg v. Wells (1839) 10 Ad & E 90
Gresley v. Mousley (1859) 3 De G & J 78
Gross v. Lewis Hillman Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 445
3.16, 3.19, 5.12, 6.27, 6.31
Grosvenor Casinos Ltd v. National Bank of Abu Dhabi [2008] EWHC 511 (Comm); [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1
3.38, 4.14, 5.9, 5.12, 5.32, 7.11, 7.23, 7.34, 8.10, 8.26, 8.30
Group Josi Reinsurance Co Ltd v. Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 345
5.15, 6.16
Gutsole v. Mathers (1836) 1 M & W 495
Gwembe Valley Development Company Ltd v. Koshy [2003] EWCA Civ 1048; [2004] 1 BCLC 131
1.58, 4.11, 8.15, 8.70, 8.110, 8.114–8.116
H (Minors, In re) [1996] AC 563
Haas Timber & Trading Pty Ltd v. Wade [1954] HCA 39; (1954) 94 CLR 593
4.5, 8.65, 8.70, 8.71
Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
Hagen v. ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd [2002] IRLR 31
Halifax Building Society v. Thomas [1996] 2 WLR 63; [1995] 4 All ER 673
4.14, 8.76, 8.77, 8.81, 8.82
Hall v. Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust [2004] EWHC 2748 (QB); aff’d [2005] EWCA Civ 919, CA
3.23, 6.26, 6.36, 8.46, 9.4
Halley v. The Law Society [2003] EWCA Civ 97
Halpern v. Halpern [2007] EWCA Civ 291; [2008] 1 QB 195
Hamar v. Alexander (1806) 2 Bos & Pul (NR) 241
1.5, 4.15
Hambro v. Burnand [1904] 2 KB 10
Hambrough v. Mutual Life Insurance Co of New York (1895) 72 LT 140
4.12, 5.17, 6.4
Hamilton & Co v. Eagle Star & British Dominions Insurance Co Ltd (1924) 19 Ll L Rep 242
Hamlyn v. John Houston & Co [1903] 1 KB 81
Hammersley v. De Biel (1845) 12 Cl & F 45
Hampshire Land Company, Re [1896] 2 Ch 743
5.16, 6.16
Harman v. Fishar (1790) Lofft 472
Harris v. The Society of Lloyd’s [2008] EWHC 1433 (Comm)
1.51, 4.12, 5.12, 5.19, 8.114
Harse v. Pearl Life Assurance Company [1904] 1 KB 558
Hart v. Swaine (1877) 7 Ch D 42
4.2, 5.21
Haslock v. Fergusson (1837) 7 Ad & E 86
4.15, 8.104
Haycraft v. Creasy (1801) 2 East 92
1.12, 1.19, 1.46, 2.64, 3.14, 3.59, 4.15, 5.35
Haygarth v. Wearing (1871) LR 12 Eq 320
3.30, 4.2
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners [1964] AC 465
1.7, 1.64
Heilbut, Symons & Co v. Buckleton [1913] 1 AC 30
1.6, 1.61, 1.70, 4.5
Hemingway v. Hamilton (1838) 4 M & W 115
Henderson v. Lacon (1867) LR 5 Eq 249
4.5, 5.17, 6.4, 6.23
Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145
Henry Ansbacher & Co Ltd v. Binks Stern [1998] PNLR 221
4.1, 4.14, 5.7, 5.10
Henville v. Walker (2001) 206 CLR 459
1.55, 7.40
Herbert v. Poland (1932) 44 Ll L Rep 139
Hern v. Nichols (1690) 1 Salk 289
4.2, 6.9, 6.15
Hewison v. Meridian Shipping PTE [2002] EWCA Civ 1821; [2003] ICR 766
Heymann v. European Central Railway Company (1868) LR 7 Eq 154
4.5, 8.71
Higgins v. Samels (1862) 2 J & H 460
3.4, 3.30, 3.34, 4.2, 5.21, 7.10, 7.57
HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v. Axa Corporate Solutions [2002] EWCA Civ 1253; [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 1
HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v. Chase Manhattan Bank [2001] EWCA Civ 1250; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 483, CA; [2003] UKHL 6; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61, HL
1.13, 1.85, 2.53, 3.25, 3.29, 3.58, 3.61, 3.65, 4.12, 8.1, 8.33, 8.58, 8.94–8.98
Hill v. Citadel Insurance Co Ltd [1997] LRLR 167
3.4, 3.8, 3.16
Hill v. Gray (1816) 1 Stark NPC 434
3.57, 3.58, 3.62, 4.2, 5.17, 6.4
Hill v. Perrott (1810) 3 Taunt. 274
4.2, 8.75
Hirschfeld v. London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company (1876) 2 QBD 1
Hirst v. West Riding Union Banking Company [1901] 2 KB 560
8.103, 8.104
Holliday v. Lockwood [1917] 2 Ch 473.53
Holmes v. Jones [1907] HCA 35, (1907) 4 CLR 1692
1.12, 1.50, 1.52, 1.55, 1.56, 4.2, 7.57, 8.2, 8.56, 8.111
Holt v. Ely (1853) 1 El & Bl 795
Holt’s Case; re The Universal Provident Life Association (1856) 22 Beav 48
Homeward Bound Gold Mining Company v. McPherson (1896) 17 NSWR (Eq) 281
Hornal v. Neuberger Products Ltd [1957] 1 QB 247
1.58, 4.2
Horsfall v. Thomas (1862) 1 H & C 90
3.2, 3.61, 3.61, 4.1, 4.11, 7.47, 7.57
Horsford v. Bird [2006] UKPC 3; [2006] 1 EGLR 75
Hosegood v. Bull (1876) LT 617
4.14, 4.15, 6.30
Houghton v. Immer (No 155) Pty Ltd (1997) 44 NSWLR 46
Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank (1880) 5 App Cas 317
1.6, 4.5, 6.9, 8.68
Hughes v. Clewley (The Siben) (No 2) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 35
4.2, 4.5, 8.18, 8.69
Hughes v. Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society [1916] 2 KB 482
3.12, 4.12
Hull and County Bank, In re; Burgess’s Case (1880) 15 Ch D 507
Hulton v. Hulton [1916] 2 KB 642; aff’d [1917] 1 KB 813, CA
1.23, 3.28, 4.25, 8.56, 8.69
Humphrys v. Pratt (1831) 2 Dow & Cl 288; 5 Bligh NS 154
4.1, 4.24
Huning v. Ferrers (1711) Gilb Rep 85
Hunter BNZ Finance Ltd v. CG Maloney Pty Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 420
4.14, 8.81
Hutchinson v. Bell (1809) 1 Taunt 558
4.15, 8.22
Hyde v. Bulmer (1868) 18 LT 293
1.10, 1.12, 4.18, 8.2, 8.7
IFE Fund SA v. Goldman Sachs International [2007] EWCA Civ 811; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 449
3.4, 3.7, 3.21, 3.44, 4.14, 5.8, 9.4
Ingram v. Little [1961] 1 QB 31
Insurance Corporation of the Channel Islands Ltd v. McHugh [1997] LRLR 94
Insurance Corporation of the Channel Islands v. The Royal Hotel Ltd [1998] Lloyd’s Rep IR 151
5.14, 8.65
International Lottery Management Ltd v. Dumas [2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 237
Inversiones Manria SA v. Sphere Drake Insurance Co plc (The Dora) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 69
Islington London Borough Council v. Uckac [2006] EWCA Civ 340; [2006] 1 WLR 1303
4.4, 8.51, 8.57, 8.64, 8.107
Issaias v. Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1923) 15 Ll L Rep 186
Ivan Weavers Tyre Centre Ltd v. Gill Construction Co Ltd [2008] NZCA 167
4.24, 6.24
J and P Coats Ltd v. Crossland (1904) 20 TLR 800
1.61, 4.5, 5.21
Jaffray v. Society of Lloyd’s [2007] EWCA Civ 586; [2008] 1 WLR 75
Janvier v. Sweeney [1919] 2 QB 316
1.31, 3.23, 6.9, 8.46
Jarrett v. Kennedy (1848) 6 CB 319
Jarvis v. Duke (1681) 1 Vern 19
JC Houghton & Co v. Nothard, Lowe and Wills Ltd [1928] AC 1
5.15, 5.16
JD Wetherspoon plc v. Van De Berg & Co Ltd [2007] EWHC 1044 (Ch)
1.51, 3.64, 4.1, 4.24, 7.1
JEB Fasteners Ltd v. Marks Bloom & Co [1983] 1 All ER 583
7.25, 7.26
Jenkinson & Co Ltd v. Percy Dalton (London) Ltd [1957] 2 QB 621
1.50, 5.47
Jennings v. Broughton (1853) 17 Beav 234; (1853) De GM & G 126
1.52, 4.5, 6.8, 7.57
Jennings v. Rundall (1799) 8 TR 335
Jewelowski v. Propp [1944] 1 KB 510
Jewson & Sons Ltd v. Arcos Ltd (1933) 47 Ll L Rep 93
JJ Coughlan Ltd v. Ruparelia [2002] EWHC 1733 (QB); aff’d [2003] EWCA Civ 1057; [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 25, CA
2.34, 4.11, 4.24, 6.13, 6.16, 7.28, 7.54
John McGrath Motors (Canberra) Pty Ltd v. Applebee [1964] HCA 1; (1964) 110 CLR 656
Johnson v. The King [1904] AC 817
8.87, 8.88
Johnson v. Pye (1665) 1 Sid 258
Joliffe v. Baker (1883) 11 QBD 255
1.25, 1.56, 4.2
Jones v. Yates (1829) 9 B & C 532
Jones, Ex parte; in re Jones (1881) 18 Ch D 109
Jorden v. Money (1854) 5 HLC 185
1.71, 3.15, 4.25
Jurgensen v. FE Hookway & Co Ltd [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 129
4.2, 8.5, 8.16, 8.2
K v. P [1993] 1 Ch 140
K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v. Lloyd’s Underwriters (The Mercandian Continent) [2001] EWCA Civ 1275; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 563
Kanchenjunga, The. Motor Oil (Hellas) (Corinth) Refineries SA v. Shipping Corporation of India [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391
8.64, 8.67
KBC Bank v. Industrial Steels (UK) Ltd [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 370
1.51, 3.4, 4.1, 4.10, 5.19, 5.33, 5.47, 5.64, 5.69, 7.1, 7.31, 7.33, 8.9
Keates v. Earl Cadogan (1851) 10 CB 591
3.57, 3.58, 5.17, 6.4
Kennedy v. The Panama, New Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Company Ltd (1867) LR 2 QB 580
3.34, 4.5, 5.6, 8.56
Kensington International Ltd v. Republic of Congo [2007] EWCA Civ 1128; [2008] 1 WLR 1144
1.4, 1.48, 1.71, 3.65, 5.44, 5.69
Kent v. Freehold Land and Brick-Making Company (1867) LR 4 Eq 588; rev’d (1868) 3 Ch App 493
4.5, 8.68
Kettlewell v. Refuge Assurance Company [1908] 1 KB 545, CA; aff’d [1909] 1 AC 243, HL
3.10, 3.15, 4.12, 6.9, 8.18, 8.51, 8.75
Khodoparast v. Shad [2000] 1 WLR 618
1.12, 8.48
Killick v. Roberts [1991] 1 WLR 1146
1.13, 4.4, 8.107
King v. Robinson (1586) Cro Eliz 79
1.45, 4.25
Kingscroft Insurance Company Ltd v. Nissan Fire and Marine Insurance Company Limited, unreported, 4 March 1996; [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 37
Kingsford v. Merry (1856) 11 Ex 577; rev’d (1856) 1 H & N 503
4.2, 8.68, 8.80
Kitchen v. Royal Air Force Association [1958] 2 All ER 241
Kitcher v. Fordham [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 705
1.55, 1.56, 3.23, 4.2, 5.22, 5.52, 6.9, 6.25, 8.18, 8.19, 8.2
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v. Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349
Knight v. Marjoribanks (1848) 11 Beav 322; aff’d (1849) 2 Mac & G 10; 2 H & Tw 308
1.52, 1.63, 3.61, 4.9
Komercni Banka AS v. Stone and Rolls Ltd [2002] EWHC 2263 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 384
3.4, 4.1, 4.10, 7.45, 8.16, 8.27
Kooragang Investments Pty Ltd v. Richardson & Wrench Ltd [1982] 1 AC 462
Korea National Insurance Corp v. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG [2008] EWCA Civ 1355
Krakowski v. Eurolynx Properties Ltd [1994] HCA 22; (1995) 130 ALR 1
3.38, 4.2, 5.47
Kriti Palm, The. AIC Ltd v. ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1601; [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 555
1.51, 1.58, 3.4, 3.13, 3.14, 3.21, 3.38, 3.39, 3.44, 3.58, 3.65, 4.1, 4.2, 5.7, 5.9, 5.11, 5.12, 5.19, 5.25, 5.69, 5.72, 7.1
Kuddus v. Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2002] 2 AC 122
8.42–8.44, 8.46, 8.73
Kumar v. AGF Insurance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 1747
3.61, 8.96
Kuwait Airways Corporation v. Iraqi Airways Co [2002] 2 WLR 1353
2.1, 8.10
Kwei Tek Chao v. British Traders and Shippers Ltd [1954] 2 QB 459
3.2, 4.10, 4.20, 6.16, 8.70
L’Estrange v. F Graucob Ltd [1946] 2 KB 394
7.48, 8.64
Lagunas Nitrate Co v. Lagunas Syndicate [1899] 2 Ch 392
8.69, 8.85
Lake v. Brutton (1856) 8 De GM & G 440
Lambson Fine Chemicals Ltd v. Merlion Capital Housing Ltd [2008] EWHC 168 (TCC)
Lamlee v. Hanman (1705) 2 Vern 499
Langridge v. Levy (1837) 2 M & W 519; (1838) 4 M & W 337
4.1, 4.2, 5.34, 5.51, 6.28, 6.31, 8.2, 8.4
Latec Investments Ltd v. Hotel Terrigal Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (1965) 113 CLR 265
Latkter v. General Guarantee Finance Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 875
1.12, 2.64, 4.2, 4.3, 7.4, 8.2, 8.110
Law Society v. Sephton & Co [2004] EWCA Civ 1627; [2005] 1 QB 1013; [2006] UKHL 22, [2006] 2 AC 543
4.1, 8.114, 8.115
Law v. Law [1905] 1 Ch 140
3.58, 4.5, 8.64
Lazarus Estates Ltd v. Beazley [1956] 1 QB 702
1.13, 1.52, 8.49, 8.79, 8.107
Le Lievre v. Gould [1893] 1 QB 491
1.26, 1.61, 4.1, 4.14, 5.22, 5.69
Leakins v. Clissel (1663) 1 Sid 146
Leddell v. McDougal (1881) 29 WR 403
1.19, 4.15, 5.32
Lee v. Jones (1864) 17 CB (NS) 482
Lek v. Matthews (1927) 29 Ll L Rep 141
1.58, 5.43
Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v. Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705
Lewis v. Nicholson (1852) 18 QB 503
Lewis v. Jones (1825) 4 B & C 506
3.13, 4.18
Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787) 2 Durn & E 63
Limit No 2 Ltd v. AXA Versicherung AG [2007] EWHC 2321 (Comm); [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 330; rev’d in part [2008] EWCA Civ 1231, CA
2.73, 3.4, 3.8, 3.17, 3.19
Lindsay Petroleum Company, The v. Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC 221
4.2, 8.69, 8.70
Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22; [2002] 1 AC 215
Liverpool Adelphi Loan Association, The v. Fairhurst (1854) 9 Ex 422
Livesey v. Jenkins [1985] AC 424
Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal & Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25
Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co [1912] AC 716
1.6, 4.24, 6.9, 6.10, 6.16, 7.48
Lloyds Bank v. The Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China [1929] 1 KB 40
Load v. Green (1846) 15 M & W 216
3.5, 4.2, 4.26, 8.81
Lombard Finance Ltd v. Brookplain Trading Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 271
London Allied Holdings Ltd v. Lee [2007] EWHC 2061 (Ch)
3.15, 4.5, 8.81
London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd, In re [1903] 1 Ch 728
London and Leeds Bank Limited, In re; ex parte Carling (1887) 56 LJ Ch 321
7.10, 7.13, 8.68
London Assurance v. Clare (1937) 57 Ll L Rep 254
London County Freehold & Leasehold Properties Ltd v. Berkeley Property and Investment Co Ltd [1936] 2 All ER 1039
1.71, 4.2, 5.17, 8.18
London General Omnibus Company v. Holloway [1912] 2 KB 72
1.13, 8.55
Longmeid v. Holliday (1851) 6 Ex 761
4.2, 5.51, 6.29, 8.2
Lonrho v. Fayed (No 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1
1.52, 1.55, 3.50, 4.5, 5.54, 6.26, 6.35, 8.81, 8.82
Lovell v. Hicks (1836) 2 Y & C Ex 46; (1837) 2 Y & C Ex 472
3.50, 4.4, 5.38, 8.55, 8.70
Low v. Bouverie [1891] 3 Ch 82
5.6, 8.55
Lowe v. Lombank Ltd [1960] 1 WLR 196
LPMG Ltd v. Stapleford Commercials [2006] EWHC 3753 (Ch)
1.58, 4.1, 4.8
Lucas v. Godwin (1837) 3 Bing (NC) 737
Ludgater v. Love (1881) 44 LT 694
Lyde v. Barnard (1836) 1 M & W 101
1.18, 2.34, 4.5, 4.15, 8.102, 8.103
Lynn v. Bamber [1930] 2 KB 72
Lysney v. Selby (1704) 2 Ld Raym 1118
4.2, 7.44, 7.45, 7.56, 7.57
Macleay v. Tait [1906] AC 24
1.6, 1.10, 7.4, 7.23, 7.38
Macquarie Generation v. Peabody Resources [2000] NSWCA 361
1.52, 1.55, 1.56, 3.16–3.19, 3.21, 3.53, 7.28
Maddeford v. Austwick (1826) 1 Sim 89; aff’d (1833) 2 My & K 279
3.4, 3.58, 4.5
Mafo v. Adams [1970] 1 QB 548
1.12, 1.54, 4.1, 4.24, 8.2, 8.21, 8.43, 8.46, 8.48, 9.4
Magill v. Magill [2005] VSCA 51; [2006] HCA 51; (2006) 231 ALR 277
1.31, 1.38, 1.45, 1.51, 1.83, 2.7, 2.74, 3.23, 3.27, 3.64, 4.25, 5.2, 5.45, 5.47, 5.53, 7.2, 8.46, 9.4
Maguire v. Makaronis [1997] HCA 23; (1997) 188 CLR 449
8.72, 8.90
Mahesan v. Malaysia Government Officers’ Co-operative Housing Society Ltd [1979] AC 374
1.12, 1.71, 2.64, 4.1, 5.60, 8.79
Mainstream Properties Ltd v. Young [2005] EWCA Civ 861; [2005] IRLR 964, CA; aff’d [2007] UKHL 21; [2008] 1 AC 1, HL
Mair v. Red Grande Rubber Estates Ltd [1913] 1 AC 853
3.58, 4.5, 6.9, 6.18, 8.56, 8.98
Major v. Ministry of Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 1433
Mallalieu v. Hodgson (1851) 16 QB 689
3.50, 3.52, 4.18, 8.39, 8.40
Malone v.Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1980] 1 QB 49
Man Nutzfahrzeuge AG v. Freightliner Ltd [2005] EWHC 2347 (Comm)
4.5, 5.15, 6.14, 6.16, 7.7, 7.32, 8.5, 8.11, 8.22, 8.25, 8.26
Mander v. Evans [2001] 3 All ER 811
Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v. Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd (The Star Sea) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 360, CA; aff’d [2001] UKHL 1; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 389; [2001] 2 WLR 170, HL
5.15, 5.20
Mann v. Coutts & Co [2003] EWHC 2138 (Comm); [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 1
Marc Rich Agriculture Trading SA v. Fortis Corporate Insurance NV [2004] EWHC 2632 (Comm); [2005] Lloyd’s Rep IR 396
3.59, 4.12
Marks v. GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [1998] HCA 69; 196 CLR 494
Marsh v. Keating (1834) 1 Bing (NC) 198
Martinez v. Cooper (1826) 2 Russ 198
Maruha Corporation v. Amaltal Corporation Ltd [2007] NZSC 40
Mash v. Densham (1834) 1 M & Rob 442
Mason v. Ditchbourne (1835) 1 M & Rob 460
Mason v. Wallasea Bay Yacht Station Ltd (1939) 5 Ll L Rep 204
4.2, 8.69
Master v. Miller (1791) 4 TR 320
1.13, 1.28, 1.29, 8.51
Mathias v. Yetts (1882) 46 LT 497
Matthews v. Smith [2008] EWHC 1128 (Admin)
1.47, 1.52, 4.14, 5.23
Mattis v. Pollock [2003] EWCA Civ 887; [2003] 1 WLR 2158
Maturin v. Tredinnick (1863) 9 LT 82
8.58, 8.68
Maybury v. Wibrew (1949) 82 Ll L Rep 481
1.52, 1.57, 1.71, 4.2, 7.34
McC, Re [1985] AC 528
McCann v. Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd [2000] HCA 65; (2000) 203 CLR 579
McConnel v. Wright [1903] 1 Ch 546
McFarlane v. Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59
McHugh v. Kerr [2003] EWHC 2985 (Ch)
4.5, 6.14, 7.45
Mead v. Babington Formally Trading AS [2007] EWCA Civ 518
4.2, 5.33, 5.49
Medd v. Cox (1940) 67 Ll L Rep 5
1.48, 4.2, 5.1, 5.21, 5.72, 8.13, 8.18
Medina v. Stoughton (1700) Holt KB 208
Melbourne Banking Corporation Ltd v. Brougham (1882) 7 App Cas 307
Mellish v. Motteux (1792) Peake 156
1.18, 7.43, 8.93
Meluish v. Milton (1876) 3 Ch D 27
1.31, 3.2, 4.25
Mercandian Continent, The. K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v. Lloyd’s Underwriters [2001] EWCA Civ 1275; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 563
Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v. Garrod [1962] 3 All ER 1103
4.2, 6.13
Merchants & Manufacturers Insurance Company Ltd v. Charles and John Hunt [1941] 1 KB 295
Meretz Investments NV v. ACP Ltd [2007] EWHC 74 (Ch); [2007] 1 Ch 197; [2007] EWCA Civ 1303; [2008] 1 Ch 244
5.21, 5.61, 7.56
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v. The Securities Commission [1999] 2 AC 500
Metall und Rohstoff AG v. ACLI Metals (London) Ltd [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 598
Midco Holdings Ltd v. Piper [2004] EWCA Civ 476
1.59, 4.8, 8.16, 8.29
Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v. Green [1980] Ch 590
Milne v. Marwood (1855) 15 CB 778
4.2, 5.18
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd v. Gulf Bank KSC [1997] CLC 597
Moens v. Heyworth (1842) 10 M & W 147
1.22, 3.33, 4.2, 5.38
Mogul Steamship Company Ltd, The v. McGregor, Low & Co (1889) 23 QBD 598; aff’d [1892] 1 AC 25
Molloy v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance (1906) 94 LT 756
8.1, 8.113
Moonacre, The [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 501
Moore Large & Co Ltd v. Hermes Credit and Guarantee plc [2003] EWHC 26 (Comm); [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 315
Moore Stephens v. Stone & Rolls Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 644; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319
5.15, 5.16, 6.9, 8.39
Moore v. Garwood (1849) 4 Ex 681
Moore v. Clucas (1851) 7 Moore 352
1.52, 4.2
Moorhouse v. Woolfe (1882) 46 LT 374
4.14, 4.24, 6.25
Morris v. CW Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716
Morris v. Jones [2002] EWCA Civ 1790
3.21, 3.43, 3.50, 3.54, 4.2, 6.9, 7.11, 7.57, 8.12, 8.18, 8.34
Morse Group Ltd v. Cognesis Ltd [2003] EWHC 1076 (QB)
1.12, 1.51, 4.2, 4.18, 5.17, 5.32, 5.33, 8.2, 8.16
Motor Oil (Hellas) (Corinth) Refineries SA v. Shipping Corporation of India (The Kanchenjunga) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391
Mount Morgan (West) Gold Mine Limited, The; ex parte West, Re (1887) 56 LT 622
4.5, 7.45, 8.58, 8.68, 8.70
Mullett v. Mason (1866) LR 1 CP 559
Murad v. Al Saraj [2004] EWHC 1235 (Ch); [2004] All ER (D) 463; rev’d in part [2005] EWCA Civ 959; [2005] All ER (D) 503
4.8, 8.69, 8.70, 8.77
Murray v. Larsen [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 453
2.75, 3.14, 4.2
Murray v. Mann (1848) 2 Ex 538
1.19, 1.2, 4.2, 8.51
Musca v. Astle Corporation Pty Ltd (1988) 80 ALR 251
Museprime Properties Ltd v. Adhill Properties Ltd [1990] EGLR 196
Nash v. Calthorpe [1905] 2 Ch 237
1.55, 7.23, 7.40
National Exchange Company of Glasgow, The v. Drew (1855) 2 Macq 102
1.6, 4.5, 5.15, 6.6, 7.17, 7.19, 8.50
National Patent Steam Fuel Company, In re The; ex parte Worth (1859) 4 Drew 529
National Provincial Bank of England v. Jackson (1886) LR 33 Ch D 1
1.71, 4.18, 8.51, 8.68, 8.80
National Westminster plc v. Garland [2008] EWHC 1713 (Ch)
3.15, 4.14
Nationwide Building Society v. Thimbleby & Co [1999] Lloyd’s Rep PN 359
Nationwide Building Society v. Vanderpump & Sykes [1999] Lloyd’s Rep PN 422
4.1, 4.14
Navarro v. Moregrand Ltd [1951] 2 TLR 674
Naylor v. Sharpless (1675) 2 Mod 23
Neill’s Case (1867) 15 WR 894
Nelson v. Stocker (1859) 4 De G & J 458
2.6, 4.25, 5.4, 7.34
Neville v. Wilkinson (1782) 1 Bro CC 543
3.54, 4.25, 8.39
New Brunswick and Canada Railway and Land Company, The v. Conybeare (1862) 9 HLC 711
1.6, 3.59, 4.5, 5.6, 5.15, 5.23, 6.9, 6.35, 7.44, 8.56
Newbigging v. Adam (1886) 34 Ch D 582; aff’d (1888) 13 App Cas 308
8.55, 8.58, 8.72
Newton Chemical Ltd v. Arsenis [1989] 1 WLR 1297
1.54, 1.60
Newtons of Wembley Ltd v. Williams [1965] 1 QB 560
Nicholas v. Thompson [1924] VLR 554
1.55, 3.8, 3.30, 3.51, 3.53, 4.4, 4.5, 5.9, 5.12, 8.59, 8.70
Niru Battery Manufacturing Co v. Milestone Trading Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1446; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 344
1.48, 1.51, 1.58, 1.76, 3.2, 3.4, 3.39, 4.10, 5.73, 8.36
Noble v. Adams (1816) 7 Taunt 59
1.54, 3.4, 3.5, 4.2, 4.11, 4.26, 8.51, 8.55
Nocton v. Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932
xi, 1.5–1.7, 1.26, 1.32, 1.46, 1.47, 1.63, 3.2, 4.1, 4.24, 5.11, 5.22, 5.23, 5.30, 5.70, 5.72, 7.45, 8.55, 8.56–8.58
Noel v. Poland [2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 30
4.12, 6.9, 6.16, 6.17, 6.23, 6.24
North of England Joint Stock Banking Company, In re The; Dodgson’s Case (1849) 3 De G & Sm 85
5.15, 6.9
Norton v. The Royal Fire and Life Assurance Company (1885) 1 TLR 460
3.31, 5.47
Nsubuga v. Commercial Union [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 682
O’Doherty v. Birrell (2001) 3 VR 147
Oakes v. Turquand (1867) LR 2 HL 325
3.57, 4.5, 7.48, 8.51, 8.68
OBG Ltd v. Allan [2007] UKHL 21; [2008] 1 AC 1
5.23, 5.55, 5.61, 5.63, 5.64
Oelkers v. Ellis [1914] 2 KB 139
Oliver v. Bank of England [1902] 1 Ch 610; aff’d [1903] 1 AC 114
Orakpo v. Barclays Insurance Services [1995] LRLR 443
Orix Australia Corporation Ltd v. M Wright Hotel Refrigeration Pty Ltd [2000] SASC 57
Ormrod v. Huth (1845) 14 M&W 651
4.2, 5.6
Other v. Smurthwaite (1868) LR 5 Eq 437
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd [1961] 1 AC 388
P Samuel & Co v. Dumas [1924] AC 431
P v. B (Paternity: Damages for Deceit) [2001] 1 FLR 1041
1.12, 1.31, 4.25, 5.72, 8.46, 8.48, 9.4
P&O Nedlloyd BV v. Arab Metals Co (The UB Tiger) (No 2) [2006] EWCA Civ 1717; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 231
Pacaya Rubber and Produce Company; Burns’ Application, In re [1914] 1 Ch 542
6.18, 8.98
Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd v. Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 496, CA; aff’d [1995] 1 AC 501; [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 427, HL
1.39, 1.55, 3.51, 3.59, 7.21, 7.27, 7.37, 7.40, 8.55
Pankhania v. Hackney London Borough Council [2002] EWHC 2441 (Ch); [2002] NPC 123
Paragon Finance plc v. D B Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400
4.14, 8.115
Parallel Imports (Europe) Ltd v. Radivan [2007] EWCA Civ 1373
1.59, 4.2, 7.4, 8.29
Parkinson v. College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] 2 KB 1
4.1, 8.39
Pasley v. Freeman (1789) 3 TR 51
xi, xii, 1.5, 1.10, 1.12, 1.17, 1.18, 1.46, 1.52, 2.34, 2.64, 4.1, 4.15, 4.16, 5.43, 5.35, 5.60, 7.8, 7.14, 7.43, 9.1
Pawson v. Watson (1778) 2 Cowp 785
1.13, 1.27
PCW Syndicates v. PCW Reinsurers [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 241
Pearson v. Wheeler (1825) Ry & Mood 303
Pearson v. Morgan (1788) 2 Bro CC 384; aff’d Rickman v. Morgan (supra nom) (1788) 2 Bro CC 394
Pearson v. Seligman (1883) 48 LT 842
4.14, 8.104
Peart Stevenson Associates Ltd v. Holland [2008] EWHC 1868 (QB)
3.15, 4.4, 8.16, 8.94, 8.99
Pease v. Gloahec (1866) LR 1 PC 219
Peek v. Derry (1887) 37 Ch D 541
7.45, 8.5
Peek v. Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377
1.6, 3.58, 3.63, 4.5, 5.17, 5.32, 5.47, 6.4, 6.8, 6.27, 6.27, 8.4, 8.51
Peekay Intermark Ltd v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 511
4.24, 7.48, 8.94
Perry v. Sidney Phillips & Son [1982] 1 WLR 1297
Petrograde Inc v. Smith; sub nom Petrotrade Inc v. Smith [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 486
1.51, 1.71, 3.5, 6.16
Petromec Inc v. Petroleo Brasiliero SA [2006] EWHC 1443 (Comm); [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 629
1.51, 3.39, 4.1, 4.17, 5.21, 5.25, 6.9, 7.1, 7.4, 7.34, 7.37, 8.19
Pewtriss v. Austen (1816) 6 Taunt 522
Peyman v. Lanjani [1985] Ch 457
Peyton v. Bladwell (1684) 1 Vern 240
4.24, 4.25
Philips v. Ward [1956] 1 WLR 471
Philipson v. Earl of Egremont (1844) 6 QB 587
Phillips v. Duke of Buckingham (1684) 1 Vern 227
Phillpotts v. Phillpotts (1850) 10 CB 85
Pickering v. Dowson (1813) 4 Taunt 779
4.2, 6.7, 6.27, 7.43, 8.93, 8.94
Pilbrow v. Pilbrow’s Atmospheric Railway and Canal Propulsion Company (1848) 5 CB 440
Pilmore v. Hood (1838) 5 Bing (NC) 97
3.58, 4.2, 5.17, 6.4, 6.31, 6.32, 6.35
Polhill v. Walter (1832) 3 B & Ald 114
1.28, 4.11, 5.6, 5.37, 5.42, 6.25, 6.31
Pontiflex v. Bignold (1841) 3 Man & G 63
Popham v. Eyre (1774) Lofft 786
4.2, 8.55
Possfund Custodian Trustee Ltd v. Diamond [1996] 1 WLR 1351
4.5, 5.31, 6.27, 7.50
President of India v. La Pintada Cia Navigacion SA [1985] AC 104
8.86, 8.87
Primus Telecommunications plc v. MCI Worldcom International Inc [2004] EWCA Civ 957; [2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 833
Pritchard v. Briggs [1980] Ch 338
Pritty v. Child (1902) LJ KB 512
Proudfoot v. Montefiore (1867) LR 2 QB 511
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd [1982] Ch 204
3.57, 4.1, 5.32
Pryke v. Gibbs Hartley Cooper Ltd [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 602
Pulsford v. Richards (1853) 17 Beav 87
Pulvers v. Chan [2007] EWHC 2406 (Ch); [2008] Lloyd’s Rep PN 7
1.58, 4.24
Queen, The v. The Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lancaster (1574) 3 Dyer 339
Quinn v. Leathem [1901] AC 495
5.63, 8.36
R v. The Inhabitants of Taunton St James (1829) 9 B & C831
R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Zamir [1980] 1 All ER 1041, CA; aff’d [1980] AC 93, HL
R (N) v. Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) [2005] EWCA Civ 1605; [2006] QB 468
R Leslie Ltd v. Sheill [1914] 3 KB 607
Ramshire v. Bolton (1869) LR 8 Eq 294
4.14, 8.55
Randell v. Trimen (1856) 18 CB 786
4.2, 4.22, 6.22, 8.21
Ranger v. The Great Western Railway Company (1854) 5 HLC 72
1.6, 1.47, 4.17, 5.15, 5.23, 6.9
Raphael v. Goodman (1838) 8 Ad & E 565
4.1, 4.14, 6.9
Rapp v. Latham (1819) 2 B & Ald 795
4.1, 4.24, 6.9
Rashdall v. Ford (1866) LR 2 Eq 750
Rawlings v. Bell (1845) 1 CB 951
4.24, 5.6
Rawlins v. Wickham (1858) 3 De G & J 304
4.5, 7.36, 7.45, 7.47, 8.51, 8.58
Read v. Hutchinson (1813) 3 Camp 352
3.4, 4.2, 4.11, 4.26, 8.18
Read v. The Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons of England, Ireland and Wales [1902] 2 KB 732
Reckitt v. Barnett, Pembroke and Slater Ltd [1929] 1 AC 176
1.6, 6.15
Redgrave v. Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1; 45 LT 491
1.26, 1.52, 1.55, 1.59, 4.5, 7.47, 8.56, 8.58, 8.70, 8.113
Redman v. Redman (1685) 1 Vern 348
Reese River Silver Mining Co v. Smith (1867) LR 2 Ch App 604; aff’d (1869) LR 4 HL 64
1.6, 4.5, 4.6, 5.18, 8.51, 8.53, 8.57, 8.70
Regent Leisuretime Ltd v. Natwest Finance [2003] EWCA Civ 391
Renault UK Ltd v. Fleetpro Technical Services Ltd [2007] EWHC 2541 (QB)
1.12, 1.26, 1.32, 1.75, 4.2, 5.21, 5.72, 6.24, 6.28, 7.3, 7.56, 8.2, 8.77
Revell v. London General Insurance Company Ltd (1934) 50 Ll L Rep 114
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v. Total Network SL [2008] UKHL 19; [2008] 2 WLR 711
1.13, 2.6
Reynell v. Sprye (1852) 1 De GM & G 660
1.49, 3.12, 3.13, 3.21, 3.42, 3.44, 3.52, 3.58, 4.14, 5.7, 5.8, 7.10, 7.12, 7.16, 7.40, 7.45, 7.53, 8.37
Richardson v. Silvester (1873) LR 9 QB 34
4.1, 4.2, 6.25, 8.17, 9.4
Risney v. Selby (1704) 1 Salk 211
4.2, 7.45
Rivaz v. Gerussi (1880) 6 QBD 222
3.62, 5.47
Robinson v. The National Bank of Scotland Ltd (1916) SC (HL) 154
1.6, 1.32
Rogers v. Hadley (1863) 2 H & C 227
4.2, 8.51
Rolfe v. Gregory (1865) 4 D J & S 576
Rookes v. Barnard [1964] 1 AC 1129
1.71, 8.42, 8.43
Roots v. Snelling (1883) 48 LT 216
1.55, 3.24, 3.54, 7.57
Ross River Ltd v. Cambridge City Football Club Ltd [2007] EWHC 2115 (Ch); [2008] 1 All ER 1004
1.55, 3.14, 3.15, 4.2, 7.13, 7.39, 7.40
Roswell v. Vaughan (1606) Cro Jac 196
Rous v. Mitchell [1991] 1 WLR 469
8.39, 8.107
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44; [2001] 2 AC 773
Royal Boskalis Westminster NV v. Mountain [1997] LRLR 523
1.13, 7.37
Royal British Bank; Brockwell’s Case, Re (1857) 4 Drew 205
Royal British Bank; Mixer’s Case, Re (1859) 4 De G & J 575
4.5, 5.15, 6.9, 6.25, 8.51, 8.68, 8.69
Royal British Bank; Nicol’s Case, Re (1859) 3 De G & J 387
4.5, 7.10, 7.20, 7.23, 8.51, 8.68, 8.69, 8.70
Royscot Trust Ltd v. Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297
1.85, 8.33
Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated [1906] 1 AC 439
1.6, 4.5, 6.9
Russell v. Bell (1842) 10 M & W 340
S Pearson & Son Ltd v. Lord Mayor of Dublin [1907] AC 351
1.6, 4.17, 5.17, 5.18, 6.4, 8.94–8.98
Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v. Government of Pakistan [2007] EWHC 2602 (Comm); [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 210
4.14, 7.45, 8.64, 8.69, 8.70, 8.94, 8.98
Sabena Technics SA v. Singapore Airlines Ltd [2003] EWHC 1318
Sanctuary Housing Association v. Baker [1998] 1 EGLR 42
1.13, 8.49, 8.52
Sargent v. ASL Developments Ltd [1974] HCA 40; (1974) 131 CLR 634
Saunders v. Anglia Building Society [1971] 1 AC 1004
Saunders v. Edwards [1987] 1 WLR 1116
4.2, 8.18, 8.22, 8.39, 8.46
Scarf v. Jardine (1882) 7 App Cas 345
Schneider v. Heath (1813) 3 Camp 506
3.57, 4.2, 8.75, 8.92
Scott v. Hanson 1 Sim 13
Scott v. Lara (1794) Peake 296
4.15, 6.26, 7.34
Scott v. Scott (1787) 1 Cox 367
3.57, 4.25, 7.14
Scottish Petroleum Company, In re (1883) 23 Ch D 413
3.18, 3.44, 3.50, 3.58, 4.5, 8.51, 8.68, 8.70
Scottish Universal and Finance Bank Limited; Ship’s Case, In re (1865) 2 De G J & S 544
Selway v. Fogg (1839) 5 M & W 83
4.20, 8.49, 8.70
Sempra Metals Ltd v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [2007] UKHL 34; [2007] 3 WLR 354
8.87, 8.89
Sennar (No 2), The [1985] 1 WLR 490
4.20, 7.34
Shaker v. Al-Bedrawi [2002] EWCA Civ 1452; [2003] 1 Ch 353
1.71, 4.24
Shalson v. Russo [2003] EWHC 1637 (Ch); [2005] Ch 281
4.14, 5.4, 8.81
Sharneyford Supplies Ltd v. Edge [1987] 1 Ch 305
5.26, 5.33, 8.33, 8.34
Sharpley v. Louth and East Coast Railway Company (1876) 2 Ch D 663
Shaw v. API Group plc, unreported, 10 April 2008
1.55, 1.59, 3.4, 3.16, 3.18, 3.39, 3.45, 4.2, 7.57
Shaw v. Sequence (UK) Ltd [2004] EWHC 3249 (QB)
4.1, 4.24, 8.19, 8.46, 8.48
Sheffield Nickel and Silver Plating Company, The v. Unwin (1877) 2 QBD 214
4.4, 4.18, 8.58, 8.69
Shelley v. Paddock [1979] QB 120; aff’d [1980] QB 348, CA
4.2, 8.18, 8.46
Shepheard v. Broome [1904] AC 342
Shinhan Bank Ltd v. Sea Containers Ltd [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 406
1.58, 3.4, 3.39, 4.1, 4.10, 4.14, 5.11
Ship v. Crosskill (1870) LR 10 Eq 73
3.20, 3.47, 4.5, 6.23
Shogun Finance Ltd v. Hudson [2003] UKHL 62; [2004] 1 AC 919
1.14, 1.15, 1.32, 8.51, 8.54
Shrewsbury v. Blount (1841) 2 Man & G 475
4.5, 7.34
Sibbald v. Hill (1814) 2 Dow 263
Siben (No 2), The. Hughes v. Clewley [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 35
Siboen and Sibotre, The [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293
3.58, 6.4
Sinclair Investment Holdings SA v. Versailles Trade Finance Ltd [2007] EWHC 915 (Ch)
Sinclair Investment Holdings SA v. Versailles Trade Finance Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 722; [2006] 1 BCLC 60
Singer Manufacturing Company v. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 434
1.24, 1.72, 5.10, 6.35
Singh v. Ali [1960] AC 167
Sirros v. Moore [1975] 1 QB 118
Siveyer v. Allison [1935] 2 KB 403
4.25, 8.39
Six Continents Hotels Inc v. Event Hotels GmbH [2006] EWHC 2317 (QB)
4.4, 8.94
Slim v. Croucher (1860) 1 De G F & J 518
Slough Estates plc v. Welwyn Hatfield District Council [1996] 2 EGLR 219
1.58, 3.53, 4.1, 4.17, 5.48, 7.34, 8.10, 8.16, 8.22, 8.25, 8.44, 8.77
Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v. Long [1989] 1 WLR 1
3.15, 4.2, 8.5, 8.20
Smith New Court Securities Ltd v. Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) [1997] AC 254
xi, 1.8, 1.27, 1.35, 1.76, 1.81, 2.5, 3.4, 7.4, 7.7, 7.31, 7.35, 7.52, 8.5, 8.6, 8.10, 8.11, 8.16–8.18, 8.22, 8.24, 8.25, 8.31–8.33
Smith v. Chadwick (1882) 20 Ch D 27; (1884) 9 App Cas 187
1.6, 1.10, 1.12, 1.46, 1.49, 1.52, 1.55, 1.56, 2.73, 3.34, 3.50, 3.52, 4.5, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.18, 5.32, 5.47, 7.4, 7.21, 7.40, 8.2, 8.56, 8.109, 9.4
Smith v. Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597
1.25, 3.2, 3.60, 3.61, 4.2, 7.57, 8.54
Smith v. Kay (1859) 7 HLC 750
1.6, 1.23, 1.36, 1.49, 1.51, 1.52, 1.55, 3.19, 3.44, 3.51, 4.11, 7.18–7.20, 7.40, 8.1, 8.55, 8.109
Smith v. Land and House Property Corporation (1884) 28 Ch D 7
Smith v. Wheatcroft (1878) 9 Ch D 223
Smout v. Ilbery (1842) 10 M & W 1
Société Anonyme d’Intermédiaires Luxembourgeois v. Farex Gie [1995] LRLR 116
Society of Lloyd’s v. Leighs & Co [1997] CLC 1012; aff’d [1997] CLC 1398
8.57, 8.58, 8.68, 8.69, 8.96
Society of Lloyd’s v. Henderson [2007] EWCA Civ 930; [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 317
2.66, 5.32
Society of Lloyd’s v. Jaffray [2002] EWCA Civ 1101; [2002] All ER (D) 399; [2007] EWCA Civ 586
Solle v. Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671
Solo Industries (UK) Ltd v. Canara Bank [2001] EWCA Civ 1041; [2001] 1 WLR 1800
1.13, 4.10
Sorrell v. Finch [1977] AC 728
South Australia Asset Management Corporation v. York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191
1.35, 7.36, 8.4, 8.31, 8.73
South West Water Services Ltd v. International Computers Ltd [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 353
Southern v. How (1617) Cro Jac 468
1.45, 4.2, 4.24
Spathari, The. Demetriades & Co v. Northern Assurance Co (1925) 21 Ll L Rep 265
Spence v. Crawford [1939] 3 All ER 271
1.6, 4.5, 8.57–8.60, 8.69, 8.72, 8.85
Spencer v. Handley (1842) 4 Man & G 414
3.57, 4.10, 8.49
Spice Girls Ltd v. Aprilia World Service BV [2002] EWCA Civ 15; [2002] EMLR 27
1.56, 3.9, 3.16, 3.21, 3.37
Sprecher Grier Halberstam LLP v. Walsh [2008] EWCA Civ 1324
1.5, 5.5
Spriggs v. Wessington Court School Ltd [2005] EWHC 1432 (QB); [2005] Lloyd’s Rep IR 474
Sprigwell v. Allen (1672) Aleyn 91
St Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v. McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 116
3.15, 7.23, 7.27
St Paul Travelers Insurance Co Ltd v. Okporuah [2006] EWHC 2107 (Ch)
4.14, 8.26
Stafford Winfield Cook & Partners Ltd v. Winfield [1981] 1 WLR 458
Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp (No 3) (Assessment of Damages) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 747; aff’d [2001] EWCA Civ 55; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 822
1.59, 8.9, 8.11, 8.14–8.16, 8.2
Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp (No 4) (Reduction of Damages) [2001] QB 167
1.27, 1.30, 1.40, 5.47, 7.4, 7.12, 7.52, 8.36, 8.37
Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp (Nos 2 and 4) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 684; rev’d in part [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 218, CA; rev’d in part [2002] UKHL 43; [2003] 1 AC 959, HL
xi, 1.8, 1.27, 1.28, 1.30, 1.32, 1.35, 1.85, 3.2, 3.4, 3.58, 4.1, 4.10, 5.2, 5.17, 5.64, 5.69, 6.4, 6.24, 6.25, 7.22, 7.32, 8.35, 8.36, 8.38, 8.39
Star Sea, The. Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v. Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 360, CA; aff’d [2001] UKHL 1; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 389; [2001] 2 WLR 170, HL
Stevens v. Hoare (1904) 20 TLR 407
Stevenson v. Newnham (1853) 13 CB 205
8.51, 8.68, 8.80
Stikeman v. Dawson (1847) 1 De G & Sm 90
1.18, 2.7, 3.61, 5.4
Stocks v. Wilson (1913) 2 KB 235
Stoke-on-Trent City Council v. W & J Wass Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 1046
Stone v. Reliance Mutual Insurance Society Ltd [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 469
Strover v. Harrington [1988] Ch 390
Strutt v. Smith (1834) 1 C M & R 312
8.51, 8.58, 8.64
Stump v. Gaby (1852) 3 De G M & G 623
8.51, 8.55, 8.64, 8.82
Swann v. Phillips (1838) 8 Ad & E 457
4.14, 4.15, 8.103
Swift v. Winterbotham (1873) LR 8 QB 244; rev’d in part Swift v. Jewsbury (1874) LR 9 QB 301
6.23, 6.31
Swift v. Jewsbury (1874) LR 9 QB 301
4.15, 6.23
Swindle v. Harrison [1997] 4 All ER 705
SX Holdings Ltd v. Synchronet Ltd [2000] All ER (D) 1330
1.27, 3.15, 4.5, 6.24, 8.22
Sykes v. Sykes (1824) 3 B & C 541
Tackey v. McBain [1912] AC 186
1.6, 1.52, 5.51, 5.58, 5.63, 5.67, 6.25, 6.31
Tallerman v. Dowsing Radiant Heat Co [1900] 1 Ch 1
1.72, 2.6, 5.34, 6.36
Tang Man Sit v. Capacious Investments Ltd [1996] AC 514
Tapp v. Lee (1803) 3 Bos & Pul 367
1.12, 2.64, 3.59, 4.15, 5.37
Tatton v. Wade (1856) 18 CB 371
1.10, 4.4, 4.15, 7.34, 8.104
Taylor v. Ashton (1843) 11 M & W 401
1.22, 3.34, 3.35, 4.5, 5.2, 5.6, 5.21
Taylor v. Blacklow (1836) 3 Bing (NC) 235
Taylor v. Green (1837) 8 Car & P 316
Taylor v. Hamer [2002] EWCA Civ 1130; [2003] 1 EGLR 103
2.53, 3.25, 4.1, 8.18, 8.94, 9.4
Tennent v. The City of Glasgow Bank (1879) 4 App Cas 615
1.6, 4.5, 8.68
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v. Nattrass [1972] AC 153
Thom v. Bigland (1853) 8 Ex 725
4.24, 5.1, 5.6, 5.38
Thomas Witter Ltd v. TBP Industries Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 573
3.12, 3.14, 4.5, 5.19, 5.72, 8.69, 8.99
Thomson v. Weems (1884) 9 App Cas 671
Thoroughgood’s Case (1583) 2 Co Rep 9a
4.18, 4.24
Three Rivers District Council v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1
1.36, 1.53
Thurtell v. Beaumont (1823) 1 Bing 339
Tinsley v. Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340
8.8, 8.39, 8.63
Tonkin v. UK Insurance Ltd [2006] EWHC 1120 (TCC); [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 283
Toprak Enerji Sanayi AS v. Sale Tilney Technology plc [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 303
Torrance v. Bolton (1872) LR 8 Ch App 118
3.21, 3.43, 8.56
Total Graphics Ltd v. AGF Insurance Ltd [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 599
Toteff v. Antonas (1952) 87 CLR 647
Tracey v. Veal (Tracey’s Case) (1609) Cro Jac 223
1.5, 1.45, 4.24, 8.83
Traill v. Baring (1864) 4 de GJ & S 318
3.17, 3.21, 3.44, 3.58, 5.8
Tribe v. Tribe [1996] Ch 107
Trustee of G H Mundy v. Blackmore (1928) 32 Ll L Rep 150
TSB Bank plc v. Camfield [1995] 1 WLR 430
8.57, 8.61
Tudor Grange Holdings Ltd v. Citibank NA [1992] Ch 53
Turner v. Brent (1698) 12 Mod 245
Twinsectra Ltd v. Yardley [1999] All ER (D) 433, rev’d in part [2002] UKHL 12; [2002] 2 AC 164, HL
1.43, 1.48, 1.51, 2.72, 4.14, 5.73, 5.77, 7.45, 8.81, 8.82
Twycross v. Grant (1877) 2 CPD 469; (1878) 4 CPD 40
3.63, 7.4, 8.18, 8.25
UBAF Ltd v. European American Banking Corporation [1984] 2 WLR 508
4.14, 4.15, 8.104
UCB Corporate Services Ltd v. Thomason [2005] EWCA Civ 225; [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 601
8.60, 8.61
UCB Corporate Services Ltd v. Williams [2002] EWCA Civ 555; (2002) 19 EG 149 (CS)
1.63, 3.53, 7.4, 7.28, 7.39
UCB Homes Loans v. Carr [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 754
8.114, 8.115
Udell v. Atherton (1861) 7 H & N 172
1.24, 1.83, 3.58, 4.2, 6.4, 6.9, 6.23, 8.51
United Australia Ltd v. Barclays Bank Ltd [1941] AC 1
United Bank of Kuwait Ltd v. Hammoud [1988] 1 WLR 1051
United City Merchants (Investments) Ltd v. Royal Bank of Canada [1983] 1 AC 168
United Shoe Machinery Company of Canada v. Brunet [1909] 1 AC 330
4.2, 4.4, 8.51, 8.58, 8.65, 8.70
United Trading Corporation SA v. Allied Arab Bank Ltd [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 554
Unity Joint Stock Mutual Banking Association, Ex parte, The; re King (1858) 3 De G & J 63
Uxbridge Permanent Benefit Building Society v. Pickard [1939] 2 KB 248
4.1, 4.14, 6.10
Uzinterimpex JSC v. Standard Bank plc [2007] EWHC 1151 (Comm); [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 187; aff’d [2008] EWCA Civ 819, CA
1.29, 1.55, 3.4, 4.1, 4.10, 5.19, 5.32, 8.10, 8.18
Vadasz v. Pioneer Concrete (SA) Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 182
Vane v. Cobbold (1848) 1 Ex 798
Vaughan v. Matthews (1849) 13 QB 187
Vernon v. Keys (1810) 12 East 632
1.52, 3.15, 3.30, 5.9, 7.43
Vigers v. Pike (1842) 8 Cl & F 562
4.4, 7.57, 8.51, 8.70
W B Anderson & Sons Ltd v. Rhodes (Liverpool) Ltd [1967] 2 All ER 850
W Truman Limited v. Attenborough (1910) 26 TLR 601
4.2, 4.24, 8.68, 8.80, 8.83
Waddell v. Blockey (1860) 4 QBD 678
4.11, 8.18, 8.2
Wainwright v. Home Office [2003] UKHL 53; [2004] 2 AC 406
1.31, 5.60
Wales v. Wadham [1977] 1 WLR 199
3.15, 3.17, 3.57, 4.25, 6.36
Walker v. Webb (1845) Res & Eq (Eq) 19
Ward v. Taggart (Cal 1959) (1960) 48 Cal L Rev 342
Ward v. Weeks (1830) 7 Bing 211
Ward v. Hobbs (1877) 2 QBD 331
3.4, 3.39, 4.2
Wasteneys v. Wasteneys [1900] 1 AC 446
4.25, 7.34
Watford Electronics Ltd v. Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 696)
Watson v. The Earl of Charlemont (1848) 12 QB 856
1.55, 3.29, 3.41, 3.52, 4.5, 8.75
Watts v. Morrow [1991] 1 WLR 1421
Watts v. Spence [1976] Ch 165
3.42, 4.2, 5.26, 5.33, 8.33, 8.34
Way v. Hearn (1862) 13 CB (NS) 292
4.14, 5.29, 7.34
Weir v. Barnett (1877) 3 Ex D 32
4.5, 6.17
Weir v. Bell (1878) 3 Ex D 238
1.24, 4.5, 4.14, 6.17
Wells v. Smith [1914] 3 KB 722
4.4, 4.15, 7.56
West London Commercial Bank Ltd v. Kitson (1884) 13 QBD 360
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669
8.82, 8.86–8.88
Western Bank of Scotland, The v. Addie (1867) LR 1 Sc & Div 145
1.6, 1.47, 4.5, 5.6, 5.15, 5.23, 6.9, 6.23, 6.25, 7.10, 7.20, 8.68, 8.69
Wheelton v. Hardisty (1857) 8 El & Bl 232; (1858) 8 El & Bl 285
White v. Garden (1851) 10 CB 919
Whitehorn Brothers v. Davison [1911] 1 KB 463
4.2, 8.68, 8.80, 8.81
Whittake, Ex parte; In re Shackleton (1875) LR 10 Ch 446
3.4, 3.15, 3.39, 4.2
Whittaker v. Campbell [1984] 1 QB 318
1.14, 8.66
Wilde v. Gibson (1848) 1 HLC 605
1.6, 1.23, 1.46, 3.57, 4.2, 5.37
Wilkinson v. Downton [1897] 2 QB 57
1.31, 3.23, 4.1, 4.24, 5.53, 5.60, 8.2, 8.46, 9.4
William Sindall plc v. Cambridgeshire County Council [1994] 1 WLR 1016
Williams Case (1869) LR 9 Eq 223
Williams v. Mason (1873) 28 LT 232
4.15, 8.102, 8.103, 8.104
Wilson v. Thornbury (1875) LR 10 Ch App 239
Wilson v. Fuller (1843) 3 QB 68
3.57, 4.2, 7.34
Wilson v. Short (1848) 6 Hare 366
Wiltrading (WA) Pty Ltd v. Lumley General Insurance Ltd [2005] WASC 106
Wisenthal v. World Auxiliary Insurance Corporation Ltd (1930) 38 Ll L Rep 54
With v. O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575
3.18, 3.21, 3.21, 3.40, 3.44, 3.58, 3.61, 5.8
Wontner v. Shairp (1847) 4 CB 404
4.5, 8.64
WPP Group plc v. Reichmann [2000] All ER (D) 1409
3.6, 3.17, 3.18, 3.21, 4.1, 4.4, 4.2, 8.17
Wright v. Campbell (1861) 2 F & F 393
3.13, 8.49
Wright v. Leonard (1861) 11 CB (NS) 258
Yonge v. Toynbee [1910] 1 KB 215
Zephyr, The. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v. Tanter [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58
Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978
ss 2(1), 6
Companies Act 1867
3.63, 7.23
County Court Act 1981
Directors’ Liability Act 1890
Arts 9, 10
Financial Services Act 2000
1.48, 2.69
2.69, 5.44
2.69, 3.65, 5.44
ss 82, 84
ss 12, 13
ss 213, 214
s 281(3)
ss 51–52
8.35, 8.36
Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act 1962
1.23, 4.25
ss 1, 3
s 21(1)(a)
s 32(1)(a)
1.85, 8.100, 8.114–8.116
ss 17–20
3.14, 5.18
3.21, 3.43, 3.44, 7.48
s 84(3)(a)
Married Women’s Act 1882
1.64, 1.68, 3.35, 8.33, 8.36, 8.61, 9.8
s 1(a)
1.64, 1.69, 3.2
1.64, 1.85, 8.32–8.34, 8.36, 8.60, 9.8
1.64, 8.34, 8.60–8.62
ss 5, 10
8.102, 8.104
Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 (Lord Tenterden’s Act)
4.16, 8.101–8.106
4.15, 8.101
ss 35A
Deceit: Nature, Rationale and Formulation
1.1 Fraud is a funny thing. The very words “fraud” or “deceit” shudder with moral outrage. Chaucer has the Parson refer to the honest trade between merchants and the dishonest trade in ecclesiastical privileges or simony:1
“Now comth deceite bitwixe marchaunt and merchant ... That oother marchandise, that men haunten with fraude and trecherie and deceite, with lesynges and false othes, is cursed and dampnable.”
1.2 The Parson’s condemnation is inflamed by the language of lies and deceit. The echo of “fraud”, like “murder”, throbs against the drums of justice. Fraud is hated viscerally. To be deceived, cheated or defrauded is to have one’s bonds with society shaken: it is to be taken advantage of; it is to be let down. The calls for bass-toned and brimstone-lined retribution can be strident. Fraud is a funny thing, because while this vengeful hostility to lies and deception is indulged by all, most, if not all, of us also indulge ourselves in telling lies. One modern philosopher has stated that:2
“Lying, like breathing, comes naturally to human beings. We lie to hide our insecurities, to make others feel better, to make ourselves feel better, to distract attention from us, to make people like us, to protect the children, to extract ourselves from danger, to conceal our misdeeds, and for the sheer fun of it all. Lying is a universal, practiced with skill the world over.”
That does not mean that we are all fraudulent; at least, not all of us who lie would be called fraudulent from a moral perspective. Legally, however, any lie if seriously pursued will be a fraud and a deceit and may well be actionable in tort.
1.3 It is not surprising that the law responds to frauds, trickery and deceits. It is the very thing for which the law was engraved into stone, tablet and paper. It is engraved into our morality. Human beings have evolved to detect lies and to experience guilt by any attempts at fraud. Evolutionary biologists suggest that the, admittedly erratic, ability to recognise fraud creates an evolutionary stable strategy. Religious faith ingrains in many the moral duty to tell the truth. Even without philosophical or religious conviction, fraud is branded by the honest and dishonest alike as aberrant. And yet, we lie.
1.4 It cannot be that all lies are morally wrong. Nonetheless, our civil law of deceit theoretically deals with all lies in the same way, no matter why they were told, provided of course that they committed the deceived to a course of action that they would not have undertaken but for the deception and that they caused damage. The existence and formulation of a particular rule of law may have its genesis in utility, certainty or fairness. The law concerning fraud and deceit, attested to by such ancient advocates as Hyperides, Aristotle and Cicero,3 is underpinned by our moral duty to tell the truth and the social and commercial necessity of deterring untruths drawing the innocent to their harm. The purpose of this book is to consider the development and the current state of the civil law of fraud in the guise of the tort of deceit,4 to consider how it fares having regard to its rationale and ultimately to identify possible areas of improvement.
1.5 The English law of deceit, as an action before the court, has its origin in Chaucer’s age, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.5 It took its modern form in 1789. Before that time, the action for deceit was focused on the misrepresentation that led to the execution of deeds and contracts,6 although it is not clear that it was, in fact, so limited.7 The availability of the action beyond contracting parties was confirmed in the first significant decision on the law of deceit in Pasley v. Freeman,8 where the Court of King’s Bench allowed a claim against a defendant who gave a credit reference inducing the plaintiff to deliver £2,634 worth of cochineal to another on credit, upon proof of fraud, a knowing misrepresentation, whether or not the representor benefited or intended to benefit from the lie, and whether or not the representor colluded with another. The tort had evolved into a cause of action independent of a contract. In that case, Buller, J described deceit as “a very extensive head in the law”.9
1.6 During the following two centuries, deceit has been pleaded in numerous cases and the tort and the general law of misrepresentation has progressed in its evolution, with the milestones intermittently planted by the House of Lords.10 In 1838, in Attwood v. Small,11 the House emphasised the importance of proving fraud and inducement to an allegation of deceit and a claim for rescission, describing the abstention of fraud as a “universal obligation” resting on “the highest consideration of natural equity”. In 1884, in Smith v. Chadwick,12 Lord Blackburn explained the nature of the fraudulent representor’s mind and the importance of understanding the meaning of the representation as intended by the representor. Soon afterwards, in 1889, in Derry v. Peek,13 the House of Lords, constituted by “great common lawyers”,14 explained the essence of a fraud sounding in civil liability—the nature and degree of the representor’s knowledge of the falsity of the representation, and the nature of the fraudulent intention—and held that motive was irrelevant to the cause of action, dismissing the possibility of any legal responsibility for negligent misstatement, seemingly (but not actually) overturning the law as affirmed in Pasley v. Freeman a century beforehand. Few decisions of the English courts are as widely known, and not just in England, as Derry v. Peek and it reflects the universal application of the tort of deceit, irrespective of the nature of the legal relationship between the parties.15 The House of Lords’ judgment in that case was delivered against the background of the lack of monetary relief for non-fraudulent misrepresentations.
1.7 In 1914, in Nocton v. Lord Ashburton,16 with the great Chancery lawyer, Viscount Haldane on the Woolsack, the scope of legal liability was broadened to allow recovery for negligent misstatement by a fiduciary, but rejected the claim for common law fraud on the facts of the case. In dealing with the tort of deceit, the Lord Chancellor re-affirmed the existence of a “general duty of honesty”, being a duty of “universal obligation”. In 1941, in Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Society v. Borders,17 Viscount Maugham took the opportunity to lay down the classic, albeit non-exhaustive, definition of the tort of deceit, incompletely supplied earlier in Derry v. Peek. In 1963, in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners,18 a claim for negligent misrepresentation was allowed at law on proof of a duty of care, thus changing the background to the tort of deceit as formulated by the House of Lords in Derry v. Peek.
1.8 In 1996, in Smith New Court Securities Ltd v. Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd,19 the House of Lords explained the measure of damages available to a successful claimant in deceit, noting that the breadth of recovery had a decidedly penal purpose to deter fraud. Recently, in 2002, in Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp (Nos 2 and 4),20 the House of Lords denied a fraudulent defendant a defence based on contributory negligence and further clarified the width of the tort by holding that individuals acting as agents can be held responsible for deceit alongside the principals who bear a vicarious liability.
1.9 Throughout its modern history, since 1789, the tort of deceit has been clarified an