Campbell v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Linked as:
Extract
Campbell v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
No longer available (Autolink)
See the full content of this document
Core Citations
CONSIDERS
- Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (No. 2)
- Conway v Rimmer
- D. (Married Woman) (Respondent) v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Appellants)
[See more]
REFERS TO
- Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (No. 2)
- North Australian Territory Company v Goldsborough, Mort, and Company
- Burnell v British Transport Commission
[See more]
DOES NOT FOLLOW
APPLIES
- Science Research Council v Nassé ; Leyland Cars Ltd v Vyas
- Burmah Oil Company Ltd v Governor and Company of the Bank of England
CONSIDERS
- Conway v Rimmer
- Administration of Justice Act 1970 - Articles : S-31
- Police Act 1964 - Articles : S-49
[See more]
DISTINGUISHES
- Gaskin v Liverpool City Council
- D— D—(Married Woman) (Plaintiff (Appellant) The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Defendants (Respondents)
- Neilson v Laugharne
[See more]
REPORTED OPINION OF in
REFERRED in
APPLIED in
CITED in
- Monaghan (Richard) v The Very Reverend Graham sued on behalf of the Trustees of Milltown Cemetery
- Deeny (Née Dawson) v Health & Social Services Committee
- Peach v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
[See more]
CONSIDERED in
This document cites
- Conway v Rimmer
- Boys v Chaplin
- R v Birmingham City District Council, ex parte O
- D— D—(Married Woman) (Plaintiff (Appellant) The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Defendants (Respondents)
- D. (Married Woman) (Respondent) v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Appellants)