Eaglehill Ltd v J. Needham Builders Ltd

Core Citations

CONSIDERS

• Kennedy v Thomas

REFERS TO

• Bailey and Others v Bodenham
• Bickerdike and Another, Assignees of Reichard a Bankrupt v Bollman
• Carew v Duckworth

[See more]

• Claridge against Dalton
• Hartley v Case
• Lawson and Another, Assigness of Shiffner, v Sherwood
• Caunt v Thompson
• May v Chidley

DOES NOT APPLY

• Yeoman Credit Ltd v Gregory

CONSIDERS

• Castrique v Bernabo
• Fielding & Company v Corry
• Bills of Exchange Act 1882 - Articles : S-48

[See more]

• Bills of Exchange Act 1882 - Articles : S-49

DISTINGUISHES

• Aikman v Conway

REPORTED OPINION OF in

• [1972] 1 Lloyd's Rep 128
• [1972] 1 All ER 417
• [1972] 2 WLR 136

[See more]

• [1972] 2 QB 8

REFERRED in

• N.v Stoomv Maats ‘De Maas’N.v Stoomv Maats v Nippon Yusen Kaisha (Pendrecht)

APPEAL RESOLVED in

• Eaglehill Ltd v J. Needham Builders Ltd

REVERSED in

• Eaglehill Ltd v J. Needham Builders Ltd

This document cites

• Bickerdike and Another, Assignees of Reichard a Bankrupt v Bollman
• Kennedy v Thomas
• Fielding & Company v Corry
• Castrique v Bernabo
• Aikman v Conway



See all quotations

• Hartley v Case
• Claridge against Dalton
• Carew v Duckworth
• May v Chidley
• Yeoman Credit Ltd v Gregory
• Caunt v Thompson
• Bailey and Others v Bodenham
• Lawson and Another, Assigness of Shiffner, v Sherwood
• Bills of Exchange Act 1882