Nicholls v F. Austin (Leyton)
Linked as:
Extract
Nicholls v F. Austin (Leyton)
No longer available (Autolink)
See the full content of this document
Core Citations
REFERS TO
CONSIDERS
RESUELVE RECURSO
AFFIRMS
REPORTED OPINION OF in
CITED in
- Benn v Kamm & Company Ltd
- Franklin v The Gramophone Company Ltd
- Carroll v Andrew Barclay & Sons
[See more]
APPLIED in
DISTINGUISHED in
- Hoare v M & W Grazebrook Ltd
- Wearing v Pirelli Ltd
- R E. Glanville & Sons (Bovey Tracey) Ltd v Rutherford (pet dis)
[See more]
REFERRED in
- Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd v Buckley
- Mummery v Irvings Pty Ltd
- Dairy Farmers Cco-Op Ltd v Azar
[See more]
CONSIDERED in
- Sparrow v Fairey Aviation Company Ltd
- Cross v Midland and Low Moor Iron and Steel Company Ltd
- Sparrow v Fairey Aviation Company Ltd
[See more]
FOLLOWED in
- Malayan United Industrial Company Ltd; Wong Soon San
- Camel Plywood Corporation Ltd; Teoh Gor Hua
- Teoh Gor Hua v Camel Plywood Corp Ltd
RELIED UPON in
This document cites
- Miller v Wm. Boothman & Sons
- Nicholls v F. Austin (Leyton)
- Factory and Workshop Act 1901
- Factories Act 1937
- WOODWORKING MACHINERY REGULATIONS, 1922, Dated NOVEMBER 2, 1922, Made by the Secretary of State UNDER SECTION 79 OF THE FACTORY AND WORK-SHOP ACT, 1901 (1 EDW. 7. C. 22), FOR THE USE OF WOODWORKING MACHINERY.