Re Sir Thomas Spencer Wells. Swinburne-Hanham v Howard

Core Citations

RESUELVE RECURSO

• Re Sir Thomas Spencer Wells. Swinburne-Hanham v Howard

DISTINGUISHES

• Hastings Corporation v Letton

REVERSES

• Re Sir Thomas Spencer Wells. Swinburne-Hanham v Howard

CITES

• Re Higginson & Dean. ex parte Attorney General
• Dyke v Walford
• Elizabeth and Mary Casborne, Plaintiffs; Elizabeth Scarfe, and Alexander Inglis, Defendants

[See more]

• Attorney General, - Appellant; Roger Crofts and Others, - Respondents
• Bartlett v Rees
• Powell v Merrett
• Cradock v Owen
• Cunnack v Edwards

APPLIES

• Mecit against Johnson and Another, Administrators of Lowe
• Taylor v Haygarth
• Middleton against Spicer

REPORTED OPINION OF in

• 48 TLR 617
• [1933] CH 29

CONSIDERED in

• John Frederick Lord as Liquidator of Silverline Technologies Pty Ltd
• Lightbourn et Al
• Margarita Hamilton v HM Attorney-General

[See more]

• Brown v New South Wales Trustee and Guardian
• Dellway Investment Ltd and Others v National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) and Others
• Wayne Lum Young v Scotiabank Trinidad and Tobago Ltd

CITED in

• Re Smythe
• Margarita Hamilton v HM Attorney-General
• Russian and English Bank and Florance Montefiore Guedalla v Baring Brothers & Company Ltd

[See more]

• Michael Leon v Kensington Mortgage Company Ltd
• Cukurova Finance v Alfa Telecom

This document cites

• Hastings Corporation v Letton
• Mecit against Johnson and Another, Administrators of Lowe
• Re Higginson & Dean. ex parte Attorney General
• Dyke v Walford
• Bartlett v Rees



See all quotations

• Re Sir Thomas Spencer Wells. Swinburne-Hanham v Howard
• Powell v Merrett
• Elizabeth and Mary Casborne, Plaintiffs; Elizabeth Scarfe, and Alexander Inglis, Defendants
• Attorney General, - Appellant; Roger Crofts and Others, - Respondents
• Middleton against Spicer
• Cradock v Owen
• Taylor v Haygarth
• Cunnack v Edwards
• Companies Act 1929
• Woking Urban District Council (Basingstoke Canal) Act 1911