THE REMISE DE BIENS of BARKER on the representation of BARKER

Core Citations

DISTINGUISHES

• Otto v Lindford
• Polini v Gray. Sturla v Freccia

CONSIDERS

• Wilson v Church

CITES

• Walters and Twenty Eight Others v Bingham

APPLIES

• The Dégrèvement of The Immoveable Property of Barker

FOLLOWS

• American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Ltd
• Golder v Société des Magasins Concorde
• Orion Property Trust Ltd v Du Cane Court Ltd

CONSIDERED in

• The Representation of Caroline Elizabeth Powell Nee Chambers and And the Loi (1839) Sur Les Remises De Biens
• The Representation of Caroline Elizabeth Powell Nee Chambers and the Loi (1839) Sur Les Remises De Biens
• The Representation of Caroline Elizabeth Powell Nee Chambers and And The Loi (1839) Sur Les Remises De Biens

REPORTED OPINION OF in

• [1987] JLR 4

This document cites

• American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Ltd
• American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Ltd
• Shaw v Holland
• Atkins v Great Western Railway Company
• Coleman & Company Ltd v Stephen Smith & Company Ltd Re "Carvino" Trade Mark



See all quotations

• Wootton v Sievier
• Wilson v Church
• Preston Corporation v Biornstad. The "Ratata"
• Walters and Twenty Eight Others v Bingham
• The Dégrèvement of The Immoveable Property of Barker
• Orion Property Trust Ltd v Du Cane Court Ltd
• Golder v Société des Magasins Concorde
• Bradford v Young. Re Falconar's Trusts
• Polini v Gray. Sturla v Freccia
• Monk v Bartram
• Otto v Lindford
• Wilson v Church