Lim Yak Hua v Eastern & Oriental Hotel
| Jurisdiction | Malaysia |
| Date | 1951 |
| Year | 1951 |
| Court | Unspecified court (Malaysia) |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
974 cases
-
Linnett v Halliwells LLP [QBD (TCC)]
...decision. The law on election is set out in Codrington v. Codrington [1875] LR 7 HL 854 at 866 per Lord Chelmsford; Banque des Marchands v. Kindersley [1951] 1 Ch 112 and Lissenden v. CAV Bosch Limited [1940] AC 413 per Lord Atkin. It was applied by Dyson J, as he then was, in the context o......
-
Hawkes v Cuddy and Others (Nos 1 & 2)
...course of action is preferable, even where it has held that the petition is well founded.” Footnote 7 is as follows: “ Re Antigen Laboratories Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 110, cited with approval by Warner J in Re JE Cade & Son Ltd [1992] BCLC 213, 223. The court will not, therefore, award relief w......
-
Elizabeth Rogerson v Bolsover District Council
...premises to significant risk of injury, then I think that, to give business efficacy to the agreement, as Somervell LJ put it in Mint v Good [1951] 1 KB 517, a right should be implied in the council to carry out repairs for the removal of that risk of injury.” 54 Here there is no need to im......
-
Kieran Corrigan & Company Ltd v Onee Group Ltd
...reflected in the degree of certainty with which the law requires damages to be proved”. To similar effect, Devlin J said in Biggin v Permanite [1951] 1 KB 422 at 438: “I think that in such a situation the court is bound to do the best that it can”. Witnesses 35 For the Claimant I heard evid......
Get Started for Free