Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567, House of Lords

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Whayman
Keyword(s):  
House Of Lords

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Wrongful Pregnancy, Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Terminology

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
J K Mason
Keyword(s):  
University Hospital ◽  
Health Board ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Family ◽  
Wrongful Birth

The article analyses the series of cases that have evolved following the House of Lords dicta in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board1 and which seek to circumvent the limitations imposed by that decision on recovery for the birth of an “uncovenanted” addition to the family. The majority of relevant actions have relied on the possible distinction of cases involving the birth of a disabled child which McFarlane admits. Claims for compensation for the upkeep of the child in such circumstances have been successful, but the author contends that the two types of action are, in fact, distinct. He concludes that the only true comparator to date is Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust2 and that the reasoning in this case may provide an opening for the House of Lords to reconsider its position.

The Life of Guy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Metcalf
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Blow Up ◽  
Lower Class ◽  
Just In Time ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Second Person ◽  
Person Plural ◽  
Plural Pronoun ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Gender Neutral

This book is about the name “Guy” and its slow, mostly unnoticed development over four centuries since it began on November 5, 1605, with the suddenly famous Guy Fawkes, who was arrested just in time just before he could light the fuse on 36 barrels of gunpowder to blow up the House of Lords. During those four centuries, “Guy” became “guy,” the name for an effigy of Guy Fawkes burned at bonfires every November 5 since. The effigy was called a “guy,” so that more than one effigy would be “guys,” Then, slowly, “guy” extended its signification into a name for a ragged, lower-class male, then any strangely dressed male, then a neutral everyday word for just any male, a “guy.” To top it off, the 20th century extended the plural “guys” or “you guys” to include all human beings, even women speaking to groups of women. None of these developments were made deliberately; the word just quietly slipped by, except for opposition from some Southerners and feminists who objected to it on the grounds that it wasn’t “y’all” and it wasn’t gender neutral. It has become all the more entrenched because now it’s the standard second-person plural pronoun for most of us who speak English.

Smallpox Violence in Victorian Britain

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel K. Cohn, Jr.
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
Victorian Britain ◽  
The Poor ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Adequate Care

In contrast to North America, far fewer incidents of individual or collective acts of cruelty and violence were inflicted against smallpox victims in Britain. But similar to North America’s lines of conflict, the English aggressors were the wealthy and their butts of cruelty, the smallpox impoverished. Instead of direct action, the English approach to closing smallpox hospitals and preventing the poor receiving adequate care rested on lawsuits and judicial injunctions, reaching as high as the House of Lords, which allowed the privileged in districts such as Hampstead and Fulham to shut their smallpox hospitals, prevent smallpox victims from entering their districts, and renege on their civic responsibilities.

The House of Stuart, the House of Lords, and the Politics of “Independency”

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Como
Keyword(s):  
Political Coalition ◽  
Charles I ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Parliamentary Supremacy ◽  
Church Government

This chapter chronicles shifts in political assumption in late 1643 and early 1644, pointing towards the later revolutionary outcome of 1649. The chapter demonstrates a strain of intensifying hostility towards Charles I, often accompanied by casual discussion of the dethronement or deposition of the king. Alongside this, some partisans began to sharpen expansive visions of parliamentary supremacy, yoking them to tendentious claims for expansive religious and discursive liberty. Simultaneously, there emerged rising challenges to the constitutional status of the House of Lords. By 1644, proponents of these militant positions began to rally behind a nascent “independent” leadership, helping to explain the emergence of an “independent” political coalition (which counterintuitively included many people who were not personally committed to congregational or sectarian forms of church government).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document