Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Whayman
Keyword(s):  
London Borough ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Whayman
Keyword(s):  
London Borough ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Part VI Early Perceptions of Legal Risk, 20 A Landmark Case and its Aftermath

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Historical Explanation ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Legal Risk ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Audit Commission ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City

This chapter discusses the case of Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, which had a profound effect on how the City of London perceived the dangers posed by legal risk. It involved a House of Lords decision on an ultra vires point — specifically, the power of the council in question to enter into ‘swap’ transactions. The case arose because this power was challenged by the auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. The surrounding circumstances and the unprecedented manner in which the City of London responded to the case provide both the classic case study and a historical explanation of why legal risk is seen to be so important and how seriously it is taken by those concerned with orderly financial markets.

Public authority negligence revisited

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.H. Bailey ◽  
M.J. Bowman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
London Borough ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Legitimate Interests

Following on from earlier consideration of this issue by the same authors in the 1980s, this article examines the principles governing the negligence liability of public authorities as articulated in recent cases, and in particular the decisions of the House of Lords in X v. Bedfordshire, Stovin v. Wise and Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council. It concludes that the various attempts to establish special principles to govern such liability have been misguided, and that the courts have proved too willing to reject claims on the basis of questionable policy considerations, to the extent that a blanket immunity might appear to have been established in some contexts. Ultimately, this approach has brought the United Kingdom into conflict with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that ordinary private law principles provide a wholly appropriate basis for reconciling the legitimate interests of public authorities with the need to accord justice to individual litigants.

Governmental Liability after Francovich

1993 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Caranta
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Community Law ◽  
District Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Governmental liability used to be on the retreat, especially but not only in the field of negligence liability. In Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the majority of the Court of Appeal flatly stated that not every infringement of Community law was a tort. Moreover, in the recent decision in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council the House of Lords, departing from Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, dramatically curtailed any hope—or fear, it depends on the point of view—of development of governmental liability in the field of economic loss.

scholarly journals Failing the System? Enfocing the Right to Education in New Zealand

2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 735 ◽  
Author(s):  
E J Ryan
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Right To Education ◽  
London Borough ◽  
High Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Domestic Level

At both the international and domestic level, the existence of a right to education is given widespread support. But what are the content and consequences of this right? The meaning of the right to education was examined recently in the context of special education by the High Court and Court of Appeal in Daniels v Attorney-General. The High Court saw the right as a substantive one; the Court of Appeal viewed it in procedural terms. These different conceptions of the right affected the remedies available to the plaintiffs. This article assesses the competing understandings of the education right in NZ, and concludes, particularly in light of the House of Lords' decision in Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council, that the High Court's approach is to be preferred.

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords

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

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Whayman
Keyword(s):  
London Borough ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

RESULTING TRUSTS: A VICTORY FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT?

2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 500-503
Author(s):  
Rachel Leow ◽  
Timothy Liau
Keyword(s):  
Academic Interest ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal

WHEN do resulting trusts arise, and why? These questions were the subject of serious inquiry in the 1990s, following influential work by Peter Birks and Robert Chambers, which argued that resulting trusts arise to reverse unjust enrichment. The House of Lords in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] A.C. 669 remarked that the Birks/Chambers thesis was “avowedly experimental, written to test the temperature of the water”, but that “the temperature of the water must be regarded as decidedly cold”. Following Westdeutsche, the issue has received little consideration, although academic interest in the debate remains. The recent decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] SGCA 36 considered this issue in detail and is therefore worth examining.

scholarly journals Charging for After-care Services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 – The Final Word?

2014 ◽  
pp. 313
Author(s):  
Nicolette Priaulx
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
City Council ◽  
Final Word ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Care Services ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
After Care ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Manchester City

<p>R v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett, R v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, ex parte Armstrong, R v Harrow London Borough Council, ex parte Cobham [2002] UKHL 34; [2002] 3 W.L.R. 584; [2002] 4 All E.R. 124.</p><p><br />House of Lords (13, 14 May, 25 July 2002) Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton and Lord Millett.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document