Search for: "*culpepper v. Henderson"
Results 1 - 4
of 4
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2012, 9:29 am
It was trite law that there was no basis for distinguishing between the costs of an in-house lawyer and an external one: Henderson v Merthyr Tydfil UDC [1900] 1 QB 434, as applied over the subsequent century. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 9:29 am
It was trite law that there was no basis for distinguishing between the costs of an in-house lawyer and an external one: Henderson v Merthyr Tydfil UDC [1900] 1 QB 434, as applied over the subsequent century. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 8:56 pm
In fact, it has been established for well over a century that there is no difference between in-house and external solicitors: see Henderson v Merthyr Tydfil UDC [1900] 1 QB 434, QBD.Next in time we get to Metropolitan Property Realizations Ltd v Moss [2013] UKUT 415 (LC).MPR had a 199 year lease of a property, which was owned by Thanet DC. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 8:56 pm
In fact, it has been established for well over a century that there is no difference between in-house and external solicitors: see Henderson v Merthyr Tydfil UDC [1900] 1 QB 434, QBD.Next in time we get to Metropolitan Property Realizations Ltd v Moss [2013] UKUT 415 (LC).MPR had a 199 year lease of a property, which was owned by Thanet DC. [read post]
