Search for: "Cobbe v. Cobbe" Results 381 - 400 of 433
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Mar 2009, 6:09 pm
Regular readers will recall we discussed their decision in Yeoman's Row Management Limited (Appellants) and another v Cobbe (Respondent) [2008] UKHL 55 in August last year. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 5:55 am
2 Mar 2009, 3:17 pm
On that basis, should Mrs Bull wish to assert that the ’supplemental deed’ - the second charge - was void, she would be estopped from doing so - this is not incompatible with Cobb v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 1752, which Brighton had relied on. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 10:47 am
The Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on the California Supreme Court's decision in Mother Cobb's Chicken v. [read post]
14 Nov 2008, 12:40 pm
I needed to read Texas v. [read post]
28 Oct 2008, 11:10 pm
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Pelphprey v. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 3:45 pm
The Board relied on Dibbs v Campbell (1988) 20 HLR 374 and Bolnore Properties Lrd v Cobb (1996) 29 HLR 2002, as authority for the proposition that the 24 hr break between the tenancies was sufficient to mean that the new one did not follow immediately after the old one. [read post]
8 Sep 2008, 8:54 am
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd and Another House of Lords “Where the claimant had entered into an oral agreement with defendants in connection with the redevelopment of their property, their unconscionable behaviour in withdrawing from the agreement once planning permission for the redevelopment had been obtained did not result in a proprietary estoppel or a constructive trust in favour of the claimant. [read post]
21 Aug 2008, 6:00 am
Yesterday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in BATS v. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 8:40 am
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd and another [2008] UKHL 55; [2008] WLR (D) 293 “A claimant who had entered into an oral agreement with the defendants in respect of the redevelopment of a property had no claim against them in proprietary estoppel or constructive trust based on their unconscionable withdrawal from the agreement, but was entitled to a quantum meruit in respect of money and services which he had provided. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:16 pm
But anyone who, like me, is a bit of an equity hobbyist on the side, the House of Lords judgment in  Yeoman's Row Management Limited (Appellants) and another v Cobbe (Respondent)  [2008] UKHL 55 is a must read on proprietary estoppel and constructive trust. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 6:19 pm
Started on Doherty, but on closer inspection, the Lords have also given me R (On The Application of M) (Fc) V Slough Borough Council and  R (On The Application of Heffernan) (Fc) V The Rent Service to deal with, and possibly also  Yeoman’s Row Management Limited and Another V Cobbe. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 1:04 pm
Van Colle (administrator of the estate of GC (deceased)) and another (Original-Respondents and Cross-appellants) v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police (Original Appellant and Cross-respondent) Smith (Respondent) v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (Appellant) [2008] UKHL 50 (30 July 2008) Caldarelli (Appellant) v Court of Naples (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from her Majesty's High Court of Justice) [2008] UKHL 51 (30 July 2008) R (on the application of M) (FC)… [read post]