Search for: "Snook v. Snook"
Results 1 - 20
of 21
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Feb 2009, 10:04 pm
U.S. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 2:31 pm
” (People v. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 1:25 pm
So, if the charge did not secure a genuine debt and was entered into for the purpose of defrauding Mr V's creditors, it was a sham in the sense set out in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 1:25 pm
So, if the charge did not secure a genuine debt and was entered into for the purpose of defrauding Mr V's creditors, it was a sham in the sense set out in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786. [read post]
6 Jun 2009, 4:15 am
The CAFC, on jurisdictional grounds, does not resolve the assignment issues in Larson v. [read post]
7 Jun 2009, 6:20 pm
William Snook, and Robert Todd. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 9:00 pm
For Virginia cases, another lawyer -- Lloyd Snook of Charlottesville's Snook & Haughey -- suggests reading the unpublished case of Argenbright v. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 9:00 pm
For Virginia cases, another lawyer -- Lloyd Snook of Charlottesville's Snook & Haughey -- suggests reading the unpublished case of Argenbright v. [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 10:30 pm
Wainwright and Roe v. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 2:46 am
there was a potentially interesting question as to whether the express declaration of trust was a sham (in essence to get a mortgage for the purchase of the property), but there was no evidence sufficient to get close to the narrow definition of sham (see the problematic case of Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786).So, the key message is this: where there is an express declaration of trust, the only ways to avoid its outcome are to vary the trust… [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 2:46 am
there was a potentially interesting question as to whether the express declaration of trust was a sham (in essence to get a mortgage for the purchase of the property), but there was no evidence sufficient to get close to the narrow definition of sham (see the problematic case of Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786).So, the key message is this: where there is an express declaration of trust, the only ways to avoid its outcome are to vary the trust… [read post]
7 May 2013, 2:11 pm
Co. v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 4:00 am
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects) The most-consulted French-language decision was Snooks c. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:01 pm
The attempt by the taxpayer in this case is reminiscent of the tax avoidance transactions that shaped English law in the 80s, and in particular, of the judgment of the House of Lords in IRC v Burmah Oil. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 2:08 am
The point was put very well by Lord Diplock in Snook v. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 8:37 am
” So said Lord Walker last week in delivering the judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Progress Property v Moorgarth. [read post]
12 Jun 2016, 7:32 pm
Dinkel in R. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 12:34 pm
McCullock is proof that judges can be, and are, snooked by the litigation strategy. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 3:00 am
(Spicy IP) Design v copyright: need for a clear and rational distinction: Microfibres v Giridhar & Co & Ors (Spicy IP) Madras High Court: jurisdiction - can design infringement case can be filed in Court where plaintiff resides? [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 3:00 am
(Spicy IP) Design v copyright: need for a clear and rational distinction: Microfibres v Giridhar & Co & Ors (Spicy IP) Madras High Court: jurisdiction - can design infringement case can be filed in Court where plaintiff resides? [read post]
