Po5 cases Flashcards Quizlet. INSURABLE INTEREST IS THERE A RULE Square Eye.
v. Petrodel Resources Limited and . others (Respondents) before . Lord Neuberger, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption . JUDGMENT GIVEN ON . 12 June 2013 . Heard on 5 and 6 March 2013 . Appellant . Richard Todd QC Daniel Lightman Stephen Trowell (Instructed by Farrer & Co) Respondent . Tim Amos QC Oliver Wise Ben Shaw Amy Kisser …. Consul Developments Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373.. 124.
You can grab notes for other law subjects from here. FACTS: The appellant, Mr. Macaura, formerly owned a timber estate in Northern Ireland, who consequently sold the timber to a Canadian Milling Concern, agreeing to accept payment in the shares of the company. Macaura owned the large majority of shares in a limited company, trading in timber. The company also owed him substantial sums. He kept on the insurance of timber and other assets within the business but in his own name. When he came to claim, his . .
macaura owned a timber processing firm. he with other people later formed a company and macaura sold his firm to th Share to: What was the reasoning of the decisions made in the court case Texas v.. illustrated this distinction further using Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd (1925) and Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd (1961). The consequences of this separation of the company ….
“Macaura v Nothern Assurance Co Ltd 1925 YouTube”.
MACAURA V NORTHERN ASSURANCE LTD MACAURA V NORTHERN ASSURANCE Co LTD (1925) AC619 (HOUSE OF LORD) Macaura owned an estate in Ireland. He sold all the timber on the state to a company, Irish Canadian Sawmills Ltd..
Macaura owned the large majority of shares in a limited company, trading in timber. The company also owed him substantial sums. He kept on the insurance of timber and other assets within the business but in his own name. When he came to claim, his . .. Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd  AC 619. Google Scholar. 10.  2 All E R (Comm) 292, the first recognition by courts that insurable interest can be justified in cases where it is founded on an economic basis. Google Scholar. 11.  All ER (D) 510 (Jul), where strong considerations of commercial convenience where enough for the court to justify the existence of an insurable. Commencing with the Salomon case, the rule of SLP has been followed as an uncompromising precedent 5 in several subsequent cases like Macaura v Northern Assurance Co. 6, Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Limited, 7 and the Farrar case. 8.