174:. Mr Sandford was entrusted to look after this property until the child matured. But before then, the lease expired. The landlord had told Mr Sandford that he did not want the child to have the renewed lease. There was clear evidence of the refusal to renew for the benefit of the infant. Yet the landlord was happy (apparently) to give Mr Sandford the opportunity of the lease instead. Mr Sandford took it. When the child (now Mr Keech) grew up, he sued Mr Sandford for the profit that he had been making by getting the market's lease.
31:
2318:
2332:
201:
215:
not in the least relaxed; for it is very obvious what would be the consequence of letting trustees have the lease, on refusal to renew to cestui que use. So decreed, that the lease should be assigned to the infant, and that the trustee should be indemnified from any covenants comprised in the lease, and an account of the profits made since the renewal.
268:
has reached beyond the duties of trustees, into the fiduciary duties of company directors. The approach being taken in
England (c.f. the position in Delaware corporate law) is that any possibility of a conflict of interest means a breach of trust - unless the beneficiary of the trust consented to the
178:
A person being possessed of a lease of … a market, devised his estate to trustee in trust for the infant; before the expiration of the term the trustee applied to the lessor for a renewal for the benefit of the infant, which he refused, … there was clear proof of the refusal to renew for the benefit
214:
use; though I do not say there is a fraud in this case, yet should rather have let it run out, than to have had the lease to himself. This may seem hard, that the trustee is the only person of all mankind who might not have the lease: but it is very proper that rule should be strictly pursued, and
148:
who was tried and found guilty in 1725 for accepting bribes and speculating with and losing client money in the South Sea crash. Lord
Macclesfield had, probably not coincidentally, previously held that a fiduciary was entitled to take money from a trust, invest it on their own behalf, and keep the
153:
reversed this, and the law in
England and the UK has maintained a strict opposition to any possibility of a conflict of interest ever since. The remedy of granting a constructive trust over property, and the strict approach that all possibility of a conflict of interest was to be avoided, derived
950:
AC 44 at 51–52, per Lord
Herschell, the no possibility of conflict rule is "based upon the consideration that, human nature being what it is, there is danger of the person holding a fiduciary position being swayed by interest rather than
228:. Lord King LC was worried that trustees might exploit opportunities to use trust property for themselves instead of looking after it. Business speculators using trusts had just recently caused a
210:
I must consider this as a trust for the infant, for I very well see, if a trustee, on the refusal to renew, might have a lease to himself, few trust-estates would be renewed to the
587:
1020:
857:
251:
869:
298:
257:
722:
462:
245:
971:
845:
365:
799:
2372:
2299:
677:
145:
575:
491:
291:
739:
599:
715:
527:
479:
455:
2397:
1725:
1283:
1182:
2387:
1839:
1708:
834:
284:
2294:
1641:
1542:
955:
551:
2392:
1801:
1435:
708:
448:
1154:
2382:
1961:
1440:
811:
1956:
906:
1931:
1430:
193:
2377:
2014:
1112:
J Getzler, 'Rumford Market and the
Genesis of Fiduciary Obligation' in A Burrows and A Rodger (eds),
649:
611:
130:. It holds that a trustee owes a strict duty of loyalty so that there can never be a possibility of
1809:
1791:
539:
2143:
2184:
1971:
1460:
1445:
991:
233:
2239:
2224:
916:
232:. Strict duties for trustees made their way into company law and were applied to directors and
934:(1874–75) LR 10 Ch App 96, per James LJ that the rule is necessary for "the safety of mankind"
2343:
1936:
1614:
1425:
623:
2064:
1410:
885:
225:
204:
134:
123:
8:
2219:
1359:
1276:
922:
823:
751:
700:
667:
639:
2034:
1693:
1547:
1532:
1510:
1254:
1234:
1187:
1177:
1034:
911:
775:
653:
431:
331:
111:
68:
58:
2019:
1941:
1779:
1522:
1517:
1470:
1395:
1389:
1229:
1147:
1039:
999:
963:
787:
663:
635:
503:
391:
379:
107:
2024:
1991:
1490:
1354:
1349:
1314:
930:
881:
681:
563:
415:
353:
229:
141:
2273:
2246:
2234:
2214:
2148:
2126:
2106:
2101:
2081:
1946:
1926:
1921:
1824:
1784:
1495:
1420:
1344:
1329:
1249:
403:
315:
189:
30:
2350:
2158:
2076:
1665:
1631:
1582:
1567:
1339:
1244:
1224:
1214:
984:
901:
691:
427:
167:
2366:
2204:
2163:
2049:
2029:
2001:
1951:
1916:
1890:
1885:
1878:
1829:
1769:
1609:
1599:
1557:
1480:
1475:
1405:
1364:
1288:
979:
896:
2336:
2086:
2054:
2009:
1747:
1742:
1713:
1626:
1604:
1572:
1505:
1485:
1379:
1319:
1309:
1261:
1219:
1197:
1140:
515:
144:. Lord King LC, who decided the case, replaced the former Lord Chancellor,
140:
The case's importance derives partly from its historical context, with the
83:
2258:
2199:
2189:
1986:
1981:
1819:
1720:
1636:
1595:
1562:
1527:
1450:
1374:
1324:
1239:
1106:
S Cretney, 'The
Rationale of Keech v. Sandford' (1969) 33 Conveyancer 161
946:
938:
341:
224:
Mr
Sandford was meant to be trusted, but he put himself in a position of
127:
1109:
DR Paling, 'The
Pleadings in Keech v Sandford' (1972) 36 Conveyancer 159
276:
2322:
2251:
2131:
2069:
1814:
1735:
1730:
1688:
1670:
1658:
1619:
1465:
1455:
1415:
1400:
1384:
1334:
1271:
1266:
211:
440:
2229:
2194:
2136:
2111:
1976:
1873:
1861:
1846:
1834:
1762:
1680:
1653:
1537:
115:
2317:
239:
The principle of strict and absolute duties of loyalty laid down in
2278:
2263:
1966:
1851:
1648:
1192:
2168:
2116:
2096:
2044:
1856:
1774:
1590:
1552:
1500:
179:
of the infant, on which the trustee sets a lease made to himself.
2268:
2121:
1866:
1757:
1752:
1698:
1369:
171:
119:
200:
2209:
2153:
2059:
1900:
1703:
1202:
163:
2091:
2039:
1895:
1293:
1209:
196:
ordered Mr
Sandford should disgorge his profits. He wrote,
983:(1978) 68 Cr App R 183, information is not property under
1163:
730:
1132:
95:
Strict liability, fiduciary duty, conflict of interest
1123:
reconsidered' (2010) 69(2) Cambridge Law
Journal 287
243:was a decisive break with prior case law, seen in
57:(1726) Sel Cas Ch 61, 25 ER 223, All ER Rep 230
2364:
1114:Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks
1148:
716:
456:
292:
149:profit, if they restored money to the trust.
972:Industrial Development Consultants v Cooley
1155:
1141:
723:
709:
463:
449:
367:Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew
299:
285:
29:
678:Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc
306:
122:and has affected much of the thinking on
2300:History of the American legal profession
199:
118:duty of loyalty. It concerns the law of
846:In re Walt Disney Derivative Litigation
470:
146:Thomas Parker, 1st Earl of Macclesfield
2365:
576:Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd
492:Aberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie Brothers
154:from the general outrage at the time.
110:is a foundational case, deriving from
1136:
1119:AD Hicks, 'The remedial principle of
858:In re Citigroup Derivative Litigation
704:
444:
280:
800:Broz v. Cellular Information Systems
600:Re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd
528:Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co
480:The Charitable Corporation v Sutton
13:
14:
2409:
1284:Restitution and unjust enrichment
2331:
2330:
2316:
835:Delaware General Corporation Law
740:AP Smith Manufacturing v. Barlow
2373:United Kingdom company case law
2295:History of the legal profession
956:Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver
552:Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver
219:
69:Full text of judgment on Bailii
1088:
1079:
1070:
1058:
1046:
1027:
1013:
588:Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd
1:
1127:Queensland Mines Ltd v Hudson
1100:
1067:(1726) Sel Cas. Ch.61, at 175
926:(1747) 1 Ves Sen 9; 27 ER 856
812:The Charitable Corp v Sutton
731:Sources on directors' duties
7:
907:United States corporate law
272:
183:
10:
2414:
1962:International legal theory
1441:International slavery laws
1436:International human rights
1431:International criminal law
162:A child had inherited the
2310:
2287:
2177:
2015:Administration of justice
2000:
1909:
1800:
1679:
1581:
1302:
1170:
878:
866:
854:
842:
832:
820:
808:
796:
784:
772:
760:
748:
736:
688:
674:
660:
650:CMS Dolphin Ltd v Simonet
646:
632:
620:
608:
596:
584:
572:
560:
548:
536:
524:
512:
500:
488:
476:
424:
412:
400:
388:
376:
362:
350:
338:
324:
312:
94:
89:
79:
74:
64:
53:
45:
37:
28:
23:
2398:Exchequer of Pleas cases
1792:Basic structure doctrine
1642:Natural and legal rights
1523:Public international law
1007:
1003:EWCA Civ 424; 2 BCLC 241
540:Re Smith and Fawcett Ltd
234:chief executive officers
157:
2388:English trusts case law
1972:Principle of typicality
1446:International trade law
1162:
992:Guinness plc v Saunders
108:[1726] EWHC J76
16:English trusts law case
917:Business judgment rule
791:, 5 A2d 503 (Del 1939)
779:, 164 NE 545 (NY 1928)
755:, 237 NE 2d 776 (1968)
612:Re D’Jan of London Ltd
383:, 164 NE 545 (NY 1928)
217:
207:
181:
2393:1726 in Great Britain
1967:Principle of legality
1726:Delegated legislation
1426:Intellectual property
1076:(1670) 1 Ch. Cas. 190
1021:Bromfield v Wytherley
743:39 ALR 2d 1179 (1953)
624:Re Barings plc (No 5)
307:Duty of loyalty cases
203:
198:
176:
2185:Barristers' chambers
2127:Legal representation
2065:Justice of the peace
1411:Financial regulation
849:, 825 A2d 275 (2003)
803:, 637 A2d 148 (1996)
495:(1854) 1 Macq HL 461
226:conflict of interest
205:Lord Chancellor King
135:conflict of interest
2383:1726 in British law
2220:Election commission
1932:Expressive function
1461:Landlord–tenant law
1360:Consumer protection
923:Whelpdale v Cookson
824:Smith v. Van Gorkom
752:Shlensky v. Wrigley
471:Director duty cases
419:(1874) 10 Ch App 96
2178:Legal institutions
2045:Lawsuit/Litigation
2035:Dispute resolution
1840:Catholic canon law
1548:State of emergency
1511:Will and testament
1235:Law of obligations
1188:Constitutional law
1178:Administrative law
1085:(1676) 2 Freem. 13
1035:Companies Act 2006
1024:(1718) Prec Ch 505
942:(1886) 33 Ch D 347
912:English trusts law
861:964 A2d 106 (2009)
827:488 A2d 858 (1985)
776:Meinhard v. Salmon
432:English trusts law
230:stock market crash
208:
112:English trusts law
2360:
2359:
2020:Constitutionalism
1942:Law and economics
1780:Act of parliament
1518:Product liability
1471:Legal archaeology
1396:Environmental law
1390:Entertainment law
1230:International law
1121:Keech v. Sandford
1116:(Oxford 2006) 577
1094:(1687) 1 Vern 484
1053:Keech v. Sandford
1040:Boardman v Phipps
1000:Bhullar v Bhullar
964:Boardman v Phipps
892:
891:
886:directors' duties
873:308 US 295 (1939)
788:Guth v. Loft Inc.
698:
697:
664:Bhullar v Bhullar
636:Peskin v Anderson
504:Percival v Wright
438:
437:
392:Boardman v Phipps
380:Meinhard v Salmon
264:The influence of
124:directors' duties
99:
98:
2405:
2378:1726 in case law
2335:
2334:
2333:
2321:
2320:
2144:Question of fact
2025:Criminal justice
1355:Construction law
1350:Conflict of laws
1315:Agricultural law
1157:
1150:
1143:
1134:
1133:
1095:
1092:
1086:
1083:
1077:
1074:
1068:
1065:Keech v Sandford
1062:
1056:
1050:
1044:
1037:section 175 and
1031:
1025:
1017:
931:Parker v McKenna
882:US corporate law
815:(1742) 26 ER 642
764:Keech v Sandford
725:
718:
711:
702:
701:
564:IDC Ltd v Cooley
483:(1742) 26 ER 642
465:
458:
451:
442:
441:
416:Parker v McKenna
368:
354:Armitage v Nurse
328:Keech v Sandford
319:(1678) 22 ER 817
301:
294:
287:
278:
277:
252:Rushworth's Case
142:South Sea Bubble
103:Keech v Sandford
75:Court membership
33:
24:Keech v Sandford
21:
20:
2413:
2412:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2356:
2329:
2315:
2306:
2283:
2274:Political party
2247:Legal education
2235:Law enforcement
2215:Court of equity
2173:
2149:Question of law
2102:Practice of law
2082:Judicial review
1996:
1947:Legal formalism
1927:Comparative law
1922:Contract theory
1905:
1825:Legal pluralism
1796:
1785:Act of Congress
1709:Executive order
1675:
1577:
1496:Nationality law
1421:Immigration law
1345:Competition law
1298:
1166:
1161:
1129:(1978) 18 ALR 1
1103:
1098:
1093:
1089:
1084:
1080:
1075:
1071:
1063:
1059:
1051:
1047:
1032:
1028:
1018:
1014:
1010:
893:
888:
874:
870:Pepper v Litton
862:
850:
838:
828:
816:
804:
792:
780:
768:
756:
744:
732:
729:
699:
694:
684:
670:
656:
642:
628:
616:
604:
592:
580:
568:
556:
544:
532:
520:
508:
496:
484:
472:
469:
439:
434:
420:
408:
404:Holder v Holder
396:
384:
372:
366:
358:
346:
334:
320:
316:Morley v Morley
308:
305:
275:
258:Walley v Walley
222:
190:Lord Chancellor
186:
160:
49:31 October 1726
41:Exchequer Court
17:
12:
11:
5:
2411:
2401:
2400:
2395:
2390:
2385:
2380:
2375:
2358:
2357:
2355:
2354:
2347:
2340:
2326:
2323:Law portal
2311:
2308:
2307:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2291:
2289:
2285:
2284:
2282:
2281:
2276:
2271:
2266:
2261:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2232:
2227:
2222:
2217:
2212:
2207:
2202:
2197:
2192:
2187:
2181:
2179:
2175:
2174:
2172:
2171:
2166:
2161:
2159:Trial advocacy
2156:
2151:
2146:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2134:
2129:
2124:
2119:
2114:
2109:
2099:
2094:
2089:
2084:
2079:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2067:
2057:
2052:
2047:
2042:
2037:
2032:
2027:
2022:
2017:
2012:
2006:
2004:
1998:
1997:
1995:
1994:
1989:
1984:
1979:
1974:
1969:
1964:
1959:
1954:
1949:
1944:
1939:
1934:
1929:
1924:
1919:
1913:
1911:
1907:
1906:
1904:
1903:
1898:
1893:
1888:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1864:
1859:
1854:
1849:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1827:
1822:
1817:
1812:
1806:
1804:
1798:
1797:
1795:
1794:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1782:
1777:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1755:
1750:
1745:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1733:
1728:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1711:
1706:
1696:
1691:
1689:Ballot measure
1685:
1683:
1677:
1676:
1674:
1673:
1668:
1666:Legal treatise
1663:
1662:
1661:
1656:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1634:
1632:Letters patent
1629:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1612:
1607:
1602:
1593:
1587:
1585:
1583:Sources of law
1579:
1578:
1576:
1575:
1570:
1568:Unenforced law
1565:
1560:
1555:
1550:
1545:
1540:
1535:
1530:
1525:
1520:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1508:
1498:
1493:
1488:
1483:
1478:
1473:
1468:
1463:
1458:
1453:
1448:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1428:
1423:
1418:
1413:
1408:
1403:
1398:
1393:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1372:
1367:
1362:
1357:
1352:
1347:
1342:
1340:Commercial law
1337:
1332:
1327:
1322:
1317:
1312:
1306:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1297:
1296:
1291:
1286:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1269:
1264:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1252:
1242:
1237:
1232:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1195:
1190:
1185:
1180:
1174:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1160:
1159:
1152:
1145:
1137:
1131:
1130:
1124:
1117:
1110:
1107:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1096:
1087:
1078:
1069:
1057:
1055:All ER Rep 230
1045:
1026:
1011:
1009:
1006:
1005:
1004:
996:
988:
985:Theft Act 1968
976:
968:
960:
952:
943:
935:
927:
919:
914:
909:
904:
902:UK company law
899:
890:
889:
879:
876:
875:
867:
864:
863:
855:
852:
851:
843:
840:
839:
833:
830:
829:
821:
818:
817:
809:
806:
805:
797:
794:
793:
785:
782:
781:
773:
770:
769:
761:
758:
757:
749:
746:
745:
737:
734:
733:
728:
727:
720:
713:
705:
696:
695:
692:UK company law
689:
686:
685:
675:
672:
671:
661:
658:
657:
654:EWHC (Ch) 4159
647:
644:
643:
633:
630:
629:
621:
618:
617:
609:
606:
605:
597:
594:
593:
585:
582:
581:
573:
570:
569:
561:
558:
557:
549:
546:
545:
537:
534:
533:
525:
522:
521:
513:
510:
509:
501:
498:
497:
489:
486:
485:
477:
474:
473:
468:
467:
460:
453:
445:
436:
435:
428:Fiduciary duty
425:
422:
421:
413:
410:
409:
401:
398:
397:
389:
386:
385:
377:
374:
373:
363:
360:
359:
351:
348:
347:
339:
336:
335:
325:
322:
321:
313:
310:
309:
304:
303:
296:
289:
281:
274:
271:
221:
218:
185:
182:
168:Romford Market
159:
156:
97:
96:
92:
91:
87:
86:
81:
77:
76:
72:
71:
66:
62:
61:
55:
51:
50:
47:
43:
42:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2410:
2399:
2396:
2394:
2391:
2389:
2386:
2384:
2381:
2379:
2376:
2374:
2371:
2370:
2368:
2353:
2352:
2348:
2346:
2345:
2341:
2339:
2338:
2327:
2325:
2324:
2319:
2313:
2312:
2309:
2301:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2293:
2292:
2290:
2286:
2280:
2277:
2275:
2272:
2270:
2267:
2265:
2262:
2260:
2257:
2253:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2245:
2241:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2233:
2231:
2228:
2226:
2223:
2221:
2218:
2216:
2213:
2211:
2208:
2206:
2205:Civil society
2203:
2201:
2198:
2196:
2193:
2191:
2188:
2186:
2183:
2182:
2180:
2176:
2170:
2167:
2165:
2164:Trier of fact
2162:
2160:
2157:
2155:
2152:
2150:
2147:
2145:
2142:
2138:
2135:
2133:
2130:
2128:
2125:
2123:
2120:
2118:
2115:
2113:
2110:
2108:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2100:
2098:
2095:
2093:
2090:
2088:
2085:
2083:
2080:
2078:
2075:
2071:
2068:
2066:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2058:
2056:
2053:
2051:
2050:Legal opinion
2048:
2046:
2043:
2041:
2038:
2036:
2033:
2031:
2030:Court-martial
2028:
2026:
2023:
2021:
2018:
2016:
2013:
2011:
2008:
2007:
2005:
2003:
2002:Jurisprudence
1999:
1993:
1990:
1988:
1985:
1983:
1980:
1978:
1975:
1973:
1970:
1968:
1965:
1963:
1960:
1958:
1955:
1953:
1950:
1948:
1945:
1943:
1940:
1938:
1935:
1933:
1930:
1928:
1925:
1923:
1920:
1918:
1915:
1914:
1912:
1908:
1902:
1899:
1897:
1894:
1892:
1891:Statutory law
1889:
1887:
1886:Socialist law
1884:
1880:
1879:Byzantine law
1877:
1876:
1875:
1872:
1868:
1865:
1863:
1860:
1858:
1855:
1853:
1850:
1848:
1845:
1841:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:Religious law
1828:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1818:
1816:
1813:
1811:
1808:
1807:
1805:
1803:
1802:Legal systems
1799:
1793:
1790:
1786:
1783:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:Statutory law
1768:
1764:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1756:
1754:
1751:
1749:
1746:
1744:
1741:
1737:
1734:
1732:
1729:
1727:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1719:
1715:
1712:
1710:
1707:
1705:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1697:
1695:
1692:
1690:
1687:
1686:
1684:
1682:
1678:
1672:
1669:
1667:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1655:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1647:
1643:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1635:
1633:
1630:
1628:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1613:
1611:
1608:
1606:
1603:
1601:
1600:Statutory law
1597:
1594:
1592:
1589:
1588:
1586:
1584:
1580:
1574:
1571:
1569:
1566:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1558:Transport law
1556:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1546:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1531:
1529:
1526:
1524:
1521:
1519:
1516:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1489:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1479:
1477:
1476:Legal fiction
1474:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1449:
1447:
1444:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1429:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1419:
1417:
1414:
1412:
1409:
1407:
1406:Financial law
1404:
1402:
1399:
1397:
1394:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1378:
1376:
1373:
1371:
1368:
1366:
1365:Corporate law
1363:
1361:
1358:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1348:
1346:
1343:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1333:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1305:
1301:
1295:
1292:
1290:
1289:Statutory law
1287:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1270:
1268:
1265:
1263:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1243:
1241:
1238:
1236:
1233:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1223:
1221:
1218:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1173:
1171:Core subjects
1169:
1165:
1158:
1153:
1151:
1146:
1144:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1091:
1082:
1073:
1066:
1061:
1054:
1049:
1042:
1041:
1036:
1030:
1023:
1022:
1016:
1012:
1002:
1001:
997:
994:
993:
989:
986:
982:
981:
980:Oxford v Moss
977:
974:
973:
969:
966:
965:
961:
958:
957:
953:
949:
948:
944:
941:
940:
936:
933:
932:
928:
925:
924:
920:
918:
915:
913:
910:
908:
905:
903:
900:
898:
897:Corporate law
895:
894:
887:
883:
877:
872:
871:
865:
860:
859:
853:
848:
847:
841:
836:
831:
826:
825:
819:
814:
813:
807:
802:
801:
795:
790:
789:
783:
778:
777:
771:
766:
765:
759:
754:
753:
747:
742:
741:
735:
726:
721:
719:
714:
712:
707:
706:
703:
693:
687:
683:
680:
679:
673:
669:
666:
665:
659:
655:
652:
651:
645:
641:
638:
637:
631:
626:
625:
619:
614:
613:
607:
602:
601:
595:
590:
589:
583:
578:
577:
571:
566:
565:
559:
554:
553:
547:
542:
541:
535:
530:
529:
523:
518:
517:
511:
506:
505:
499:
494:
493:
487:
482:
481:
475:
466:
461:
459:
454:
452:
447:
446:
443:
433:
429:
423:
418:
417:
411:
406:
405:
399:
394:
393:
387:
382:
381:
375:
370:
369:
361:
356:
355:
349:
344:
343:
337:
333:
330:
329:
323:
318:
317:
311:
302:
297:
295:
290:
288:
283:
282:
279:
270:
267:
262:
260:
259:
254:
253:
248:
247:
242:
237:
235:
231:
227:
216:
213:
206:
202:
197:
195:
191:
180:
175:
173:
169:
165:
155:
152:
147:
143:
138:
136:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
104:
93:
88:
85:
82:
80:Judge sitting
78:
73:
70:
67:
63:
60:
56:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
2349:
2342:
2328:
2314:
2087:Jurisdiction
2055:Legal remedy
2010:Adjudication
1910:Legal theory
1748:Ratification
1743:Promulgation
1714:Proclamation
1694:Codification
1627:Human rights
1615:Divine right
1605:Constitution
1573:Women in law
1491:Military law
1486:Marriage law
1481:Maritime law
1380:Election law
1320:Aviation law
1310:Abortion law
1262:Property law
1198:Criminal law
1126:
1120:
1113:
1090:
1081:
1072:
1064:
1060:
1052:
1048:
1038:
1029:
1019:
1015:
998:
990:
978:
970:
962:
959:1 ALL ER 378
954:
945:
937:
929:
921:
868:
856:
844:
822:
810:
798:
786:
774:
763:
762:
750:
738:
676:
668:EWCA Civ 424
662:
648:
640:EWCA Civ 326
634:
622:
610:
598:
586:
574:
562:
555:1 All ER 378
550:
538:
526:
516:Cook v Deeks
514:
502:
490:
478:
414:
402:
390:
378:
364:
352:
340:
327:
326:
314:
265:
263:
256:
250:
244:
240:
238:
223:
220:Significance
209:
187:
177:
161:
150:
139:
131:
102:
101:
100:
84:Lord King LC
18:
2259:Legislature
2190:Bureaucracy
1987:Rule of man
1982:Rule of law
1957:Libertarian
1820:Chinese law
1721:Legislation
1671:Regulations
1659:Law reports
1637:Natural law
1533:Reparations
1528:Refugee law
1451:Jurimetrics
1392:(Media law)
1330:Banking law
1325:Amnesty law
1303:Disciplines
1240:Private law
947:Bray v Ford
939:Re Whiteley
767:EWHC Ch J76
342:Bray v Ford
332:EWHC Ch J76
246:Holt v Holt
128:company law
59:EWHC Ch J76
2367:Categories
2252:Law school
2132:Prosecutor
2070:Magistrate
1857:Jewish law
1815:Common law
1736:Rulemaking
1731:Regulation
1681:Law making
1620:Divine law
1596:Legal code
1543:Sports law
1466:Law of war
1416:Health law
1401:Family law
1385:Energy law
1335:Bankruptcy
1272:Punishment
1267:Public law
1101:References
837:§102(b)(7)
627:1 BCLC 433
615:1 BCLC 561
269:conflict.
212:cestui que
65:Transcript
2230:Judiciary
2225:Executive
2200:The bench
2137:Solicitor
2112:Barrister
1992:Sociology
1977:Pseudolaw
1917:Anarchist
1874:Roman law
1862:Parsi law
1847:Hindu law
1835:Canon law
1810:Civil law
1763:Concordat
1654:Precedent
1563:Trust law
1538:Space law
1375:Drugs law
1245:Procedure
1183:Civil law
975:1 WLR 443
567:1 WLR 443
194:Lord King
116:fiduciary
114:, on the
2337:Category
2279:Tribunal
2264:Military
2107:Attorney
2077:Judgment
1937:Feminist
1852:Jain law
1649:Case law
1370:Cyberlaw
1277:Corporal
1255:Criminal
1225:Evidence
1215:Doctrine
1193:Contract
995:2 AC 663
543:1 Ch 304
519:1 AC 554
507:2 Ch 421
273:See also
184:Judgment
90:Keywords
54:Citation
2351:Outline
2288:History
2195:The bar
2169:Verdict
2117:Counsel
2097:Justice
1952:History
1775:Statute
1591:Charter
1553:Tax law
1501:Probate
967:2 AC 46
951:duty…."
682:UKSC 71
395:2 AC 46
46:Decided
2269:Police
2240:Agency
2122:Lawyer
1867:Sharia
1758:Treaty
1753:Repeal
1699:Decree
1610:Custom
1506:Estate
1456:Labour
1220:Equity
1043:UKHL 2
603:Ch 164
591:Ch 477
579:AC 821
531:Ch 407
407:Ch 353
371:1 Ch 1
357:Ch 241
255:, and
172:London
120:trusts
2344:Index
2210:Court
2154:Trial
2060:Judge
1901:Yassa
1704:Edict
1250:Civil
1203:Crime
1033:e.g.
1008:Notes
345:AC 44
266:Keech
241:Keech
170:near
164:lease
158:Facts
151:Keech
106:
38:Court
2092:Jury
2040:Fiqh
1896:Xeer
1294:Tort
1210:Deed
884:and
880:See
690:see
430:and
426:see
188:The
1164:Law
987:s 4
166:on
132:any
126:in
2369::
1598:/
261:.
249:,
236:.
192:,
137:.
1156:e
1149:t
1142:v
724:e
717:t
710:v
464:e
457:t
450:v
300:e
293:t
286:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
