Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Cambridge Law Journal
  4. Content listing
Journal Home

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals: Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies: Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

9363 results in The Cambridge Law Journal

Page 233 of 469

  • Freedom, Unrequested Improvements, and Lord Denning

  • Paul Matthews
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 40 / Issue 2 / November 1981
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 340-358
    Print publication:
    November 1981

  • The common law doctrines relating to mixtures and improvements of personal chattels give the impression, to most English lawyers, of being somewhat mysterious. Proprietary interests come and go like ships in the night, now mingled with rights to possession, now quite separate. But although cases involving proprietary claims are not common, the issue often arises as to A's personal rights against B, where B has without A's consent expended effort on A's property, and B's personal rights against A (if any) in respect of the improvement.

  • Interlocutory Injunctions Since Cyanamid

  • Christine Gray
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 40 / Issue 2 / November 1981
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 307-339
    Print publication:
    November 1981

  • The decision in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. was hailed. rather unenthusiastically, as a revolutionary development in the law governing interlocutory injunctions; it was seen as an abandonment of the earlier approach exemplified by, although not discussed in, Stratford and Sons Ltd. v. Lindley. There was some indignation at the apparent loss of a quick, relatively cheap means of settling cases by decision on an application for an interlocutory injunction, and considerable doubt as to the suitability of the principles set out by Lord Diplock in Cyanamid for use in all types of interlocutory action.

Page 233 of 469