Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 121 views

    Note Mercantile Credit Co LTD V Hamblin - (

    Uploaded by

    FelicianFernandopulle

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Note Mercantile Credit Co LTD V Hamblin - (

    Uploaded by

    FelicianFernandopulle
    121 views1 page

    Original Title

    Note Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Hamblin - [

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    121 views1 page

    Note Mercantile Credit Co LTD V Hamblin - (

    Uploaded by

    FelicianFernandopulle

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 1
    680 ALL ENGLAND LAW REPORTS [1964] 1 AI EAR. NOTE. MERCANTILE CREDIT CO., LTD. v. HAMBLIN. [Queen's Benci Division (John Stephenson, J.), January 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, February 21, 1964.) Counsel—Duty—Conduct of litigation—IUegality—Whether counsel should raise defence of illegality of contract where not pleaded, [ Editorial Note. This may bo considered with Snell v. Unity Finance, Ltd. ({1963] 3 All E.R. 50). As to rolations betwoon counsel and tho court, sce 3 Harssury’s Laws (3rd. Edn.) 35, 36, para. 48 and SUFFLEMENT; as to illogality being sot up by way of defence to an action on a contract, seo 8 Hatssury’s Laws (3rd Edn.) 149, para, 257.] Action. ‘This was an action by tho plaintiffs, Morcentile Credit Co., Ltd., on an allogod hire-purchase agrooment, consisting of o printed form with details added in manuscript. The defendant denied tho alleged agrooment. At a late stago of the hearing counsel for the defondant raised by way of dofence that the agreement was, if the plaintiffs’ contention wero right, illogal, becauso it contravened the provisions of tho Hire Purchase and Credit Sales Agreemonts Order (Control), 1960 (8.1. 1960 No. 762). This dofence had not been pleaded. R. N. Titheridge, for tho plaintiffs, submitted that, if illegality wero to be relied ‘on, it should have beon pleadod, and that counsol ought not to draw the attention of the court to unploaded illogality without the point being taken by the court itself. P. Goodenday, for the defendant, submitted that the proper course was adopted in the circumstances, and asked that leave to amend the defence should be granted. JOHN STEPHENSON, J., refused loave to amond and, finding for tho defendant on other grounds, said that, in his view, counsol was not acting im- properly in inviting the court to considor tho possible illegality of the transaction. On the contrary, it was counsel's duty, howovor ombarrassing, to prevent tho court from enforcing illogal transactions. Solicitors: Mazwell, Batley & Co. (for tho plaintiffs); Edwin Coe & Calder Woods (for the defendant). [Reported by K. Diana Purtatrs, Barrister-at-Law.]

    You might also like