Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:12:02 +0100

From: Steve Hedley

Subject: Williams v. Roffey Bros.

It seems to be followed as a rule.

A quick LEXIS search reveals:-

1 case in strong support:
Anangel Atlas v. Ishikawajima-Harima [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 526

5 cases where it is cited uncontroversially, as representing settled law:
Gribbon v. Lutton [2001] EWCA Civ 1956
Joiner v. George (Chancery Division 31 January 2000)
Simon Container v. EMBA Machinery [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 429
European Consulting v. Refco Overseas (Commercial Court 12 April 1995)
Lee v. GEC Plessey [1993] IRLR 383

2 cases where it is distinguished as inapplicable to money payments:
Re C (A Debtor) (Court of Appeal 11 May 1994)
Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 2 All ER 531

1 case of outright dissent:
South Caribbean v. Trafigura Beheer [2004] EWHC 2676 (Comm)
("But for the fact that Williams v. Roffey Bros. was a decision of the Court of Appeal, I would not have followed it." - but it is, so he did.)

Steve Hedley
UCC

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason Neyers
Sent: 27 October 2005 15:23
Subject: ODG: Williams v. Roffey Bros.

Dear Colleagues:

I was wondering if one of our UK friends could give us a sense of how Williams v. Roffey Bros. has been treated in England. Is it still considered to be good law or has it become as "distinguished" as Junior Books? I'll cross my fingers and hope for the latter.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>