How many times has [1963] 1 WLR 991 been cited?

[1963] 1 WLR 991 is cited by 2 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[1963] 1 WLR 991

· cited by 2 · influence score 13/100

Is it still good law? No negative treatment found in this dataset — it has been cited without being doubted or overruled here.

How to cite

[1963] 1 WLR 991

Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.

Cited · 2

Cited — London Borough of Haringey v FZO 2020-02-18
“…ob. As has been emphasised in several cases, this question must be addressed broadly; see in particular the passage in Diplock LJ’s judgment in Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 1 WLR 991, 1004 included in the citation from Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141, 147-148 (at para 38 above) and cited also in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215 by Lo…”
Cited — Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd 2018-10-11
“…ob. As has been emphasised in several cases, this question must be addressed broadly; see in particular the passage in Diplock LJ's judgment in Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 1 WLR 991, 1004included in the citation from Rose v Plenty at para 38 above, and cited also in Lister by Lord Steyn at para 20, Lord Clyde at para 42, Lord Hobhouse at p…”