UK Case Law Insights
Home
› Cases › [1991] 2 AC 370
[1991] 2 AC 370
· cited by
2
· influence score
15
/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
[1991] 2 AC 370
Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.
Treatment
Cited · 2
Citation network
[1991] 2 AC 370
Andrew James Griffiths v Louise Ti
Andrew James Griffiths v Louise Ti
cited by
Cited by (2)
Cited
—
Andrew James Griffiths v Louise Tickle & Ors.
2022-04-05
“…[1991] 2 AC 370, 423 (Lord Bridge),…”
Cited
—
Andrew James Griffiths v Louise Tickle & Ors.
2022-04-05
“…t this is not the correct reading of the sub-section; what it means is that in such a case “there is a contempt in the absence of a defence recognised by law”: [1991] 2 AC 370, 421 (Lord Bridge).…”
Frequently cited alongside
Griffiths v Tickle & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1882
1×
The Counsel General for Wales, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (No 2) [2022] EWCA Civ 181
1×
[2004] EWHC 411 (Fam)
1×