How many times has [2001] 1 AC 102 been cited?

[2001] 1 AC 102 is cited by 4 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[2001] 1 AC 102

· cited by 4 · 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

[2001] 1 AC 102

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

Explained · 3Cited · 1

Cited — Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Andrew Joseph Ruhan & Anor 2023-10-04
“…which equitable compensation can be claimed, or adopting the act and treating the proceeds as trust property (see for example Lord Millett in Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102, 130-131, citing Professor Williston’s statement that ‘the cestui que trust should be allowed to regard the acts of the trustee as done for his benefit’). It c…”
Explained — Kahrmann v Harrison-Morgan 2019-11-27
“…As Lord Millett explained, with his customary lucidity, in Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 at 127B:…”
Explained — First City Monument Bank Plc v Zumax Nigeria Ltd 2019-03-01
“…Strictly, a transfer between bank accounts does not involve an actual transfer of property. In Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102, Lord Millett explained (at 127128):…”
Explained — First City Monument Bank Plc v Zumax Nigeria Ltd 2019-03-01
“…What this means is that a claim such as that in the present case is dependent on tracing. Lord Millett explained all this in Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102, 128:…”