How many times has [2002] AC 1 been cited?

[2002] AC 1 is cited by 3 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[2002] AC 1

· cited by 3 · 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

[2002] AC 1

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

Cited · 2Applied · 1

Cited — Ullah v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-04-03
“…ision was an abuse of process. He founded his decision on principles of finality in litigation: Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 and Johnson v Gore-Wood [2002] AC 1. It seems, as recorded in this court’s judgment on appeal, that Bean J said that it was incumbent upon the SSHD to bring forward his entire case before the AIT…”
Cited — Kaefer Aislamientos SA De CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA De CV & Ors 2019-01-17
“…[2002] AC 1…”
Applied — Fortwell Finance Ltd v Halstead & Anor 2018-03-28
“…judgment in the Dickinson case, the principle is not immutable and has to be applied in accordance with the dictum of Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co. [2002] AC 1, 31 as follows:…”