Is [2015] Ch 212 still good law?

This case has been given negative treatment in 1 later judgment(s) in this dataset (e.g. doubted or not followed), so its authority may be qualified — verify before relying on it.

How many times has [2015] Ch 212 been cited?

[2015] Ch 212 is cited by 2 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[2015] Ch 212

· cited by 2 · influence score 13/100

Is it still good law? ⚠️ This case has negative treatment (1 citation(s): e.g. doubted / not followed / overruled). Check carefully before relying on it.

How to cite

[2015] Ch 212

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

Treatment

Approved · 1Doubted · 1

Citation network

Cited by (2)

Doubted — Aria Technology Ltd v Revenue And Customs 2020-02-19
“… concerned with trust powers: Kain v Hutton [2008] NZSC 61; 11 ITELR 130, which was cited by Newey J (as he then was) in Briggs v Gleeds [2014] EWHC 1178 (Ch); [2015] Ch 212. I am doubtful whether reference to cases about trust powers is going to be helpful in the present context, where we are concerned with statutory powers and in…”
Approved — AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-02-21
“…ss of the fact that the order may have been perfected long before. I referred to what I take to be an example of this in Briggs v Gleeds [2014] EWHC 1178 (Ch), [2015] Ch 212. As I mentioned in paragraphs 116-117, Millett J appears to have excised the words “and ‘accrued’” when approving the report of In re Courage Group’s Pension S…”

Frequently cited alongside

[2014] EWHC 1178 (Ch) 2×
[1955] P 336 1×