Donald v Baldwyn

JurisdictionNew Zealand
CourtUnspecified Court (New Zealand)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
3 cases
  • Hilton v Plustitle Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 3 November 1988
    ...16 As Bingham L.J. expressed it in Antoniades: "put more shortly a sham exists where the parties say one thing intending another. Donald v. Baldwyn (1953) NZLR 313, at 321 per F.B. Adams J." 17 In the present case the judge found as a fact that it was the intention of both parties......
  • Antoniades v Villiers ; AG Securities v Vaughan
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 17 March 1988
    ...which they give the appearance of creating." 22 Put more shortly, a sham exists where the parties say one thing intending another (Donald v. Baldwyn [1953] NZLR 313, 321 per F. B. Adams J.) 23 (3) "There is no reason why, if it is possible and properly done, agreements should not ......
  • Somma v Hazelhurst
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 3 March 1978
    ...there is a tenancy the case will escape the effects of the statute." This matter was also touched upon in a New Zealand decision, Donald v Baldwyn (1953) N.Z.R. 313 at p. 321, where F.B. Adams J. in the course of his judgment said this:- "The law will not be hoodwinked by shams bu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT