No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
The Jews have been a source of constant trouble to the judiciary of this country; but, to be fair, only for the last 350 years. Between 1066, when the first Jews to settle here came over from what is now France in the wake of the Norman Conquest, to 1290, when the Jews were expelled, Jewish issues do not appear to have concerned the judges. This discussion of judicial involvement with Jewish issues begins in 1655, when, following Menasseh ben Israel's famous initiative, two senior judges, Chief Justice Glyn and Chief Baron Steel, advised the assembly that had been summoned by Cromwell to consider the matter, that ‘there was no law which forbids the Jews’return into England’.
1 Barker v Warren (1677), 2 Mod Rep 271.Google Scholar
2 Vincent v Fernandez (1718), 1 P Wms 524.Google Scholar
3 Osborne's Case (1732), 2 Barn KB 138 at 166.Google Scholar
4 Glicksman (Pauper) v Lancaster and General Insurance Co Ltd [1926] AC 138 at 142, 143, HL.Google Scholar
5 Da Costa v Da Paz (1753), 2 Swan 487.Google Scholar
6 Isaac v Gompertz (1786), 7 Ves 61.Google Scholar
7 Re Bedford Charity (1815), 2 Swan 470.Google Scholar
8 Israel v Simmons (1818), 2 Stark 356 at 359.Google Scholar
9 Straus v Goldsmid (1837), 8 Sim 614 at 615.Google Scholar
10 Habershon v Vardon (1851), 4 De G & Sm 467 at 468.Google Scholar
11 Re Michel's Trust (1860), 28 Beav 39.Google Scholar
12 Re Braham (1892), 36 Sol Jo 712.Google Scholar
13 Keren Kayemeth Le Jisroel Ltd v Inland Revenue Comrs [1932] AC 650. HL.Google Scholar
14 Neville Estates Ltd v Madden [1962] Ch 832. [1961] 3 All ER 769.Google Scholar
15 Franks v Martin (1759), 1 Eden 309.Google Scholar
16 Lindo v Belisario (1795), 1 Hag Con 216.Google Scholar
17 Re Wilton [1900] 2 Ch 481.Google Scholar
18 Har-Shefi v Har-Shefi [1953] P 161, [1962] 2 All ER 821.Google Scholar
19 Joseph v Joseph [1953] 2 All ER 710, [1953] 1 WLR 1182, CA.Google Scholar
20 Corbett v Corbett [1957] 1 All ER 621, [1957] 1 WLR 486.Google Scholar
21 Berkovits v Grimberg [1995] Fam 142, [1995] 2 All ER 681.Google Scholar
22 Re Blaiberg [1940] 1 Ch 385, [1940] 1 All ER 632.Google Scholar
23 Clayton v Ramsden [1943] AC 320, [1943] 1 All ER 16, HL.Google Scholar
24 Re Selby's Will Trusts [1965] 3 All ER 386, [1966] 1 WLR 43.Google Scholar
25 Lord Millett, who was also engaged as Counsel in the case, has reminded me that one “beneficiary” of the testator's bounty was his non-Jewish chauffeur: but that no-body at the time realised that the testator's words might well have applied to deprive him of his legacy.Google Scholar
26 Re Abrahams' Will Trusts [1969] 1 Ch 463, [1967] 2 All ER 1175.Google Scholar
27 Re Tuck's Settlement Trusts [1976] Ch 99, [1976] 1 All ER 545 (Whitford J); [1978] Ch 49, [1978] 1 All ER 1047, CA.Google Scholar
28 Re Tepper's Will Trusts [1987] 1 Ch 358, [1987] 1 All ER 970.Google Scholar
29 Perrin v Morgan [1943] AC 399, [1943] 1 All ER 187, HL.Google Scholar
30 [1943] AC 399 at 415, [1943] 1 All ER 187 at 194, 195, HL.Google Scholar
You have
Access