Kelshall v Pitt, Munroe and Bernard, ex parte Kelshall
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Date | 1971 |
| Year | 1971 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
5 cases
-
Barrington v Attorney General
...period of detention was in fact lawful as the procedures outlined in the EPR 2011 were properly followed. 24 In Kelshall v. Pitt, (1971) 19 W.I.R. 136 at 140 Malone, J. states that: “It is thus manifest that whilst the Constitution envisages that in certain circumstances a period of public......
-
Joseph et Al v Peters et Al
...be regarded as unlawful. No doubt this concession has been made in view ‘of the ruling of Malone, J. in Ke1shall v. Pitt, et al., (1971) 19 W.I.R. 136 to the effect that the Proclamation (dated 19 th October, 1971), declaring a state of emergency had not yet been made public as is required......
-
(1) Hon. Mark Brantley (in his personal capacity and as a representative of the Concerned Citizens Movement) (2) Hon. Dr. Timothy Harris (in his personal capacity and as representative of the Peoples Labour Party) (3) Hon. Sam Condor (in his personal capacity and as representative of the Peoples Labour Party) (4) Hon. Shawn Richards (in his personal capacity and as representative of the Peoples Action Movement) Applicants v (1) Constituency Boundaries Commission (being Mr. R A. Peter Jenkins, Hon. Asim Martin, Hon. Marcella Liburd, Hon. Vance Amory, and Hon. Vincent Byron) (2) Dr. Hon Denzil Douglas, Prime Minister of St. Christopher and Nevis (3) Attorney General of St. Christopher and Nevis (as Representative of His Excellency the Governor General) Respondents
...SC1". That was the first time that I had seen these documents." 6 27 Mr. Hamel-Smith submitted for the court's consideration the case of Kelshall v Pitt. 7 Learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment of Malone J in that case and invited the court to find that there was a requirement tha......
-
Re Salam
...and each paragraph of the Schedule must not be construed or fall outside of the true purport of section 11. 37 In Kelshall v. Pitt (1971), 19 W.I.R. p. 136 at p. 140 l, Malone, J., says, and I am of the same view, that:– “It is thus manifest that whilst the Constitution envisages that in ce......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
State proceedings in the Commonwealth Caribbean
...Tobago; Warner J.). 151 See e.g. Reynolds v. The A.G. of St. Christopher (St Kitts) and Nevis [!980] A.C. 637 (P.C.); Kelshall v. Pitt (1971) 19 W.I.R. 136; R. v. Minister of National Security, ex.p. Grange (1976) 24 W.I.R. 513, cases of detention under the emergency powers provisions in th......