Read the full judgment text of HCA 003354/1973 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. Mr. Jackson-Lipkin for the appellant (1st defendant) takes the point that the respondent (plaintiff) is not the right person to sue for the return of the money. It is contended that on this ground the 1st defendant should be given unconditional leave to defend the action. He refers to para.5 of the statement of claim which alleges that the plaintiff issued the 2 L/C's. But the 2 L/C's exhibited to the affidavit of Peter Hamlin Davies as PHD-1 and PHD-7 disclose that it was Arbuthnot Latham &