Clunge v Rentier: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|jclr|{{image|Internet Age|png|''The Golden Age of Internet'' {{vsr|1878}}}}}}<center>In the Contrarian’s Bench Division <br><br>
{{a|jclr|{{image|Internet Age|png|''The Golden Age of Internet'' {{vsr|1878}}}}}}<center>In the Contrarian’s Bench Division <br><br>
<big>{{citet|Clunge|Rentier|2022|JCLR|60}}</big></center> <br><br>
<big>{{citet|Clunge|Rentier|2022|JCLR|60}}</big></center><br><br>
2022: Oct 31 {{right|{{Cocklecarrot}}}}
October 31 2022
{{right|{{Cocklecarrot}}}}


:''Tort — Disclaimer — Financial Advice — Whether Disclaimer Disclaiming Personal Responsibility and Recommending Independent Advice applied to Itself''


:''Tort — Disclaimer — Financial Advice — Whether Disclaimer Disclaiming Personal Responsibility and Recommending Independent Advice applied to Itself ''
{{smallcaps|Motion to strike out}} proceedings brought by [[Sir Anthony Clunge, K.C.]], plaintiff, seeking damages in [[tort]] for [[negligent misstatement]] against Brandon “Chip” Rentier, defendant, relating to statements made on Social Media.
 
 
{{smallcaps|Motion to strike out}} proceedings brought by [[Sir Anthony Clunge, K.C.]], plaintiff seeking damages in [[tort]] for [[negligent misstatement]] against Brandon “Chip” Rentier, defendant, relating to statements made on Social Media.
 


Dame Marjorie Wrigley, K.C. for the appellant <br>
Dame Marjorie Wrigley, K.C. for the appellant <br>
{{jerrold}}, for the respondent <br>
{{jerrold}}, for the respondent <br>


{{right|(''Cur adv. vult)''}}
{{right|(''Cur adv. vult)''}}

Navigation menu