DOCSLIB.ORG

6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts View Online 1. Mitchell, C., Hayton, D. J., Hayton, D. J., Marshall, O. R. & Marshall, O. R. Hayton and Mitchell commentary and cases on the law of trusts and equitable remedies. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2010). 2. Penner, J. E. The law of trusts. vol. Core text series (Oxford University Press, 2014). 3. Penner, J. E. The law of trusts. vol. Core text series (Oxford University Press, 2012). 4. Mitchell, C., Hayton, D. J., Hayton, D. J., Marshall, O. R. & Marshall, O. R. Hayton and Mitchell commentary and cases on the law of trusts and equitable remedies. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2010). 5. Senior Courts Act 1981. 6. Judicature Acts 1873-1875. 1/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 7. Mason, Anthony. Equity’s Role in the Twentieth Century. King’s College Law Journal 8, (1997). 8. Mitchell, C., Hayton, D. J., Hayton, D. J., Marshall, O. R. & Marshall, O. R. Hayton and Mitchell commentary and cases on the law of trusts and equitable remedies. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2010). 9. Andrew Burrows. We Do This at Common Law but That in Equity. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22, 1–16 (2002). 10. Smith, L. Fusion and Tradition. in Equity in commercial law (Lawbook Co, 2005). 11. Penner, J. E. The law of trusts. vol. Core text series (Oxford University Press, 2012). 12. Mitchell, C., Hayton, D. J., Hayton, D. J., Marshall, O. R. & Marshall, O. R. Hayton and Mitchell commentary and cases on the law of trusts and equitable remedies. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2010). 13. Paul v Constance [1977] 1 W.L.R. 527. 14. Re Adams & Kensington Vestry [1884] LR 27 ChD 394. 2/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 15. Lambe v Eames (1870-71) L.R. 6 Ch. App. 597. 16. Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] A.C. 84. 17. Associated Alloys v ACN [2000] CLR 588. 18. Re Golay’s Will Trusts [1965] 1 W.L.R. 969. 19. London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd [1986] PCC 121. 20. Hunter v Moss [1994] 1 W.L.R. 452. 21. Re Goldcorp Exchange [1994] 3 W.L.R. 199. 22. Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1995. 23. 3/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London Pearson v Lehman Brothers Finance [2010] EWHC 2914. 24. Inland Revenue Commission v Broadway Cottages Trust [1955] Ch. 20. 25. Re Gestetner Settlement [1932] Ch. 672. 26. Re Gulbenkian’s Settlement (No. 1) [1970 ] AC 508. 27. McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424. 28. Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No. 2) [1973] Ch. 9. 29. ex parte West Yorks Metropolitcal City Council [1986] RVR 24. 30. Re Manisty’s Settlement [1974] Ch 17. 31. Re Hay’s Settlement Trust [1982] 1 W.L.R. 202. 4/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 32. Re Allen [1953] Ch 810. 33. Re Barlow’s Will Trusts [1979] 1 W.L.R. 278. 34. Re Coxen [1948] Ch. 747. 35. Re Tuck’s Settlement Trusts [1978] Ch 49. 36. Mitchell, C., Hayton, D. J., Hayton, D. J., Marshall, O. R. & Marshall, O. R. Hayton and Mitchell commentary and cases on the law of trusts and equitable remedies. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2010). 37. Penner, J. E. The law of trusts. vol. Core text series (Oxford University Press, 2012). 38. Saunders v Vautier (1841). 39. Stephenson v Barclays Bank [1975] 1 W.L.R. 882. 40. 5/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) 9 Vesey Junior 399. 41. In Re Dean [1889] 41 Ch D 552. 42. Re Endacott [1960] Ch 252. 43. Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch 373. 44. Re Sanderson’s Trust (1857) 3 Kay and Johnson 497. 45. Re Bowes [1896] 1 Ch 607. 46. Re Osoba [1979] 1 W.L.R. 247. 47. Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009. 48. Re Hooper [1932] 1 Ch 240. 6/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 49. Penner, J. E. The law of trusts. vol. Core text series (Oxford University Press, 2012). 50. Mitchell, C., Hayton, D. J., Hayton, D. J., Marshall, O. R. & Marshall, O. R. Hayton and Mitchell commentary and cases on the law of trusts and equitable remedies. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2010). 51. Leahv v Attorney General for New South Wales [1959] 2 W.L.R. 722. 52. Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell [1982] 2 All ER 1. 53. National Anti-Vivisection Society v Inland Revenue Commission [1948] A.C. 31. 54. Neville Estates Ltd v Madden [1962] Ch 832. 55. Re Recher’s Will Trusts [1972] Ch 526. 56. Re Lipinski’s Will Trusts [1976] Ch 235. 57. 7/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London Re Grant’s Will Trusts [1979] 3 All ER 359. 58. Re West Sussex Constabulary’s Widows, Children and Benevolent Fund Trusts [1971] Ch 1. 59. Re Bucks Constabulary Widows Friendly Society [1979] 1 W.L.R. 936. 60. Re Horley Town Football Club [2006] EWHC 2386 (Ch). 61. Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General [2009] Ch. 173. 62. Philippe v Cameron (St. Andrew’s Lawn Tennis Club) [2012] EWHC 1040 (Ch). 63. Wills Act 1837. 64. Penner, J. E. The law of trusts. vol. Core text series (Oxford University Press, 2012). 65. Mitchell, C., Hayton, D. J., Hayton, D. J., Marshall, O. R. & Marshall, O. R. Hayton and Mitchell commentary and cases on the law of trusts and equitable remedies. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2010). 8/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 66. Baird v Baird [1990] 2 AC 548. 67. Law of Property Act 1925. 68. Gardner v Rowe (1828) 5 Russell 258. 69. Paul v Constance [1977] 1 W.L.R. 527. 70. Rochefoucauld v Boustead [1897] 1 Ch 196. 71. Bannister v Bannister [1948] 2 All ER 133. 72. Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892. 73. Halley v Law Society [2003] EWCA Civ 97. 74. 9/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London Grey v Inland Revenue Commission [1960] A.C. 1. 75. Re Lashmar [1891] 1 Ch 258. 76. Re Tout & Finch [1954] 1 W.L.R. 178. 77. Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commission [1967] 2 W.L.R. 87. 78. Re Vandervell (No. 2) [1974] Ch 269. 79. Penner, J. E. The law of trusts. vol. Core text series (Oxford University Press, 2012). 80. Mitchell, C., Hayton, D. J., Hayton, D. J., Marshall, O. R. & Marshall, O. R. Hayton and Mitchell commentary and cases on the law of trusts and equitable remedies. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2010). 81. Law of Property Act 1925. 82. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. 10/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 83. Bills of Exchange Act 1882. 84. Companies Act 2006. 85. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. 86. Paul v Constance [1977] 1 W.L.R. 527. 87. Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De Gex, Fisher & Jones 264. 88. Richards v Delbridge [1874] LR 18 Eq 11. 89. Re Rose [1952] Ch 499. 90. Mascall v Mascall [1984] EWCA Civ 10. 91. 11/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London Corin v Patton [1990] HCA 12; (1990) 169 CLR 540. 92. T Choithram International SA v Pagarani [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1. 93. Pennington v Waine [2002] EWCA Civ 227. 94. Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159. in (Westlaw). 95. Re James [1935] Ch. 449. 96. Re Stewart [1908] 2 Ch 251. 97. Re Gonin [1979] Ch 16. 98. Re Brooks’ Settlement Trusts [1939] 1 Ch 993. 99. Re Ralli’s Will Trusts [1964] Ch 288. 12/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 100. Penner, J. E. The law of trusts. vol. Core text series (Oxford University Press, 2012). 101. Mitchell, C., Hayton, D. J., Hayton, D. J., Marshall, O. R. & Marshall, O. R. Hayton and Mitchell commentary and cases on the law of trusts and equitable remedies. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2010). 102. Trustee Act 2000. 103. The Charitable Corporation v Sutton (1742) 26 ER 642. 104. Speight v Gaunt (1883) 9 App. Cas. 1. 105. Learoyd v Whiteley (1887) 12 App. Cas. 727. 106. Nestle v National Westminster Bank [1992] EWCA Civ 12. 107. Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1. 108. 13/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London Trustee Act 1925. 109. Trustee Act 2000. 110. Law Commission. Trustees’ Powers & Duties. (1999). 111. Trustee Investments Act 1961. 112. Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch 270. 113. Harries v The Church Commissioners for England [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1241. 114. Trustee Act 2000. 115. Law Commission. Fiduciary Duties of Investment Intermediaries. (2014). 116. Kirby v Wilkins [1929] Ch 444. 14/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 117. Butt v Kelson & Ors [1952] Ch 197. 118. In re Lucking’s Will Trusts [1968] 1 W.L.R. 866. 119. Bartlett v Barclay’s Bank Trust Co Ltd. [1980] Ch 515. 120. Stewardship Code. (2010). 121. Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241. 122. Baker v JE Clark & Co (Transport) UK Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 464. 123. Law Commission. Trustee Exemption Clauses. (2006). 124. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. 125. Trustee Act 1925. 15/36 09/25/21 6FFLK003: Law of Trusts | King's College London 126. Penner, J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advanced Equity and Trusts
    ADVANCED EQUITY AND TRUSTS University of London LLM The course is led by: Professor Alastair Hudson Professor of Equity & Law Department of Law, Queen Mary, University of London 2006/2007 1 www.alastairhudson.com | © professor alastair hudson Advanced Equity and Trusts Law Introduction This course intends to focus on aspects of equity and trusts in two specific contexts: commerce and the home. It will advance novel conceptual approaches to two significant arenas in which equitable doctrines like the trust are deployed. In the context of commercial activity the course will consider the manner in which discretionary equitable doctrines are avoided but also the significant role which the law of trusts plays nevertheless in commercial and financial activity. In the context of the home to consider the various legal norms which coalesce in the treatment of the home: whether in equitable estoppel, trusts implied by law, family law, human rights law and housing law. Teaching Organised over three terms, 2 hours per week, comprising a lecture in the first week followed, generally, by a seminar in the following week as a cycle. See, however, the three introductory topics which are dealt with differently. Examination / assessment Examination will be by one open-book examination which will ask students to attempt three questions in three hours. Textbooks It is suggested that you acquire a textbook and you may find it useful to acquire a cases and materials book, particularly if you have not studied English law before. Recommended general text:- *Alastair Hudson: Equity and Trusts (4th ed.: Cavendish Publishing 2005). Other textbooks:- Hanbury and Martin: Modern Equity (17th ed., by Dr J.
    [Show full text]
  • Institute of Legal Executives Level 6
    Subject 38 INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EXECUTIVES LEVEL 6 - EQUITY & TRUSTS EXAMINER’S REPORT – AUTUMN 2009 Introduction The primary aim of this report is to do the following: • comments on overall performance by candidates in the Autumn 2009 Equity and Trusts examination; • advises on how performance might be improved; • indicates what should be contained in successful answers to the questions in the examination paper; • provides comment on performance in individual questions. • this is the final Equity and Trusts examination paper under the Level 6 Professional Higher Diploma in Law. If candidates have failed then they should consider sitting Equity and Trusts on the new Level 6 Professional Higher Diploma in Law and Practice. Information is available on the ILEX website at [email protected] Comment on Overall Performance This is a Level 6 paper and was, consequently, appropriately demanding. Successful candidates are therefore to be congratulated. The most common weaknesses were: 1. Poor legal problem solving skills; 2. Lack of adequate skills for tackling essay questions; 3. Poor structure and inadequate understanding of how to use the law to answer questions; 4. Lack of knowledge of the law of Equity and Trusts. Poor Legal Problem Solving Skills Common weaknesses included: failure to identify all the key issues raised by the problem questions; failure to identify the particular principles of law relevant to the problems; failure to state the law accurately and cite cases appropriately; failure to apply the law to the facts of problem questions in an appropriate manner or (in the case of a few candidates) to apply it to the facts at all.
    [Show full text]
  • The Overlapping of Legal Concepts a Legal Realist Approach to the Classification of Private Law
    THE OVERLAPPING OF LEGAL CONCEPTS A LEGAL REALIST APPROACH TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW by DAVID SALMONS A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Birmingham Law School College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham Summer 2011 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT The main aim of this research is two-fold; firstly, these chapters will seek to demonstrate the unreliability of theoretical or abstract approaches to legal reasoning in describing the law. Secondly, rather than merely providing a deconstruction of previous attempts to classify private law, the chapters attempt to construct an overlapping approach to classification. This represents a new way of classifying private law, which builds on the foundations of the lessons of legal realism and explains how classification can accommodate overlaps to assist in identifying the core elements of private law reasoning. Following the realist tradition, the thesis argues for narrower formulations of the concepts of property, contract and tort. It is then argued that within these narrower concepts, the law is made more predictable and clearer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trust up and Running
    10 The trust up and running SUMMARY The duty of investment The Trustee Act 2000 The standard of prudence in making trust investments ‘Social’ or ‘ethical’ investing The delegation of trustee functions The power of maintenance The power of advancement Appointment, retirement, and removal of trustees Custodian, nominee, managing, and judicial trustees Bene" ciaries’ rights to information Variation of trusts 10.1 Trustees, as legal owners of the trust property, have all the rights and powers to deal with the trust property as would any other legal owner, although they must, of course, exercise these rights and powers solely in the interest of the benefi ciaries. Because they are trustees, however, they have further particular powers and duties arising from their offi ce, traditionally the most important of which are the duty of investment and the powers of maintenance and advancement. 110-Penner-Chap10.indd0-Penner-Chap10.indd 227272 55/29/2008/29/2008 111:03:521:03:52 PPMM The duty of investment | 273 e duty of investment 10.2 e duty of investment has two main aspects: (1) a duty to invest the trust property so as to be ‘even-handed’ between the diff erent classes of benefi ciary; and (2) a duty to invest so that the fund is preserved from risk yet a reasonable return on capital is made. Even-handedness between the benefi ciaries 10.3 In many trusts the benefi t of the property is divided between income and capi- tal benefi ciaries (3.19). In legal terms, income is whatever property actually arises as a separate payment as a result of holding the capital property.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Trusts and Equity
    Queen Mary, University of London School of Law LAW OF PROPERTY III EQUITY, TRUSTS & RESTITUTION Seminar Materials 2009/2010 1 Equity, Trusts & Restitution Law of Property III Seminar Outlines 2009/2010 The structure of this module The first seminars will be held in rotation starting from weeks 3 and 4 of the winter semester. Seminars are bi-weekly. Students must read chapters 1 and 2 in Hudson‟s Equity & Trusts or a similar textbook by way of introduction to this topic before the first seminar. This module is structured so that these materials will be covered in lectures before students are required to consider them for seminars. The following 11 seminars will form the basis of the module. Seminar Title Date, depending on your No. group, week commencing 1 Introduction, certainty of intention & 12 October / 19 October certainty of subject matter 2 Certainty of objects 26 October / 2 November 3 The beneficiary principle 16 November / 23 Nov. 4 The constitution of trusts 30 November / 7 Dec. 5 Duties of trustees and breach of trust 14 December / 11 Jan. 6 Quistclose trusts 18 January / 25 Jan. 7 Trusts of homes 1 Feb. / 8 Feb. 8 Constructive trusts 15 February / 1 Mar. 9 Dishonest assistance and knowing receipt 8 March / 15 March 10 Tracing 22 March / 29 March 11 Unjust enrichment *Date to be arranged* NB: Weeks commencing 9 November and 22 February are reading weeks so there are no seminars in those weeks – hence the chronological gaps in the schedule above. What to read for this module This document is simply made up of the questions which you will consider for the larger part of your seminars – all of the reading is set out in the Lecture Course Documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Level 6 - Unit 5 – Equity & Trusts Suggested Answers – January 2011
    LEVEL 6 - UNIT 5 – EQUITY & TRUSTS SUGGESTED ANSWERS – JANUARY 2011 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should have included in their answers to the January 2011 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which students may have included in their responses to the questions. Students will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Students and tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ reports which provide feedback on student performance in the examination. SECTION A 1(a) A decree of specific performance is a court order instructing a party to a contract to perform their obligations under that contract. Failure to comply is contempt of court. It is a precondition of a decree of specific performance that the remedy at law is inadequate. That remedy is generally damages. This is consistent with the role of equity within our legal system, as it developed to provide remedies for those who could not receive the assistance they required through the common law courts. Whether damages are an adequate remedy will depend on the subject matter of the contract. If a contract is for the sale and purchase of an item that is unique, no amount of damages will be able to make up for the fact that the purchaser will no longer receive the item they contracted for.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Equity Reading Lists 2020-2021
    1 EQUITY READING LISTS 2020-2021 Plan of reading lists 1. Declaring a trust 2. Trusts for non-charitable purposes 3. Charitable trusts 4. Failures to create a trust and resulting trusts 5. Fiduciaries and fiduciary liabilities 6. The powers, duties and control of trustees 7. Responses to a breach of trust (1): personal liabilities 8. Responses to a breach of trust (2): proprietary claims Books On the reading lists, I will be referring to: Webb & Akkouh, Trusts Law, 5th ed (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) (‘Webb’ on the reading lists). This is my favourite of the available textbooks, but is on the short side. This at least gives it the virtue of brevity – but it does mean that it also doesn’t cover the law in enough detail for your purposes. So I will also be referring to: Davies & Virgo, Equity and Trusts: Text, Cases and Materials, 3rd ed (OUP, 2019) (‘D&V’ on the reading lists). You will also need an up-to-date, and unmarked, copy of Blackstone’s Statutes on Property Law (last year’s version, from Land Law, will be fine). Cases The reading lists will refer you to a number of key cases – you will be expected to read them. But having read them, don’t stop there. Use them as the basis for deepening your knowledge of the law by going onto Westlaw, looking them up, and then on the menu on the left, click on ‘Key cases citing’ and ‘Journal articles’ to see whether there are any recent cases that have anything interesting to say about the key cases to which I have referred you, and to see whether there are any interesting casenotes or articles in legal journals on those cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Text, Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts
    TEXT, CASES AND MATERIALS ON EQUITY AND TRUSTS Fourth Edition Text, Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts has been considerably revised to broaden the focus of the text in line with most LLB core courses to encompass equity, remedies and injunctions and to take account of recent major statutory and case law developments. The new edition features increased pedagogical support to outline key points and principles and improve navigation; ‘notes’ to encourage students to reflect on areas of complexity or controversy; and self-test questions to consolidate learning at the end of each chapter. New to this edition: • Detailed examination of The Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Charities Act 2006. • Important case law developments such as Stack v Dowden (constructive trusts and family assets), Oxley v Hiscock (quantification of family assets), Barlow Clowes v Eurotrust (review of the test for dishonesty), Abou-Ramah v Abacha (dishonest assistance and change of position defence), AG for Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (review of the test for dishonesty), Re Horley Town Football Club (gifts to unincorporated association), Re Loftus (defences of limitation, estoppel and laches), Templeton Insurance v Penningtons Solicitors (Quistclose trust and damages), Sempra Metals Ltd v HM Comm of Inland Revenue (compound interest on restitution claims) and many more. • New chapters on the equitable remedies of specific performance, injunctions, rectification, rescission and account. • Now incorporates extracts from the Law Commission’s Reports and consultation papers on ‘Sharing Homes’ and ‘Trustee Exemption Clauses’ as well as key academic literature and debates. The structure and style of previous editions have been retained, with an emphasis on introduc- tory text and case extracts of sufficient length to allow students to develop analytical and critical skills in reading legal judgments.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation of Express Trusts Capacity
    Creation of Express Trusts Capacity - ‘Legal competency or qualification’ - Two common exclusions = poor mental health, infancy - S1(6) LPA 1925: a minor cannot hold a legal estate in land (so cannot create a trust of land). THE THREE CERTAINTIES - Knight v Knight: Lord Langdale: for an express trust to be created the settlor must express 3 things with certainty. o Certainty of intention o Certainty of subject matter o Certainty of objects Certainty of Intention - Did settlor intend to subject the property to a trust obligation? - Two ways in which a trust can be created: o The settlor declares himself trustee of property that he already owns; o Settlor transfers property to another person directing that they hold it on trust for the beneficiary. - Has the settlor done enough to make clear his intention? - Re Kayford Ltd – Megarry LJ: ‘a trust can be created without using the words “trust” or “confidence” or the like; the question is whether in substance a sufficient intention to create a trust has been manifested’. - Company opened separate account, ‘Customer’s Trust deposit Account’ to pay in money received for goods not yet delivered, withdrawing the money only if goods were later delivered – so they could refund customers if goods not supplied (if company went into liquidation). - Held: trust had been created. - Paul v Constance: C separate from his wife + lived with P. A number of times C told P that the money was as much hers as his. o C died intestate + as he had not divorced his wife, wife was entitled to all of his estate.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Examiners' Evaluation Report Form
    Chief Examiner’s Report The purpose of the report is to provide feedback to centres and students on the students’ performance in the examination with recommendations about how any issues identified may be addressed. The target audience for this report are centre tutors and students. The report should be read in conjunction with the Suggested Answers for the examination. Unit Name: Level 6 - Unit 5 - Equity and Trusts Exam Session: JANUARY 2016 STUDENT PERFORMANCE OVERALL Overall the standard was comparable with previous cohorts. Strong candidates displayed a thorough knowledge of the subject, strong analytical skills together with the ability to apply the law and construct a legal argument. Three of the nineteen candidates, who sat the examination, attained merits and are to be congratulated on the quality of their answers. The most popular essay was A1. The most popular problem questions were B1 and B3. All candidates appeared to manage their time well and finished the paper. In the lower range, students attempted questions where they had insufficient knowledge of all the relevant aspects to gain a good mark. Some questions covered material taken from more than one unit which exposed those students who had been selective with their revision. Unsuccessful candidates also produced vague answers which failed to explain and analyse the relevant law sufficiently. Section A In this examination, students’ performance on the essays was comparable with their performance on the problem questions. Very good answers to the essay questions displayed a sound knowledge and understanding of the subject area, the ability to analyse the question and identify what it was asking candidates to discuss, together with the skill of constructing a strong legal argument supported by authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Quistclose Trusts: Theory and Context
    Durham E-Theses Quistdose trusts: theory and context Glister, James Alexander How to cite: Glister, James Alexander (2003) Quistdose trusts: theory and context, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4092/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Quistclose Trusts: Theory and Context James Alexander Glister Department of Law University of Durham Master of Jurisprudence September 2003 A copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. ] 9 JAN * © The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without their prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. ABSTRACT Commonly employed in corporate rescue situations, the Quistclose trust (from Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567) is a device that enables an investor to advance funds to a troubled company to be used for a specific purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Law in Theory and Practice
    Private Law in Theory and Practice Private Law in Theory and Practice explores important theoretical issues in tort law, the law of contract and the law of unjust enrichment, and relates the theory to judicial decision making in these areas of private law. Topics covered include the politics and philosophy of tort law reform, the role of good faith in contract law, comparative perspectives on setting aside con- tracts for mistake, and the theory and practice of proprietary remedies in the law of unjust enrichment. Contributors to the book bring a variety of theoretical perspectives to bear on the analysis of private law. They include: economic analysis, corrective justice theory, comparative analysis of law, socio-legal inquiry, social history, political theory as well as doctrinal analysis of the law. In all cases the theor- etical approaches are applied to recent case law developments in England, Australia and Canada, and, in the case of tort law, proposals in all these jurisdictions to reform the law. The book aims to present the theory of private law, and the application of theory to practical legal problems in an accessible form to teachers and students of tort, contract and the law of unjust enrichment, legal researchers and law reformers. Michael Bryan is Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne. He has researched and published extensively in the areas of equity, trusts and restitu- tion, including The Law of Non-Disclosure (with A. Duggan and F. Hanks: Longman, 1995) and contributed a chapter to The Law of Obligations: Connections and Boundaries (UCL Press, 2003).
    [Show full text]