DOCSLIB.ORG

LLB Answered Case Book

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LLB Answered Case Book SAMPLE NOTES FROM OUR LLB CASE BOOK: Equity and Trusts The Three Certainties chapter LLB Answered is a comprehensive, first-class set of exam-focused study notes for the Undergraduate Law Degree. This is a sample from one of our Case Books. We also offer dedicated Core Guides. Please visit lawanswered.com if you wish to purchase a copy. Notes for the LPC are also available via lawanswered.com. This chapter is provided by way of sample, for marketing purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. No warranties as to its contents are provided. All rights reserved. Copyright © Answered Ltd. THE THREE CERTAINTIES KEY CASES CASE FACTS PRINCIPLE A disposition was made to the Example of language which was testator’s wife “absolutely in full sufficiently clear to show certainty Comiskey v confidence that she will make use of of intention. Language is to be Bowring it as I should have”, and “at her viewed as a whole. The existence of Hanbury death she will demise to one or more precatory language (“in full of my nieces”. This was held to give [1905] confidence”) will not necessarily her a life interest and to create a prevent certainty of intention. trust. Where property is intangible and A company director purported to interchangeable the subject matter Hunter v Moss create a trust over shares. The will be sufficiently certain without the specific shares having to be [1993] shares were inter-changeable with others in their class. segregated. COMPARE with Re London Wine It was held that the trust was void IRC v A trust was set up under which for uncertainty. Payments made Broadway some, but not all, beneficiaries could from the purported trust to Cottages be identified. It was possible to charities were therefore made [1954] identify whether a given individual under a resulting trust from the was a member of the relevant class. settlor's income. A man gave a cheque to his baby saying, “I give this to baby for himself”. He then took the cheque Example of a scenario where a trust will fail because equity will not Jones v Lock back and it was found when he died. He had not created a trust for the perfect an imperfect gift. [1865] child, he had not used imperative COMPARE with Mascall v Mascall words to subject the cheque to a and Pennington v Waine legally binding obligation for the benefit of the child. 1. Sets out the requirements for a Kasperbauer v secret trust: (i) communication; (ii) A man attempted to pass on Griffiths acceptance; and (iii) reliance. property in a secret trust established [2000] in his will by referencing his 2. The testator must clearly intend prospective fiancé and saying that to establish a secret trust. Here, (continued she “knows what she has to do”. “knows what she has to do” was held overleaf) not to demonstrate sufficiently clear intention. 3 THE THREE CERTAINTIES CASE FACTS PRINCIPLE 3. States obiter that secret trusts are upheld to prevent them being used as instruments of fraud, so arguably secret trusts are constructive trusts, Kasperbauer v meaning a secret trust of land does Griffiths not need to comply with the s. (continued) 53(1)(b) formalities, as per s. 53(2) LPA 1925. COMPARE with Kasperbauer v Griffiths and Re Baillie Knight v For a valid trust to exist, the three A dispute over who inherited two Knight certainties (intention, subject castles in Downton, Herefordshire. [1840] matter and object) must be satisfied. For a discretionary trust, it is only necessary to establish whether a A discretionary trust was McPhail v person is or is not part of the class of established, and the court Doulton objects. (The individual considered whether the list test ascertainability test). The test is [1970] needed to be satisfied. whether the definitions in the settlement are conceptually clear. Morice v A trust was established to disperse A trust that offends the “beneficiary Bishop of property among “such objects of principle” (the rule that trusts must Durham benevolence as the Bishop shall have ascertainable beneficiaries) [1805] approve of”. will generally fail, as it did here. There had to be clear evidence of a A bank account was set up by the trust from what was said and done. deceased in his sole name to hold The deceased had been consistent in Paul v accident compensation. It was also what he said. Conduct can also Constance used for bingo winnings. The demonstrate intention. In this case, deceased always told his partner it sharing a bank account and using it [1977] was a shared account and money to deposit joint winnings withdrawn from it had been shared. demonstrated sufficient intention to create a trust. R v District Auditor ex A trust was created to benefit “any Where a trust is administratively parte West or some of the inhabitants of West unworkable, it will not be upheld, Yorkshire CC Yorkshire”. even if it has certainty. [1986] 4 THE THREE CERTAINTIES CASE FACTS PRINCIPLE 1. It does not defeat a trust if a person cannot prove they are not a member; it is only necessary to prove they are a member of the class. 2. Applied the “is / is not” test to the term “relative”. In this case, Stamp LJ said that the meaning of The trust established in McPhail was “relatives” should be restricted to Re Baden discussed further. Under “next of kin” so as to be evidentially consideration was whether (No. 2) certain; Sachs LJ stated that “relatives” was evidentially certain “relatives” could mean “all [1972] and so whether a discretionary trust descendants of a common requires evidential certainty. ancestor”, which is too wide for evidential certainty, but the trust was workable if a person claiming to be in the class were able to prove that they were in the class; and Megaw LJ held that if a substantial number could prove themselves to be within the class it could stand as a trust. 1. “Some useful memorial” was deemed too uncertain to satisfy certainty of object. A testator attempted to leave 2. Set out the exceptions to the money in his will to establish “some “beneficiary principle” (the rule that useful memorial to myself”. This was trusts must have ascertainable not a good charitable gift and it beneficiaries). Re Endacott failed for uncertainty. The words 3. A “memorial” did not come within [1959] created a form of trust. the exception for monuments This is an example of the equitable established in Re Hooper. The list of doctrine – “Equity looks at the exceptions is closed and narrowly intention rather than the form”. interpreted. APPLIED BY Bourne v Keane, Pettingall v Pettingall, Re Hooper and Re Thompson 1. Where a creditor has made a pre- A company established to allow payment to a company, their money customers to invest in gold was will be protected on insolvency if it wound up following a petition by a is deemed to be held on trust. Re Goldcorp creditor bank. The company did not 2. Gold bars and bullion here were [1995] have sufficient assets to cover its liabilities and had not kept gold not identifiable for each individual bullion separate so as to be able to investor, so a trust could not be identify individual owners. established. COMPARE with Re London Wine 5 THE THREE CERTAINTIES CASE FACTS PRINCIPLE A power of appointment was The trust was not void for Re created to give property to a very uncertainty. The “is / is not” test Gulbenkian’s wide class of beneficiaries including applies to powers of appointment. Settlement a wealthy businessman’s son and For any given individual it was clear Trust the son’s wife and heirs and whether they were, or were not, anybody with whom he might be [1969] within the group of beneficiaries. living, When the company went into A company was in financial difficulty liquidation it asked the bank to and was advised to set up a separate change the name on the account. trust account to accept money The question arose as to whether a Re Kayford coming in from customers. trust had been created. The court Instructions were given to the bank [1975] held that the intention was clear and which re-designated (without that it was not required that renaming) an old account for the something be labelled a “trust” for a purpose. trust to be found. Where the trust property is selected A wine company attempted to from property that is tangible, it Re London create a trust over some of the wine must be possible to identify and Wine in its cellars but failed to separate segregate the specific property intended. Otherwise, the trust will [1986] out the wine which was to form the subject of the trust. fail, as it did here. COMPARE with Hunter v Moss A £300 annuity was left by a testatrix Sprange v to her husband in a will. The will The subject matter (property and Barnard stated that whatever was left or size of share) of the trust must be whatever the husband did not want certain. It was not sufficiently [1789} was to be given to other certain here, so the trust failed. beneficiaries. Where legal and equitable title are Vandervell transferred shares to a transferred together, it is not Vandervell v trustee company which would hold necessary for the transferor to Inland the shares in favour of himself as the comply with the formalities in s. Revenue beneficiary. He then orally 53(1)(c) LPA 1925. The beneficiary of Commiss-ioner instructed the trustee company to a bare trust is able to collapse the transfer both legal and equitable trust under the rule in Saunders v [1967] title to the Royal College of Vautier.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Key Facts and Key Cases
    KEY FACTS KEY CASES Equity & Trusts 25726.indb i 18/11/2013 10:40 KEY FACTS KEY CASES The Key Facts Key Cases revision series is designed to give you a clear understanding and concise overview of the fundamental principles of your law course. The books’ chapters refl ect the most commonly taught topics, breaking the law down into bite- size sections with descriptive headings. Diagrams, tables and bullet points are used throughout to make the law easy to understand and memorise, and comprehensive case checklists are provided that show the principles and application of case law for your subject. Titles in the series: Contract Law Criminal Law English Legal System Equity & Trusts EU Law Family Law Human Rights Land Law Tort Law For a full listing of the Routledge Revision range of titles, visit www.routledge.com/law 25726.indb ii 18/11/2013 10:40 KEY FACTS KEY CASES Equity & Trusts Chris Turner and Judith Bray Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK 25726.indb iii 18/11/2013 10:40 First edition published 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 Chris Turner and Judith Bray The right of Chris Turner and Judith Bray to be identifi ed as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Proprietors of Wakatū V Attorney-General
    Identifying Identifiability Re-Assessing Certainty of Subject-matter of Trust in Light of Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General Nicholas White A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago – Te Whare Wananga o Otago October 2018 Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Professor Jessica Palmer for the invaluable time, knowledge and insight she has offered me while supervising this dissertation, for challenging me, and for always bringing me back to the big picture; To Nicola, for the constant support, and dealing with all the late nights, caffeine fuelled stress and a generally unhealthy focus on the particularities of trust law; To my friends, flatmates and family, for putting up with me through this; And to my parents, for everything. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter I: The Uncertainty in Certainty of Subject-matter ............................................................. 8 A. Certainty of Subject-Matter in Trusts......................................................................................... 8 B. The Three Conflicting Cases ...................................................................................................... 9 I. Re London Wine ...................................................................................................................... 9 II. Hunter v Moss.........................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Moffat's Trusts Law Text and Materials Seventh Edition
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-79644-6 — Moffat's Trusts Law 7th Edition Frontmatter More Information Moffat’s Trusts Law Text and Materials Seventh Edition Always the serious student’s choice for a Trusts Law textbook, the new seventh edition of Moffat’s Trusts Law once again provides a clear examination of the rules of Trusts, retaining its hallmark combination of a contextualised approach and a commercial focus. The impact of statutory developments and a wealth of new cases – including the Supreme Court and Privy Council decisions in Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, PJS v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC, Burnden Holdings v. Fielding [2018] UKSC 14, and Federal Republic of Brazil v. Durant [2015] UKPC 35 – is explored. A streamlining of the chapters on charitable Trusts, better to align the book with the typical Trusts Law course, helps students understand the new directions being taken in the areas of Trust Law and equitable remedies. Jonathan Garton is a professor of Law at the University of Warwick. His main research interests are in the law of Trusts, with a particular focus on charities. Rebecca Probert is a professor of Law at the University of Exeter. She has published widely on both modern family law and its history. Gerry Bean is a partner at DLA Piper, one of the largest global law firms, where he practices in corporate law and M&A. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-79644-6 — Moffat's Trusts Law 7th Edition Frontmatter More Information The Law in Context Series Editors: William Twining (University College London), Maksymilian Del Mar (Queen Mary, University of London) and Bronwen Morgan (University of New South Wales).
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-47308-8 — A Student's Guide to Equity and Trusts Judith Bray Frontmatter More Information A Student’s Guide to EQUITY AND TRUSTS This engaging introduction explores the key principles of equity and trusts law and offers students effective learning features. By covering the essentials of each topic, it ensures students have the foundations for successful fur- ther study. The law is made relevant to current practice through chapters that dei ne and explain key legal principles. Examples set the law in context and make the subject interesting and dynamic by showing how these rules apply in real life. Key points sections and summaries help students remember the cru- cial points of each topic, and practical exercises offer students the opportunity to apply the law. Exploring clearly and concisely the subject’s key principles, this should be every equity student’s i rst port of call. Judith Bray is Professor of Law at the University of Buckingham. She has taught property law and family law for many years, having previously quali- i ed as a barrister. She is the author of several student texts on land law and also a short casebook on equity and trusts. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-47308-8 — A Student's Guide to Equity and Trusts Judith Bray Frontmatter More Information © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-47308-8 — A Student's Guide to Equity and Trusts Judith Bray Frontmatter
    [Show full text]
  • Is Our Trust in the Court an Illusion? a Critique of the Law of Illusory Trusts Post Clayton V Clayton [2015] NZCA 30
    1 Is our Trust in the Court an illusion? A critique of the law of Illusory Trusts post Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30 Tom Ryan Alexander Gilchrist A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago. October 2015 2 Acknowledgments Firstly, to Jess. It was total luck that you were able to take me on as your last Honours student this year. If you had not been able to, I honestly have no idea what I would have done. Thank you so much for your time, your support, the occasional reminder that I had to get on and do some work, and not thinking that my wild ideas were crazy. Your guidance and support have been both incalculable and invaluable this year. Nicola – Thank you so much for instilling in me a love of Wills, Trusts and Relationship Property over three years of lectures. Thank you for the encouragement, the discussions, the laughs and the Friday night of Law Revue 2015. To Alice – I am so glad we were able to complain to each other. If we took the time we spent moaning and whining about our dissertations, we probably could have finished them by late June. To Sarah – You may be my annoying “little” sister, but I love you anyway. Thank you for being there for me when I have truly needed you. To Tom – Thank you for putting up with me and especially for putting up with all my heated phone calls about trusts. You have been the brother I never had.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2: Property, Obligations, and Trusts
    Chapter 2: Property, obligations, and trusts Equitable Title - Equitable title exists whenever equity will require the legal owner of property to hold the property for the benefit of some other person or group of persons - The trust is the particular obligation under which the legal title holder is to hold the property for the benefit of the equitable title holders The express trust - An express trust is a trust that is intentionally set up - The original legal owner is the ‘settlor’ o Can either create a trust by a ‘self-declaration’ where he would be the trustee or by transferring legal title to someone else - Where an express trust is created in writing, the document containing the terms of the trust is typically called the trust instrument Beneficial title - Note that it is incorrect to think of the outright owner of a piece of property as having both the legal and equitable title. He has the title simpliciter and per LBW in Westdeutsche, there is no equitable title at all. - Nonetheless, he will have the beneficial interest of the property. The mistake is thinking he has both a legal and an equitable title to the property. Exercising powers to create an express trust - An express trust is created when a settlor effectively exercises his powers of ownership to do so Powers - A power is the capacity to change or create rights, duties, and other powers Trusts that arise by operation of law (TABOLs) - The law only recognises capacities to create new rights, duties, or powers where the law wishes to provide a facility to do things in particular ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity and Trusts Lawcards 2012-2013
    ROUTLEDGE REVISION Lawcards 2012–2013 Equity and Trusts Equity and Trusts 2012–2013 223653.indb3653.indb i 110/20/110/20/11 5:285:28 PMPM Eighth edition published 2012 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2012 Routledge All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Cavendish Publishing Limited 1997 Seventh edition published by Routledge 2010 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978–0–415–68336–4 (pbk) ISBN: 978–0–203–29999–9 (ebk) Typeset in Rotis by Refi neCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk 23653.indb ii 10/20/11 5:28 PM Contents Table of Cases v Table of Statutes xxvii How to use this book xxxi 1 Equity and the nature and types of trust 1 2 Capacity and the three certainties 17 3 Statutory formalities 33 4 Constitution of a trust 51 5 Resulting trusts 69 6 Constructive trusts 87 7 Trusts of the family home 103 8 Charitable trusts 115 9 Non-charitable purpose trusts, trusts of imperfect obligation and unincorporated associations 141 10 Trustees and administration of the trusts 155 11 Breach of trust and remedies 189 12 Equitable remedies of injunction and specifi c performance 209 13 Putting it into practice .
    [Show full text]
  • LAWS0010 UCL Complete Notes
    1 of 44 Express Trusts generally, judges will try to uphold a trust so as to respect S’s intention: McPhail v Doulton at 450 1. establish “the three certainties”: Knight v Knight (1840) 3 Beav 148 (per Lord Langdale MR at 172-3) i. certainty of intention - S must intent to confer the benefit of rights which she holds to B, by imposing a legally biding obligation on T to hold said rights for B’s benefit. NOTE that in the case of a self-declaration, S must intend that she herself will be subject to the legally binding obligations of a trustee: Richards v Delbridge (Jessel MR) a. intention is assessed objectively (words and conduct): Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164, Challinor v Juliet Bellis & Co (a firm); b. language - generally, the courts make a distinction between the use of precatory and imperative words: Lambe v Eames (1870-71) LR 6 Ch App 597 (the property was ‘to be at her disposal in any way she may think best for the benefit of herself and her family); the former express a hope, a wish, or a moral obligation (=> gift), while the latter express a command—a duty to do something (=> power/ trust). - the word ‘confidence’ (property left in ‘full confidence’ that donee would do the right thing) may be indicative of a trust but only if the surrounding context also supports such a conclusion: Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394 - BUT the presence of precatory words will not necessarily prevent the court from finding that a trust exists, as long as it is satisfied that this was the intention of the donor: Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury (c.f.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation of Express Trusts Beneficiary Principle • for a Non
    Creation of Express Trusts Beneficiary Principle • For a non-charitable trust to be valid it must have a human beneficiary, lest it be impossible to administer (Morice v Bishop of Durham) • NB Debate on the nature of the beneficiary’s interest o See below o Crucial to application of Re Denley’s/Re Lipinski’s/Re Grant’s/Baker v Archer Shee & Archer Shee v Garland • NB Saunders v Vautier rule, and application to exhaustive discretionary trusts (Re Smith), and non-application in cases of ‘gift-over’ • Distinguish dixed trust, discretionary trust, and mere power. ‘Equally’=FT; A gift-over in default implies that initial distribution is a mere power; mandatory language implies a trust Three Certainties (Required to create an express trust- Knight v Knight) a) Certainty of Intention • S had to express an intent to create a trust by name or set of arrangements equating to trust (Re Schebsman). Precatory words alone ≠ intention e.g. request to use property for family harmony (Margulies) nor request that T ‘do what’s right’ (Re Adams & Kingston Vestry), though saying property ‘is as much yours as mine’ does (Paul v Constance) • Intent to make a gift can’t = intent to create a trust (Jones v Lock). b) Certainty of Subject Matter • Mere expectation of future property is insufficient (Re Ellenborough). • Trust property has to be distinguishable from the general mass (Re London Wine/Re Goldcorp), except for intangibles (Re Harvard Securities/ Hunter v Moss) • A trust for ‘whatever is left’ i.e. a floating charge is valid (Ottaway v Norman) despite inherent uncertainty as to what will be left.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity & Trusts Law Notes
    https://www.uninote.co.uk/vendor/kings-llb-student/ All rights reserved to the author. Equity & Trusts Law Notes Part 1 out of 2 [126 pages] Contents: Equity: Equitable Remedies, Breach of Confidence Intro to Trusts: Distinctions, Trusts and Powers The Three Certainties: Certainty of Intention, Certainty of Subject Matter, Certainty of Objects + Sample tutorial answers Trusts for a Purpose: Charitable Purpose Trusts, Private Purpose Trusts, Modern Discretionary Trusts The Beneficiary’s Interest Express Trusts: Formalities, Constitution, Express Trustees Termination and Variation Resulting Trusts + essay preparation 1 https://www.uninote.co.uk/vendor/kings-llb-student/ All rights reserved to the author. Equity Maitland (1909): Equity is the body of law that used to be administered by the court of Chancery but is now administered by courts that administer both common law and equity. Equity is defined in its historical terms. The Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875 fundamentally changed the structure of courts in England. Before the 19th century, there were many different courts, which then became reduced to only the High Court of Justice (one courts with jurisdiction over everything but had difference divisions to specialise in different things) and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 said that the court can administer both law and equity, rather than split between the Queen’s Bench division and the courts of Chancery. This was copied throughout the common law world. The Senior Courts Act 1981 s 49 provided that wherever there is any conflict between common law and equity, “the rules of equity shall prevail”. This is what allowed equity to survive as a body of law.
    [Show full text]