DOCSLIB.ORG

Equity and Trusts Lawcards 2012-2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 . 219 iii 23653_01_FM-ch08.indd iii 10/22/11 5:18 PM 223653.indb3653.indb iviv 110/20/110/20/11 5:285:28 PMPM Table of Cases Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53 110 Abergavenny v Ram [1982] 178 Abou-Rahmah v Abacha [2006] EWCA Civ 1492 97 Abrahams v Trustee in Bankruptcy of Abrahams [1999] 72 Abrahams v Trustees of the Property of Abrahams [1999] 74 Adams and Kensington Vestry, Re [1884] Ch D 394 20 Agip (Africa) v Jackson [1992] 94, 95, 99 AG Cayman Island v Even Wahr-Hansen [2001] 132, 137 AG v Day [1900] 123 AG v Jacobs-Smith [1895] 60 AG for Hong Kong v Reid [1993] 3 WLR 1143 93 AG v Margaret and Regius Professors in Cambridge [1682] 120 AG v National Provincial Bank [1924] 133 AG v Observer Ltd [1990] AC 109 212 AG v Ross [1986] 121 Air Jamaica v Charlton [1999] 82 Aldhous, Re [1955] 173 Allen, Re [1953] Ch 810 30 Allied Dunbar v Fowler [1994] 37, 42 American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 214 Ames’ Settlement, Re [1946] Ch 217 81 Andrew’s Trust, Re [1905] 81 Anker-Petersen v Anker-Petersen [1991] WTLR 581 183 Anthony v Donges [1998] 22 Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] 215 2 WLR 162 Armitage v Nurse [1998] 3 WLR 1046 197 ARMS Ltd, Re [1997] 136 v 223653.indb3653.indb v 110/20/110/20/11 5:285:28 PMPM TABLE OF CASES Arogundade v Arogundade [2005] EWHC 1766 107 Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] 89 Astor’s Settlement Trust, Re [1952] Ch 534 7, 25, 142 Baden Delvaux v Société Générale [1983] 1 WLR 509 96 Baden (No 2), Re 27, 30 Bahin v Hughes [1886] 31 Ch D 390 192 Baillie, Re [1886] 50 Bain, Re [1930] 123 Baldry v Feintuck [1972] 121 Banfi eld, Re [1968] 123, 139 Bannister v Bannister [1948] 35, 43 Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments [1970] AC 56 82 Barker, Re [1898] 197 Barker’s WT, Re [1948] 123 Barlow v Grant [1684] 1 Vern 255 179 Barlow Clowes and Russell-Cooke Trust Company v 207 Prentis [2003] Barlow Clowes v Vaughan [1992] 4 All ER 22 207 Barlow Clowes International Ltd (in Liquidation) v 97 Eurotrust International Ltd [2006] Barlow’s Will Trusts, Re [1979] 1 WLR 278 26, 30 Barnes, Re [1930] 122 Barnes v Addy [1874] LR 9 Ch App 244 95, 96 Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co [1980] Ch 515 165, 194 Bateman’s WT, Re [1970] 47 BCCI v Akindele [2000] 4 All ER 221 100 Beale’s Settlement Trust, Re [1932] 2 Ch 15 183 Beaumont, Re [1902] 63 Beckford v Beckford [1774] 74 Belcher, Ex p [1754] 179 Bell’s Indenture, Re [1980] 193 Belmont Finance v Williams Furniture (No 2) [1980] 194 Beloved Wilkes Charity, Re [1851] 163 Benjamin, Re [1902] 173 Bennet v Bennet [1879] 74 Bennet, Re [1920] 133 vi 223653.indb3653.indb vivi 110/20/110/20/11 5:285:28 PMPM TABLE OF CASES Best, Re [1904] 133 Besterman’s WT, Re [1980] 120 Binions v Evans [1972] Ch 359 88 Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] 64 Birmingham v Renfrew [1937] 23 Birmingham Mosque Trust v Alavi [1992] 124 Biscoe v Jackson [1887] 35 Ch D 640 119, 135 Bishopsgate Investment Management v Homan [1994] 205 Biss, Re [1903] 92 Blackwell v Blackwell [1929] AC 318 46, 48 Blackwell, Re [1925] AC 318 48 Blair v Duncan [1902] 133 Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 92, 166, 167 Bogg v Raper [1998] 198 Boles, Re [1902] 169 Bonham v Fishwick [2008] EWCA Civ 373 198 Booth v Booth [1838] 196 Boscawen v Bajwa [1995] 202, 206 Bourne v Keane [1919] AC 815 143 Bowden, Re [1936] 52 Box v Barclays Bank [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 185 201, 206 Boyce v Boyce [1849] 16 Sim 476 24 Boyes, Re [1884] 26 Ch D 531 45 Bradbury v Hoolin [1998] NPC 87 75 Bray v Ford [1896] 91, 166, 168 Brinks Ltd v Abu-Saleh [1995] 96 Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew [1996] Ch 1 91 Bristol & West Building Society v Pritchard [1994] 35 British Museum Trustees v White [1826] 2 Sim & 121 St 594 Brogden, Re [1888] 190 Brook, Re [1939] 59 Brown v Burdett [1882] 142 Brown v Gould [1972] 26 Brown v Porau [1995] 50 Brown v Smith [1878] 190 Buck, Re [1896] 128 vii 223653.indb3653.indb viivii 110/20/110/20/11 5:285:28 PMPM TABLE OF CASES Bucks Constabulary Widows’ and Orphans’ Fund Friendly 82, 152, 153 Society, Re (No 2) [1979] 1 WLR 936 Bull v Bull [1955] 72 Bullmer Ltd v Bollinger [1977] 212 Burns v Burns [1984] 2 WLR 582 108, 110 Burrough v Philcox [1840] 13, 29 Burton’s Charity, Re [1938] 134 Bushnell, Re [1975] 121 Butlin’s ST, Re [1976] 164 Buttle v Saunders [1950] 2 All ER 193 168, 171 Byrchall v Bradford [1822] 193 Caffoor v Income Tax Commissioner Colombo [1961] 129 AC 584 Cain v Moon [1896] 63 Cannon v Hartley [1949] Ch 213 60 Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Smith (No 2) [1969] 88 Carreras Rothman v Freeman Mathews Treasure [1985] 82 Caus, Re [1934] 123 Chaplin, Re [1933] 139 Chapman, Re [1896] 2 Ch 763 171 Chapman v Chapman [1954] AC 429 182 Charles v Fraser [2010] EWHC 2154 101 Chase Manhattan Bank v Israel-British Bank [1979] 202 3 All ER 1025 Chettiar v Chettiar [1962] 76 Chichester Diocesan Fund v Simpson [1944] 137 Childers v Childers [1857] 35 Chillingworth v Chambers [1896] 191, 196 Chinn v Collins [1981] 41 Choithram v Pagarani [2001] 1 WLR 1 55, 220, 221, 223 Commissioners for Special Purpose of Income Tax v 117 Pemsel [1891] CL, Re [1969] 184, 185 Clark v Clark [1884] 169 Clark v Manjot [1998] 73 Clayton’s Case [1816] All ER Rep 1 207 viii 223653.indb3653.indb viiiviii 110/20/110/20/11 5:285:28 PMPM TABLE OF CASES Cleaver, Re [1981] 23, 49, 100 Clergy Society, Re [1856] 123 Clitheroe, Re [1959] 185 Clough v Kiley [1996] 108 Clout v Frewer [1924] 161 Cochrane, Re [1955] 81 Cockerell’s ST, Re [1956] 183 Cohen, Re [1973] 128 Cole, Re [1964] 54 Coles v Trecothick [1804] 169 Colin Cooper, Re [1939] 45 Collier v Calvert [1994] 58 Collins, Re [1886] 176, 182 Columbia Picture Industries Inc v Robinson [1987] Ch 38 216 Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84 20 Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft v IMB Morgan [2004] 207 Compton, Re [1945] 1 All ER 198 129 Connolly, Re [1910] 20 Conservative and Unionist Central Offi ce v Burrell [1982] 145 1 WLR 522 Cook, Re [1965] 61, 224 Cooke v Head [1972] 88, 108 Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores 216 (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC1 Coomber, Re [1911] 91 Coulthurst, Re [1951] 119 Cowan v Scargill [1985] 3 WLR 501 172 Cowcher v Cowcher [1972] 73, 107 Coxen, Re [1948] Ch 747 29, 133 Crabb v Crabb [1834] 74 Cradock v Piper [1850] 1 Mac & G 664 164 Crane v Davis [1981] 72 Crown Dilmun Ltd v Sutton and another [2004] 92 Cunnack v Edwards [1896] 2 Ch 679 82 Curley v Parkes [2004] EWCA Civ. 1515 107 Curtis v Rippon [1820] 23 ix 223653.indb3653.indb ixix 110/20/110/20/11 5:285:28 PMPM TABLE OF CASES D (a child) v O [2004] 184 Dale, Re [1993] 49 Dale, Re (deceased) [1994] Ch 31 101 Dance v Goldingham [1873] 190 D’Angibau, Re [1880] 60 Danish Bacon Co, Re [1971] 37, 42 Daraydan Holdings v Solland Interiors [2004] 93 Darling, Re [1896] 123 Davis v Hardwick [1999] 81 Davis v Richards and Wallington Industries [1990] 82, 153 De Clifford, Re [1900] 197 Dean, Re [1889] 41 Ch D 552 7, 143 Dean’s WT, Re [1950] 139 Delany, Re [1902] 127 Delius, Re [1957] 121 Delves v Gray [1902] 169 Denley’s Trust Deed, Re [1969] 1 Ch 373 143 De Visme, Re [1863] 74 Dewar v Dewar [1975] 72 Dhingra v Dhingra [1999] 21 DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets LBC [1976] 41 1 WLR 852 Diggles, Re [1888] 20 Dillwyn v Llewellyn [1862] 4 De Gf & J 517 65 Dimes v Scott [1828] 194 Dingle v Turner [1972] 127, 128, 129, 131 Diplock, Re [1941] Ch 465 8, 94, 133, 172, 202, 208 Diwell v Farnes [1959] 74 Dodkin v Brunt [1868] 157 Dominion Student’s Hall Trust, Re [1947] 134 Dougan v MacPherson [1902] 169 Douglas v Hello Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 595 215 Downshire’s Settled Estates, Re [1953] 184 Drake v Whipp [1996] 1 FLR 826 109 Driffi ll, Re [1949] 126 x 223653.indb3653.indb x 110/20/110/20/11 5:285:28 PMPM TABLE OF CASES Druce’s ST, Re [1962] 185 Duke of Norfolk’s ST, Re [1981]
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 Execution of a Trust Shall Be Under the Control of the Court” : a Maxim in Modern Times
    This is a repository copy of “The execution of a trust shall be under the control of the court” : A Maxim in Modern Times. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/88217/ Version: Published Version Article: Nolan, Richard orcid.org/0000-0002-7134-5124 (2016) “The execution of a trust shall be under the control of the court” : A Maxim in Modern Times. Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law. pp. 469-496. ISSN 2368-4046 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ (2016) 2(2) CJCCL 469 “e execution of a trust shall be under the control of the court”: A Maxim in Modern Times Richard C Nolan* This article examines the ancient, well attested, but largely unexamined, inherent jurisdiction of the court to supervise, and if necessary administer and execute, any trust. It considers the modern and inventive use of this jurisdiction, and its vital role in the juridication of innovative trust practice.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Equity Notes
    THREE CERTAINITIES • An express trust must be certain in three (3) distinct respects (Knight v Knight (1840)): 1) Certainty of intention: settlor must have intended to create a trust of the property as opposed to making a gift or lending it to another; 2) Certainty of subject-matter: property must be specified with reasonable certainty; 3) Certainty of objects: the beneficiaries of trust must be sufficiently identifiable. • Charitable trusts are not required to satisfy the requirement of certainty of objects. • Resulting and constructive trusts will not satisfy the requirement of certainty of intention. CERTAINTY OF INTENTION • The settlor must’ve intended to create a trust of their property as opposed to making a gift or a loan. • An intention to create a trust is an intention to impose on a property owner an obligation to apply the property for the benefit of identified beneficiaries or for recognised charitable purposes. • The settlor must’ve intended to create a legally binding relationship. • The settlor need not need to use the word “trust” or any particular words: Re Armstrong [1960]. • The intention is determined by reference to the settlor’s objective intention: Byrnes v Kendle [2011], question is whether a reasonable person would consider that in all the circumstances the settlor intended to create the trust? Must consider the settlor’s words and actions to assess whether they manifested a sufficient objective intention to create a trust: Paul v Constance [1977]. • A settlor must intend to create a trust which takes effect immediately (unless consideration had been provided to create trust at later time): Harpur v Levy [2007].
    [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]
  • Equity & Trusts
    CHIEF EXAMINER COMMENTS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2021 LEVEL 6 - UNIT 5 – EQUITY & TRUSTS Note to Candidates and Learning Centre Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide candidates and learning centre tutors with guidance as to the key points candidates should have included in their answers to the January 2021 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 candidates may have included in their responses to the questions. Candidates will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Candidates and learning centre tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ comments contained within this report, which provide feedback on candidate performance in the examination. CHIEF EXAMINER COMMENTS The better performing candidates exhibited similar characteristics, in that they possessed both good knowledge and understanding of case law and statute, which they were then able to deploy in providing relevant legal analysis, argument or advice. Weaker candidates were found wanting in one or more of these respects. A number of weaker candidates tended simply to recite everything that they were able to recall about a particular topic (whether or not it was immediately relevant to the question posed). In many (but, unfortunately, not all) cases, they would then conclude with a single sentence along the lines of ‘this shows/proves/demonstrates that….’, or ‘I therefore agree/disagree with the statement in the question’, or ‘It follows that X has a claim for/should (not) do …’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Irish Restitution Law
    THE FUTURE OF IRISH RESTITUTION LAW NIAMH CONNOLLY* Irish restitution law exists within the gravitational field of English law. On the surface, it is very similar to English law, based on the orthodox unjust factors model. It has evolved in two distinct phases over the past 40 years. The first phase saw judicial innovation that laid the foundations for an indigenous law of unjust enrichment. In contrast, the second phase was characterised by the conscious alignment of Irish law with English law. Yet there remain doctrinal differences between the two systems. The main difference lies in the availability of the constructive trust as a remedy in Irish law, both where the requirements for an unjust enrichment claim are fulfilled, and independently of orthodox unjust enrichment rules. Looking ahead, Irish law’s trajectory will substantially depend on the path it is already on. With a view to identifying this, the first three parts of this article identify the doctrinal principles and rules that have evolved in Irish restitution law, examine how the law is applied in practice in trial courts and appellate courts, and evaluate judicial openness to innovation and to influences from other common law jurisdictions. Drawing on these findings, the final part offers some predictions about the future development of Irish restitution law. A. THE LAW IN IRELAND As a small jurisdiction, Ireland has relatively few restitution cases with which to fill in the detail of the law. This makes it a very convenient heuristic to assume that Irish restitution law is the same as English restitution law. However, it would be too simplistic to say that Irish restitution is identical to English law and will simply adopt developments in our neighbouring jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]