Lanbuk on the Law of Equity and Trusts: cases
85 cases, each with its facts, the issue, what was held and the principle.
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Earl of Oxford's Case (1615)Equity acts on the person to correct the conscience of a party, and where equity and the common law conflict, equity prevails.
- Walsh v Lonsdale (1882)An agreement for a lease that equity would specifically enforce creates an equitable lease on the agreed terms.
- Pilcher v Rawlins (1872)A bona fide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice takes free of prior equitable interests.
- Stack v Dowden (2007)In a domestic joint-names case, equity follows the law unless a different common intention is shown.
- Webb v Webb (1994)A claim that the legal owner holds property on trust is a claim in personam.
- Argyll v Argyll (1967)The clean hands maxim applies only to misconduct directly connected with the relief claimed.
- Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid (1993)A fiduciary who receives a bribe holds it on constructive trust for his principal, because equity regards as done what ought to be done.
- Fletcher v Ashburner (1779)Money directed to be used to buy land, and land directed to be sold, are treated as the kind of property they are to become.
- Cooper v Cooper (1874)One who takes a benefit under an instrument must accept its burdens or compensate those he disappoints.
- Beswick v Beswick (1967)Specific performance is available where damages would be inadequate, including where they would be only nominal.
- Co-operative Insurance Society v Argyll Stores (1997)Courts will not usually order a defendant to carry on a business, because it requires continuing supervision.
- Jones v Lipman (1962)Equity will not let a person avoid specific performance by a sham transfer to a company he controls.
- Penn v Lord Baltimore (1750)Equity acts in personam, so it can enforce an agreement about foreign land against a defendant within the jurisdiction.
- Hasham v Zenab (1960)Specific performance may be granted before the date for performance where there is a real threat of breach.
- Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (1895)A claimant who proves a continuing wrong is prima facie entitled to an injunction. Damages in lieu are the exception.
- American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (1975)An interim injunction depends on a serious question to be tried, the adequacy of damages, and the balance of convenience.
- Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA (1975)A court may freeze a defendant's assets where there is a good arguable case and a real risk that a judgment would otherwise go unsatisfied.
- Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd (1975)A search order may be made without notice to preserve evidence, on strict conditions.
- Redgrave v Hurd (1881)A party induced by a misrepresentation may rescind, even if he could have found out the truth.
- Cooper v Phibbs (1867)Equity may set aside an agreement made under a common mistake as to private rights, on terms.
- Leaf v International Galleries (1950)Delay can bar rescission.
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) (2001)Undue influence rests on abuse of trust. A lender who follows the Etridge steps is protected.
- Joscelyne v Nissen (1970)Rectification requires convincing proof of a continuing common intention that the document fails to record.
- Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947)A clear promise not to enforce strict legal rights, made within an existing relationship and relied on, binds the promisor where it would be inequitable to go bRead the full judgment
- Combe v Combe (1951)Promissory estoppel cannot be used to found a claim where there is no consideration.
- Thorner v Major (2009)An assurance that is clear enough in its context, relied on to the claimant's detriment, founds a proprietary estoppel.
- Crabb v Arun District Council (1975)Proprietary estoppel can create a new right, and the court does what is needed to satisfy the equity.Read the full judgment
- Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC (1996)A trust requires identifiable property and an affected conscience. Resulting trusts arise in two set situations.
- Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd (1994)A trust needs certainty of subject matter: identified property.
- McPhail v Doulton (1970)Discretionary trusts, like powers, need only the is-or-is-not test, not a complete list.
- Saunders v Vautier (1841)Adult beneficiaries of sound mind who together are entitled to the whole beneficial interest can end the trust.
- Milroy v Lord (1862)A trust is created by an effective transfer to trustees or by a declaration of trust. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift.
- Knight v Knight (1840)A trust requires certainty of words, of subject matter and of objects.
- Re Kayford Ltd (1974)No special words are needed to create a trust. What matters is the intention shown by words or conduct.
- Re Snowden (1979)A secret trust needs an intention to impose a binding obligation. A moral obligation is not enough. The standard of proof is the ordinary civil standard unless
- Hunter v Moss (1993)A trust of part of a holding of identical intangible assets can be certain without segregation.
- R v District Auditor, ex parte West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council (1986)A discretionary trust fails if the class is so wide that it cannot be sensibly administered.
- Re Hay's Settlement Trusts (1981)A wide power is valid, but a power may be void if capricious.
- Grey v IRC (1959)A direction to trustees to hold for someone else is a disposition of a subsisting equitable interest and must be in writing.
- Vandervell v IRC (1966)A beneficial owner who directs a bare trustee to transfer legal title and the equitable interest together does not need separate writing. An interest not dispos
- Paul v Paul (1882)Once a trust is completely constituted, the settlor cannot revoke it unless he reserved a power.
- Pullan v Koe (1913)Beneficiaries within the marriage consideration can enforce a covenant to settle. Equity regards as done what ought to be done.
- Re Plumptre's Marriage Settlement (1910)Equity will not assist a volunteer to enforce an incompletely constituted trust.
- Re Rose (1952)A gift is complete in equity when the donor has done everything he alone must do.
- Pennington v Waine (2002)A gift may be complete in equity where it would be unconscionable for the donor to recall it.
- Strong v Bird (1874)An imperfect gift is perfected when the donee becomes executor, if the donor's intention continued until death.
- Re Gonin (1977)Strong v Bird needs a continuing intention to make an immediate gift.
- Cain v Moon (1896)A donatio mortis causa needs contemplation of death, delivery, and a gift conditional on death.
- Sen v Headley (1991)Land can be the subject of a donatio mortis causa.
- Ottaway v Norman (1972)A fully secret trust needs intention, communication and acceptance.
- Re Boyes (1884)The terms of a fully secret trust must be communicated before the testator's death.
- Re Cooper (1939)A secret trust binds only property covered by the communication.
- Moss v Cooper (1861)Acceptance of a secret trust may be by silence.
- Re Stead (1900)The binding effect of a secret trust on co-legatees depends on how and when they were told.
- Blackwell v Blackwell (1929)A half-secret trust is valid if the terms are communicated and accepted. Lord Sumner suggested communication must be before or at the time of the will.
- Re Keen (1937)In England, a half-secret trust must be communicated before or at the execution of the will, and consistently with it.
- Dyer v Dyer (1788)The beneficial interest presumptively results to whoever pays the purchase money.
- Re Vinogradoff (1935)A voluntary transfer of personal property raises a presumption of resulting trust.
- Fowkes v Pascoe (1875)The presumption of resulting trust is rebutted by evidence of an intended gift.
- Re Sharpe (1979)A presumption of resulting trust is rebutted by evidence that the money was lent.
- Bennet v Bennet (1879)The presumption of advancement rests on a moral duty to provide, which old equity placed on fathers.
- Pettitt v Pettitt (1969)The presumption of advancement between husband and wife is weak in modern conditions.
- Tinsley v Milligan (1993)Under the old reliance test, a claimant could succeed if she did not need to plead the illegality.
- Patel v Mirza (2016)Illegality is judged by policy and proportionality, not by whether the claimant relies on the illegality.
- Keech v Sandford (1726)A trustee must not profit from his position, even where the beneficiary could not have taken the benefit.
- Boardman v Phipps (1966)A fiduciary must account for any profit made through his position, even if he acted honestly and the principal also gained.
- Lloyds Bank v Rosset (1990)A common intention constructive trust needs an agreement to share and detrimental reliance.
- Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan (1995)Dishonest assistance depends on the assistant's dishonesty.
- Barnes v Addy (1874)Strangers to a trust are liable for knowing receipt or for assisting a dishonest breach.
- Income Tax Special Purposes Commissioners v Pemsel (1891)Charity covers the relief of poverty, education, religion and other purposes beneficial to the community.
- Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust (1950)A charitable trust must benefit the public or a sufficient section of it, and a personal nexus fails.
- Re Slevin (1891)On subsequent failure, property goes cy-pres without the need for general charitable intention.
- Re Faraker (1912)A charity that is amalgamated has not ceased to exist.
- Re Finger's Will Trusts (1971)A gift to an unincorporated charity is a gift for its purposes. A gift to a corporation fails if it ceases to exist.
- Re Lysaght (1965)Where the testator's chosen trustee is essential and refuses, the court may treat the restriction as making the trust impossible and apply cy-pres.
- Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund (1958)A surplus from a non-charitable appeal results to the donors, even anonymous ones.
- Letterstedt v Broers (1884)The court may remove a trustee where the welfare of the beneficiaries requires it.
- Speight v Gaunt (1883)A trustee must act as an ordinary prudent man of business, and may employ agents in the usual way.
- Learoyd v Whiteley (1887)Trustees must take the care of a prudent man investing for others, avoiding speculation.
- Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co (1979)A paid professional trustee owes a higher standard of care.
- Nestle v National Westminster Bank (1993)Trustees must balance the interests of different beneficiaries, and a claimant must prove loss caused by the breach.
- Howe v Earl of Dartmouth (1802)Trustees must convert wasting or unauthorised residuary assets held for persons in succession.
- Re Londonderry's Settlement (1964)Trustees need not disclose the reasons for exercising their discretions.
- Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd (2003)The court decides disclosure as part of its supervisory jurisdiction.
- Target Holdings v Redferns (1995)Equitable compensation for breach of trust is limited to loss caused by the breach.