|Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions||
swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Equity - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 16 July 2015.Lowe -v- Lombank Ltd  1 WLR 196
The court set out three criteria for an evidential estoppel.
A Roberts & Co Ltd-v- Leicestershire County Council; ChD 1961 -  Ch 555;  2 All ER 545
Campbell Discount Company Ltd -v- Bridge; CA 1961 -  1 QB 445
in Re Pilkington's Will Trusts; Pilkington -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners  Ch 488
2 Jan 1961
Williams -v- Hensman  1 John & Hem 546;  30 LJ CH 878;  5 LT 203;  7 Jur NS 771;  70 ER 862;  EWHC Ch J51
10 Jun 1961
Sir William Page Wood VC
Equity, Wills and Probate
A fund of money was bequeathed on trust to be invested so as to generate an income payable to A 'the principal to go to her children at her death'. Held: The will created a joint tenancy. The court set out three ways in which a joint tenancy may be severed. Where joint tenants indicated by their conduct that they treated their interests separately, the fact that they did not understand that their interests had been joint did not prevent such behaviour acting to sever the tenancy.
[ Bailii ]
Jones -v- Lipman and Another; ChD 1962 -  1 WLR 832;  1 All ER 442
In Re Pilkington's Will Trusts; Pilkington -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners  AC 612;  3 All ER 622;  3 WLR 1051; 106 Sol Jo 834; 40 Tax Cas 433
The trustees proposed establishing a new trust in respect of the share of an estate to which an infant beneficiary had a contingent entitlement. A portion of the trust fund would be allocated to the new trust. Held: This was a lawful exercise of the statutory power of advancement. The new trusts must be read as if they had been created by the settlor of the existing settlement, at the time of the existing settlement, and, when tested against the rule against perpetuities in that situation, they failed. In the context of a power of advancement, it is no bar to an exercise of the power that the primary object neither requested nor consented to it, and the power was not limited to the conferring of benefit "personal to the person concerned in the sense of being related to his or her own real or personal needs". Nevertheless, trusts created in remainder after the life interest of the settlor's son were void for perpetuity. The phrase "advancement or benefit" in setion 32 of the 1925 Act covered: "any use of the money which will improve the material situation of the beneficiary."
A power of advancement was a special power and accordingly trusts called into existence by its exercise must be written into the instrument creating the power far the purposes of applying the perpetuity rule.
Viscount Radcliffe said: "I ought to note for the record (1) that the transaction envisaged does not actually involve the raising of money, since the trustees propose to appropriate a block of shares in the familyís private limited company as the trust investment, and (2) there will not be any actual transfer, since the trustees of the proposed settlement and the will trustees are the same persons. As I have already said, I do not attach any importance to these factors . . To transfer or appropriate outright is only to do by shortcut what could be done in a more roundabout way by selling the shares to a consenting party, paying the money over to the new settlement with appropriate instructions and arranging for it to be used in buying back the shares as the trust investment. It cannot make any difference to follow the course taken in In Re Collardís Will Trusts and deal with the property direct. On the other point, so long as there are separate trusts, the property effectually passes out of the old settlement into the new one, and it is of no relevance that, at any rate for the time being, the persons administering the new trust are the same individuals."
Trustee Act 1925 32
Lovelock -v- Margo  2 QB 786
Landlord and Tenant, Equity
County Courts Act 1959 191(3)
Re Hewitt's Contract; 1963 -  1 WLR 1298
Re Pauling's Settlement Trusts (No.1); CA 29-May-1963 -  EWCA Civ 5;  Ch 303;  3 All ER 1;  3 WLR 742
Inwards -v- Baker  QB 29;  1 All ER 446;  2 WLR 212;  EWCA Civ 465
13 Jan 1965
Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts and Salmon LJJ
An indulgent father had encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his, the father's, land. The son had done so in the expectation, encouraged by the father, that he would be permitted to remain in occupation. Held: The court formulated the principle of equitable estoppel on the footing that where a person has expended money on the land of another with the expectation, induced or encouraged by the owner of the land, that he would be allowed to remain in occupation, an equity is created such that the court would protect his occupation of the land; and that the court has power to determine in what way the equity so arising would be satisfied. The court therefore refused the plaintiff an order for possession of the bungalow which his son had built on the land, and held that the son was entitled to stay there as long as he wanted. It need not be not fatal to a claim under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel that the property in which the right is claimed has not been precisely identified.
[ Bailii ]
Senanayake -v- Cheng  AC 63
A representee, to whom a fraudulent misrepresentation had been made was "entitled to make all inquiries and to endeavour to learn all the facts."
Phipps -v- Boardman; HL 1966 -  3 All ER 721;  2 AC 46;  UKHL 2
Vandervell -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners  UKHL 3;  2 AC 291
24 Nov 1966
Lord Reid, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn, Lord Donovan, Lord Wilberforce
Equity, Income Tax
The taxpayer made a gift of shares to a trust set up to fund a medical professorship. The shares were in a private company, and an option was given for their repurchase once a certain level of dividends had been attributed to them. He was assessed to substantial surcharges on them on the basis that the arrangement was a settlement under which he retained an interest and of which he had not divested himself absolutely.
Income Tax Act 1952 411 415 - Law of Property Act 1925 53
[ Bailii ]
R W Pathirana -v- A Pathirana  1 AC 233
Section 29 requires a partner to account to the partnership for any private benefit which he derives at the expense of the partnership, and this duty subsists after the dissolution of the partnership until the winding up is completed. An inalienable asset had been acquired by one partner in his own name but in account of the firm.
Partnership Act 18980 29
Seager -v- Copydex Ltd; CA 1967 -  1 WLR 923;  RPC 349
Wakeham -v- Mackenzie  1 WLR 1175
Equity, Landlord and Tenant
The plaintiff sought performance of an oral agreement to grant a tenancy having given up her own home to move into her employer's home. Held: There had been sufficient part performance.
Thatcher -v- CH Pearce & Sons (Contractors) Ltd; 1968 -  1 WLR 748
Carl Zeiss Stiftung -v- Herbert Smith No.2  2 WLR 427
Edmund Davies LJ
The court approved the statement in Snell's Principles of Equity that: "A constructive trust is a trust which is imposed by equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and good conscience without reference to any express or presumed intentions of the parties."
|Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.|