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 09 March 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; CA 2-Jan-1961 -  Ch 488
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; HL 1962 -  AC 612;  3 All ER 622;  3 WLR 1051; 106 Sol Jo 834; 40 Tax Cas 433
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; PC 1966 -  AC 63
Phipps -v- Boardman; HL 1966 -  3 All ER 721;  2 AC 46;  UKHL 2
Vandervell -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners; HL 24-Nov-1966 -  UKHL 3;  2 AC 291
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  1 WLR 748
Sir Jocelyn Simon P
Landlord and Tenant, Equity
(Bristol Assizes) The tenant was the tenant of a scrap yard. He had paid his rent promptly, until he was sent to prison. Thereafter he failed to pay the rent; and had no access to legal advice. The landlord peaceably re-entered for non-payment of one quarter's rent. Six months and four days after the re-entry the tenant applied for relief. Held: The court considered the exercise of the equitable right of a court to grant relief from forfeiture. Simon P said: "The decision of the Court of Appeal in Lovelock v. Margo makes it plain that where a landlord re-enters peaceably and not through an action for forfeiture of the lease the jurisdiction of the court to give relief from forfeiture is not a statutory one but the old equitable one. As I understand the old equitable doctrine, the court would not give relief in respect of stale claims. Furthermore, if there were a statute of limitation applying at common law, equity followed the law and applied the statute to strictly analogous proceedings in Chancery. But there is no question in the instant case of a Limitation Act applying to the present situation; and it seems to me to be contrary to the whole spirit of equity to boggle at a matter of days, which is all that we are concerned with here, when justice indicates relief.
I think that a court of equity -. and it is such jurisdiction that I am exercising now -- would look at the situation of the plaintiff to see whether in all the circumstances he acted with reasonable promptitude. Naturally it would also have to look at the situation of the defendants to see if anything has happened, particularly by way of delay on the part of the plaintiff, which would cause a greater hardship to them by the extension of the relief sought than by its denial to the plaintiff."
Carl Zeiss Stiftung -v- Herbert Smith No.2; CA 1969 -  2 WLR 427
|Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.|