Law Forum
  Law Books

Adverts from Google:

Equity - 1960- 1969

Equity. See also Trusts

These cases are extracted from a very large database. The entries on that database are now being published individually to the main website in a much improved form. As cases are published here, the entry here will be replaced by a link to the same case in that improved form on In addition the site includes very substantial numbers of cases after 2000. Please take the time to look.  

This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 21 October 2013. These case are being transferred one by one to the main site which presents them better, with links to full text where we have it, and much improved cross referencing.
Kiriri Cotton Co Ltd -v- Dewani [1960] AC 192

Lord Denning
Equity Casemap

Lord Denning set out the exception to the rule regarding restitution of money paid under a mistake where there is "something more" in addition to the mistake of law such as something in the defendant's conduct which shows that he was the one who was primarily responsible for the mistake.
Lowe -v- Lombank Ltd [1960] 1 WLR 196
Equity, Estoppel Casemap

The court set out three criteria for an evidential estoppel.
A Roberts & Co Ltd-v- Leicestershire County Council; ChD 1961
in Re Pilkington's Will Trusts; Pilkington -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners; CA 02-Jan-1961
Williams -v- Hensman [1861] 1 John & Hem 546; [1861] 30 LJ CH 878; [1861] 5 LT 203; [1861] 7 Jur NS 771; [1861] 70 ER 862; [1861] EWHC Ch J51
10 Jun 1961

Sir William Page Wood VC
Equity, Wills and Probate Casemap
1 Citers
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.
Link[s] omitted
In Re Pilkington's Will Trusts; Pilkington -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners; HL 1962
Jones -v- Lipman and Another; ChD 1962
Lovelock -v- Margo [1963] 2 QB 786

Landlord and Tenant, Equity Casemap

County Courts Act 1959 191(3)
Re Hewitt's Contract [1963] 1 WLR 1298

Wilberforce J
Land, Contract, Equity Casemap

The interpretation and effect of standard conditions governing the sale of land are informed by the background rules of equity governing the operation of contracts for the sale of land.
Re Pauling's Settlement Trusts (No.1) [1963] EWCA Civ 5; [1964] Ch 303; [1963] 3 All ER 1; [1963] 3 WLR 742
29 May 1963
Equity, Limitation, Trusts Casemap

The doctrine of laches has no application to cases to which the Statutes of Limitation apply either expressly or by analogy.
The court considered the exercise of a power by the trustees: "Being a fiduciary power, it seems to us quite clear that the power can be exercised only if it is for the benefit of the child or remoter issue to be advanced or, as was said during argument, it is thought to be 'a good thing' for the advanced person to have a share of capital before his or her due time. That this must be so, we think, follows from a consideration of the fact that the parties to a settlement intend the normal trusts to take effect, and that a power of advancement be exercised only if there is some good reason for it. That good reason must be beneficial to the person to be advanced; it cannot be exercised capriciously or with some other benefit in view. The trustees, before exercising the power, have to weigh on the one side the benefit to the proposed advancee, and on the other hand the rights of those who are or may hereafter become interested under the trusts of the settlement."
[ Bailii ]
Inwards -v- Baker [1965] QB 29; [1965] 1 All ER 446; [1965] 2 WLR 212; [1965] EWCA Civ 465
13 Jan 1965
Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts and Salmon LJJ
Equity, Estoppel
1 Cites

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.
Link[s] omitted
Senana yake v Cheng [1966] AC 63
Equity Casemap
1 Citers
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
Vandervell -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners [1966] UKHL 3; [1967] 2 AC 291
24 Nov 1966
Lord Reid, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn, Lord Donovan, Lord Wilberforce
Equity, Income Tax

1 Citers
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
Link[s] omitted
R W Pathirana -v- A Pathirana [1967] 1 AC 233
Company, Equity

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
Wakeham -v- Mackenzie [1968] 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

Sir Jocelyn Simon P
Landlord and Tenant, Equity Casemap

1 Citers
(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

All information on this site is in general and summary form only. The content of any page on this site may be out of date and or incomplete, and you should not not rely directly upon it. Take direct professional legal advice which reflects your own particular situation.
Home |  lawindexpro |  Forum | 
| Two Doves Counselling | Faulty Flipper
Copyright and Database Rights: David Swarbrick 2012