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: 1999 To: 1999

This page lists 21 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.


 
 Willis v Hoare; 1999 - (1999) 77 P and CR D42
 
Satnam Investments Ltd v Dunlop Heywood and Co Ltd and Others Times, 31 December 1998; Gazette, 13 January 1999; Gazette, 10 February 1999; [1999] 3 All ER 652
13 Jan 1999
CA
Nourse LJ
Intellectual Property, Equity
Satnam's agents (DH) had passed on confidential information to the claimant's business rival (Morbaine). Armed with this information Morbaine acquired a development site which Satnam had wanted to buy. Held: The court rejected an argument that Morbaine held the site on constructive trust for Satnam. A company purchasing land on strength of unintended and uninvited disclosure of confidential information from a rival for the land did not, simply because of that, hold the land on trust of whatever nature for the owner of the information. Nourse LJ: "Clearly, DH and Mr Murray can be regarded as trustees of the information and, clearly, Morbaine can be regarded as having been a knowing recipient of it. However, even assuming, first, that confidential information can be treated as property for this purpose and, secondly, that but for the disclosure of the information Morbaine would not have acquired the Brewery Street site, we find it impossible, in knowing receipt, to hold that there was a sufficient basis for subjecting the Brewery Street site to the constructive trust for which Satnam contends. The information cannot be traced into the site and there is no other sufficient nexus between the two."
1 Citers


 
Valerie Ethel Violet Pitman v Barclays Bank Plc [1999] EWCA Civ 585
15 Jan 1999
CA

Equity, Land
Equitable set-off.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cadbury Schweppes v FBI Foods [1999] 1 SCR 142; 1999 CanLII 705 (SCC); 85 ACWS (3d) 166; 191 WAC 161; [1999] SCJ No 6 (QL); JE 99-317; AZ-99111005; 83 CPR (3d) 289; 235 NR 30; 117 BCAC 161; 42 BLR (2d) 159; 59 BCLR (3d) 1; 167 DLR (4th) 577
28 Jan 1999

L'Heureux-Dube, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ
Commonwealth, Damages, Equity, Intellectual Property
Supreme Court of Canada - Commercial law - Confidential information - Breach of confidence - -Remedies - Manufacturer using confidential information obtained under licensing agreement to manufacture competing product - Whether permanent injunction appropriate remedy for breach of confidence in this case - Whether "head start" concept applies -- Whether calculation of equitable compensation differs from common law damages.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Abbey National Plc v Tufts Gazette, 24 February 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 794
16 Feb 1999
CA

Agency, Undue Influence, Banking, Equity
A bankrupt husband, a mortgage broker, had applied for mortgage for his wife, fraudulently claiming that she had income. She appealed against an order for possession on the basis that he was agent of the bank, and that therefore the bank was fixed with notice of the fraud. She claimed that she had operated under the undue influence of her husband, and that, again, the bank was fixed with notice. That the husband was the agent of the bank was rejected. No equitable right arose because she was herself party to the fraud. The section dealt with issues of title, not lending decision. The appeal was dismissed.
Law of Property Act 1925 199 (1) (ii) (a
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Nurdin and Peacock Plc v D B Ramsden and Co Ltd Times, 18 February 1999; Gazette, 24 February 1999
18 Feb 1999
ChD

Equity
A mistake of law was sufficient to ground an order for the repayment of money paid under that mistake. It was not necessary for there to be a mistaken belief of a liability to do so, provided the mistake was the cause of the overpayment.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Frawley v Neill; CA 1-Mar-1999 - Times, 05 April 1999; Gazette, 24 March 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 875; [2000] CP Rep 20

 
 Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v Brunswick Development (1987) Ltd and Another; HL 24-Mar-1999 - Times, 05 May 1999; [1999] UKHL 16
 
Jones, Jones and Jones v Kaiser [1999] EWCA Civ 1135
30 Mar 1999
CA

Equity, Contract

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Etridge v Pritchard Englefield (Merged With Robert Gore and Co) [1999] EWCA Civ 1273; [1999] EWCA Civ 1280
28 Apr 1999
CA

Land, Equity, Banking, Legal Professions, Undue Influence

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
BOC Group Plc v Centeon Llc and Centeon Bio-Services Inc [1999] EWCA Civ 1293; [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 970
29 Apr 1999
CA
Evans LJ, Brooke LJ
Contract, Equity, Company
The court was asked whether a clause in a share sale agreement setting out the payment obligation worked to preclude the purchaser from exercising a right of set-off when the time comes to pay a later instalment of the price. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The right of set-off had effectively been excluded. "The meaning of general words, even "whatsoever", may be limited by the context in which they appear. They may be used to refer to a class or category, a genus (or what Mr Pollock called a tribe) of which some but not necessarily all the members are identified in the clause. " and "the hypothesis that the parties intended to exclude rights of set-off can be tested in this way: what words might they have used to make their meaning clear? There is not necessarily a magic formula, but words such as "payment in full without deduction or withholding of any sort" are all familiar in contexts such as this. The failure of the parties to use any such words amounts to an eloquent silence. But this is not determinative of the meaning which the parties did in fact use. The phrase used, that is to say "not affected by ... whatsoever" does tend to include rather than exclude. That is to say, in the present case tends towards meaning that the payment of the full amount due shall not be affected in any way."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dorimex Srl; Tradex Srl and Intertrade Srl v Visage Imports Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1427
18 May 1999
CA
Sir Richard Scott VC
Equity
In relation to a plea of economic duress the trial judge, His Honour Judge Diamond QC, had directed himself "impeccably" by reference to principles stated in Snell 's Equity 29th ed. and Goff and Jones on the Law of Restitution. The defence of duress requires counter restitution.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Medforth v Blake and others Gazette, 16 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1482; [2000] Ch 86; [1999] 3 All ER 97
26 May 1999
CA
Sir Richard Scott V-C
Equity, Insolvency
A receiver appointed to manage a business had duties over and above those of mere good faith. A receiver who failed to obtain discounts normally obtainable for supplies to the business might be liable for that failure. when considering the position of a receiver and manager appointed by a mortgagee to run a business, ‘The proposition that, in managing and carrying on the mortgaged business, the receiver owed the mortgagor no duty other than that of good faith offends, in my opinion commercial sense. The receiver is not obliged to carry on the business. He can decide not to do so. He can decide to close it down. In taking these decisions he is entitled, and perhaps bound, to have regard to the interests of the mortgagee in obtaining repayment of the secured debt. Provided he acts in good faith, he is entitled to sacrifice the interests of the mortgagor in pursuit of that end.
The mortgagee or receiver, when exercising the power of sale, must therefore act in good faith with a view to securing repayment of the debt by the conversion of the security into money. The timing of the sale will be a matter for them, unaffected by the wishes of the mortgagor. But the preparation for and the method of sale to be adopted will be matters in respect of which there is no conflict between the interests of the mortgagor and the mortgagee, and where the mortgagee or receiver will be potentially liable to the mortgagor if he fails to act with reasonable care so as to obtain a proper price. In this context it is clear that the property must be fairly and properly exposed to the market, absent perhaps cases of real urgency. Similarly, as part of this duty of care, the receiver may be required to take positive steps to maintain the value of the property. . . . the mortgagee or a receiver appointed by him is required to incur expense in the improvement of the security in order to sell it at a higher price or to embark on making applications for planning permission, granting leases or the like, which, however well-founded, are likely to delay a sale beyond the normal period of marketing."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
The Trustee of the Property of Jan Yngve Pehrsson, a bankrupt v Madeleine von Greyerz [1999] UKPC 26
16 Jun 1999
PC

Commonwealth, Company, Equity, Trusts
PC (Gibraltar) The mere appointment of trustees of shares without the delivery to the trustees of forms of transfer did not give rise to a trust. Held: A gift was intended to take effect by a transfer of the shares and it is therefore impossible to construe it as having taken place by a change in the beneficial interest before the transfer had been registered. It is true that in accordance with the decision in In re Rose a gift of shares will be regarded as completed even before registration when the donor has clothed the beneficiary with the power to obtain registration. Thus when the donor has executed a transfer and delivered it to the beneficiary or his agent, equity regards the gift as completed. No further act on the part of the donor is needed to vest the legal title in the beneficiary and the donor has no power to prevent it. But this principle could not apply to the present case until the nominee shareholders had executed and delivered transfers into her possession or constituted themselves agents for her. Until that time, they remained nominees for the donor and it was open to him to countermand the gift. Since the transfers were not executed until the same day as registration took place, the principle in In re Rose is of no assistance to her.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Burton and Another v FX Music Ltd and Another; Taube v FX Music Ltd Times, 08 July 1999; [1999] EMLR 826
8 Jul 1999
ChD

Trusts, Equity
To decide that a party had made itself a trustee of a promise, the court had first to look at whether the person making the promise had indicated he had intended such. Once clear instructions had been evidenced, and payments made, the court would be reluctant to find that no trust had been created. Letters requesting payment of royalties had been acted upon.

 
Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Qureshi and Another; Aldrich and Others v Norwich Union Life Insurance Co Ltd Times, 13 August 1999
13 Aug 1999
CA

Financial Services, Equity, Insurance
The provider of endowment insurance, has a duty of utmost good faith to an insured, but need disclose only matters which are material to the risk. Such facts need not include every fact which might affect the decision to enter into any contract collateral to the insurance contract. Duties under the Financial Services Act did not extend this duty.
Financial Services Act 1986 47

 
Heinl and Others v Jyske Bank (Gibraltar) Ltd Gazette, 08 September 1999; Times, 28 September 1999; [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep Banking 511
8 Sep 1999
CA
Nourse LJ, Sedley LJ, Colman J
Equity
Where a party had in fact assisted another in a fraudulent act in breach of trust, that party was not to be held liable in equity on the basis that objectively he should have known that the acts assisted were fraudulent, but the test is rather subjective. It must be established that he acted with the actual knowledge that a fraudulent act was being perpetrated.
1 Citers


 
Arklow Investments Ltd and Another v I D Maclean and Others (Appeal No 17 of 1999); [1999] UKPC 51; [2000] 1 WLR 594
1 Dec 1999
PC
Lord Steyn, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Sir Andrew Leggatt, Mr. Justice Henry
Commonwealth, Intellectual Property, Equity, Banking
PC (New Zealand) Land was offered for sale. A potential buyer, the appellant was approached by a merchant bank with a proposal for finance. When he sought finance elsewhere, a company associated with the bank bought the land instead. The appellant complained that the information acquired by the bank on his behalf was confidential to him, and that the bank had acted in breach of its duty of confidence to him. He also claimed a breach of a duty of loyalty. Held: A duty of loyalty arises when a relationship gives rise to a legitimate expectation, which equity will recognise, that the fiduciary will not utilise his or her position in a way which is adverse to the interests of the principal. The court was unable to see an evidential basis for finding that a relationship of trust and confidence, in this sense of undertaking an obligation of loyalty, arose in this case. The claimant did not accept the proposal, and so no relationship arose. Characterising the duty to respect confidential information as fiduciary does not create particular duties of loyalty which are imposed as a result of the nature of the particular relationship and the circumstances giving rise to it. It is not the label which defines the duty. Though the defendant had acquired confidential information there was insufficient evidence that that information had been misused, or that the claimant had suffered any loss as a result directly of such use. Some of the information for which confidence was claimed was not capable of being confidential.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Mace and Others v Rutland House Textiles Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) Gazette, 01 December 1999; Times, 11 January 2000
1 Dec 1999
ChD

Contract, Equity
Company pension trustees granted a sub-lease to the company, and the same solicitor acted for both parties. The company sought rectification of what it claimed was a mistake in the lease. Despite the absence of any clear evidence of the precise nature of the mistake, without any outward expression of accord from which a common intention could be derived, rectification was available where the mistake was as to the language. The trustees should not be prevented from seeking to show their case. The absence of any outward and explicit instructions was not enough to defeat an application for rectification of the agreement, provided there was convincing proof of the common intention asserted.

 
Grindal and Another v Hooper and Others Gazette, 17 December 1999; Gazette, 20 January 2000; Times, 08 February 2000
17 Dec 1999
ChD

Land, Equity
A conveyance to joint tenants required any severance of the joint tenancy, to be recorded by endorsing the notice of severance on the transfer. The joint tenancy was purported to be severed, but no notice was endorsed. The failure to endorse the notice could not defeat the validity of the severance. The purpose of the clause was to assist any purchaser in obtaining good title, and was not intended to limit the effect of any severance as between the tenants.

 
Midas IT Services v Opus Portfolio Ltd Unreported, 21/12/1999
21 Dec 1999
ChD
Blackburne J
Equity, Litigation Practice
The springboard relief jurisdiction has been created so as to deprive wrongdoers of the fruits of their breach of duty and to restore the position to before the wrongdoing.

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.