A charge executed before a purchase was ‘fed’ by a subsequent purchase and had priority. ‘Feeding the estoppel’ doctrine may apply to charges on registered land. The estoppel was fed by a later purchase without a clear recital of the title in the charge.
Ind Summary 31-Jul-1995, Times 25-Jul-1995, Gazette 15-Sep-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80559
A statutory demand as served showed an incorrectly calculated sum owed and was in the wrong form.
Held: The application to set the demand aside was refused. A statutory demand should not be set aside for a mere technicality.
Lord Justice Nicholls said: ‘The question arising on this appeal concerns the exercise by the court of its power to set aside a statutory demand ‘on other grounds’ within sub-paragraph (d) [of rule 6.5(4)] In my view, the right approach to paragraph (4) of rule 6.5 is this. Under the Act, a statutory demand which is not complied with founds the consequence that the debtor is regarded as being unable to pay the debt in question or, if the debt is not immediately payable, as having no reasonable prospect of being able to pay the debt when it becomes due. That consequence, in turn, founds the ability of the creditor to present a bankruptcy petition because, under section 268(1), in the absence of an unsatisfied return to execution or other process, a debtor’s inability to pay the debt in question is established if, but only if, the appropriate statutory demand has been served and not complied with. When therefore the rules provide, as does rule 6.5(4)(d), for the court to have a residual discretion to set aside a statutory demand, the circumstances which normally will be required before a court can be satisfied that the demand ‘ought’ to be set aside, are circumstances which would make it unjust for the statutory demand to give rise to those consequences in the particular case. The court’s intervention is called for to prevent that injustice.’
and ‘When therefore the rules provide, as does rule 6.5(4)(d), for the court to have a residual discretion to set aside a statutory demand, the circumstances which normally will be required before a court can be satisfied that the demand ‘ought’ to be set aside, are circumstances which would make it unjust for the statutory demand to give rise to those consequences in the particular case. The court’s intervention is called for to prevent that injustice.
This approach to sub-paragraph (d) is in line with the particular grounds specified in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of rule 6.5(4). Normally it would be unjust that an individual should be regarded as unable to pay a debt if the debt is disputed on substantial grounds: sub-paragraph (b). Likewise, if the debtor has a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the amount of the debt: sub-paragraph (a). Again, if the creditor is fully secured: sub-paragraph (c).’
and ‘Nevertheless, applying the approach which I have indicated above as the correct approach to these statutory provisions, in my view it by no means follows from the existence of these defects that this statutory demand ought to be set aside. The court will exercise its discretion on whether or not to set aside a statutory demand, having regard to all the circumstances. That must require a court to have regard to all the circumstances as they are at the time of the hearing before the court. There may be cases where the terms of the statutory demand are so confusing or so misleading that, having regard to all the circumstances, justice requires that the demand should not be allowed to stand. There will be other cases where, despite such defects in the contents of the statutory demand, those defects have not prejudiced and will not prejudice the debtor in any way, and to set aside the statutory demand in such a case would serve no useful purpose. For example a debtor may be wholly unable to pay a debt which is immediately payable, either out of his own resources, or with financial assistance from others. In such a case the only practical consequence of setting aside a statutory demand would be that the creditor would immediately serve a revised statutory demand, which also and inevitably would not be complied with. In such a case the need for a further statutory demand would serve only to increase costs. Such a course would not be in the interests of anyone.’ and
‘In these circumstances I am in no doubt that, despite the mistakes in this statutory demand and the use strictly of the incorrect form, and despite the debtor not being aware of the precise amount of the debt when the demand was served on him, justice does not require that this statutory demand should be set aside. I can see no injustice in the consequences which flow from non-compliance with a statutory demand being permitted to flow in this case, despite the existence of those features.’
Lord Justice Nicholls
[1989] 1 WLR 271, [1989] 2 All ER 46
Insolvency Rules 1986 (1986 No 1925) 6.1 6.5(4)(d), Police Act 1996 2
England and Wales
Cited – Coulter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police CA 8-Oct-2004
The appellant had failed in his action against the police and been ordered to pay the costs. A statutory demand was issued in the name of the respondent, but as the new chief constable had no deed of assignment, he was only equitable assignee.
Cited – TS and S Global Ltd v Fithian-Franks and others ChD 18-Jun-2007
Appeal against setting aside of statutory demand disputed as to amount of liability under contract.
Held: The guarantors’ liability under the guarantee was immediately payable by them, without the need for a demand, before service of the . .
Cited – Remblance v Octagon Assets Ltd CA 17-Jun-2009
A statutory demand was served against the guarantor of the lease after rent arrears arose. He applied for the demand to be set aside, and now appealed against its refusal. He said that the court would have set aside such a demand against the tenant, . .
Cited – Budge v AH Budge (Contractors) Ltd CA 1997
When being asked to set aside a statutory demand, and exercising the statutory discretion, the real question is whether the applicant can show ‘a substantial reason comparable to the sort of reason one sees in paras (a), (b) and (c) of r 6.5(4), why . .
Cited – White v Davenham Trust Ltd ChD 1-Nov-2010
. .
Cited – Mahon and Another v FBN Bank (UK) Ltd ChD 6-Jun-2011
The claimants appealed against a refusal to set aside a statutory demand. . .
Cited – White v Davenham Trust Ltd CA 28-Jun-2011
Appeal against order reinstating statutory demand. . .
Cited – Moore (T/A James Moore Earth Moving) v Inland Revenue ChNI 5-Dec-2001
Appeal against conditional setting aside of statutory demand. . .
Cited – Owo-Samson v Barclays Bank Plc, Boyden CA 21-May-2003
The appellant challenged a formal statutory demand which had led to his bankruptcy. The demand had included the anticipated cost of realising the charged property, and also had been inflated to allow for extra costs of dealing the appellant who was . .
Cited – Shaw and Another v MFP Foundations and Piling Ltd ChD 6-Jan-2010
The defendants appealed against a refusal to set aside statutory demands adjudicated due under the 1996 Act. They said that the judge had accepted that he was bound by MFO and that it was on all fours, but he had not followed it.
Held: The . .
Cited – Allen v Burke Construction Ltd ChNI 25-May-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.220020
A gift of a deposit to a Husband and Wife buying a house can operate to give the Wife an equity against the Building Society lender even though house was purchased only in the husband’s sole name.
Times 08-Feb-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.81147
Bribes were taken by an employee, a crown prosecutor in Hong Kong, in a fraud on his employer. He then invested the proceeds in the purchase of property in New Zealand. The property had increased in value. The employer sought repayment of the bribes received from the properties purchased.
Held: The employer had a proprietary interest both in the bribe and in the asset substituted for it. Thus the property belonged in equity to the employer. The first stage in the analysis was the decision that the bribe itself was trust property. The second stage in the analysis was simply the application of the process of tracing the value of the bribe into the asset that had been substituted for it. A fiduciary office holder who accepted a bribe holds both the original sum, and any increase in its value, on a constructive trust for the person to whom he owed that fiduciary duty. Bribery is an evil practice which threatens the foundations of any civilised society. It corrupts not only the recipient but the giver of the bribe. ‘property acquired by a trustee innocently but in breach of trust and the property from time to time representing the same belong in equity to the cestui que trust and not to the trustee personally’:
Lord Templeman Lrd Goff. Lord Lowry, Lord Lloyd, Sir Thomas Eichelbaum
Gazette 26-Jan-1994, Independent 24-Nov-1993, Times 12-Nov-1993, [1994] 1 AC 324, [1993] UKPC 2, [1994] 1 All ER 1
England and Wales
Wrongly decided – Lister and Co v Stubbs CA 1890
It was alleged by the plaintiffs that their foreman had received secret commissions which he had invested in land and other investments. They sought interlocutory relief to prevent him dealing with the land and requiring him to bring the other . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Limited v Pook, Pook, Universal Projects (UK) Limited ChD 14-Apr-2003
A trustee in breach of his duty has a duty to disclose that breach. It was alleged that the defendants, including a director of the claimant, had submitted false invoices to the claimants, and purchased property with the resulting profits.
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.77944
The House considered the right to redeem a mortgage. Kindersley VC said: ‘There is no doubt that the broad rule is this: that the Court will not allow the right of redemption in any way ‘to be hampered or crippled in that which the parties intended to be a security either by any contemporaneous instrument with the deed in question, or by anything which this Court would regard as a simultaneous arrangement or part of the same transaction.’ The rule in comparatively recent times was. unsettled by certain decisions in the Court of Chancery in England which seem to have misled the learned Judges in the Full Court. But it is now firmly established by the House of Lords that the old rule still prevails and that equity will not permit any device or contrivance being part of the mortgage transaction or contemporaneous with it to prevent or impede redemption. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents admitted as he was bound to admit that a mortgage cannot be made irredeemable. That is plainly forbidden. Is there any difference between forbidding re demption and permitting it, if the permission be a mere pretence? Here the provision for redemp tion is nugatory. The incumbrance on the lease the subject of the mortgage according to the letter of the bargain falls to be discharged before the lease terminates, but at a time when it is on the very point of expiring when redemption can be of no advantage to the mortgagor even if he should be so fortunate as to get his deeds back before the actual termination of the lease. For all practical purposes this mortgage is irredeem able. It was obviously meant to be irredeemable. It was made irredeemable in and by the mortgage itself.’
Kindersley VC
[1869] 32 LJ Ch 653, [1869] WR 1137
England and Wales
Cited – Fairclough v The Swan Brewery Company Ltd PC 17-May-1912
. .
Cited – Brighton and Hove City Council v Audus ChD 26-Feb-2009
The claimant was the proprietor of a fourth legal charge on a title. It sought a declaration that a second charge in favour of the defendant was void as a clog on the proprietor’s equity of redemption. An advance secured by a first charge, also in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.304591
Application by the joint administrators of a partnership affording the opportunity to consider the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over a dog.
Held: The equitable principle of marshalling did appear to apply as between the bank and M. The bank had been able resort to two securities in support of its lending to the partnership: first the agricultural charge over partnership assets (including the dog), and secondly third party legal charges over the farms.
Norris J
[2016] EWHC 2650 (Ch), [2017] Ch 422, [2017] BPIR 164, [2017] 3 WLR 198, [2017] WLR(D) 157
England and Wales
Cited – In Re Ritson, Ritson v Ritson CA 1899
The joint debts of a partnership are payable out of the joint assets if sufficient even though secured on the separate property of one partner.
Chitty LJ said of a deceased partner that his ‘interest in the joint assets [of the partnership] . .
Cited – In Re Ritson ChD 1898
. .
Appeal from – Highbury Pension Fund Management Company and Another v Zirfin Investments Management Ltd and Others CA 3-Oct-2013
Lewison LJ discussed the operation of the principle of marshalling: ‘One consequence of the application of the principle is that if the first mortgagee with more than one security satisfies his debt out of the property over which the second . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.570475
A lender M advanced pounds 1,200 to pay off an existing mortgage held by T over a property owned by the plaintiff. M made the advance on the basis of certain misleading representations and non-disclosures by the plaintiff’s husband. M was told that he would receive a transfer of T’s mortgage. pounds 1,000 of the advance was applied in reduction of T’s mortgage. T’s mortgage was secured over two properties. The plaintiff was subrogated to the prior mortgage because otherwise the wife would have been unjustly enriched by the discharge of the debt which it secured.
Held: The charge on both properties to the extent of pounds 1,000 was kept alive in equity in favour of M, so far as that could be done without prejudicing T or the plaintiff, with whom M did not deal. T was not prejudiced as the balance of his mortgage debt had priority over M’s charge. The plaintiff was not prejudiced so long as no extra costs were thrown on the mortgaged properties by reason of the original mortgage debt being divided between T and M.
Romer J
[1899] 1 Ch 353
England and Wales
Cited – Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou SC 4-Nov-2015
The bank customers, now appellants, redeemed a mortgage over their property, and the property was transferred to family members, who in turn borrowed from the same lender. A bank employee simply changed the name on the mortgage. This was ineffective . .
Cited – Lowick Rose Llp v Swynson Ltd and Another SC 11-Apr-2017
Losses arose from the misvaluation of a company before its purchase. The respondent had funded the purchase, relying upon a valuation by the predecessor of the appellant firm of accountants. Further advances had been made when the true situation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.592219
Eder J
[2013] EWHC 214 (Comm), [2013] 2 Lloyds Rep 26
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471177
The court was asked: ‘a) Does the doctrine of marshalling permit the marshalling of securities held over property that does not belong to the common debtor? In particular, is a creditor of a guarantor entitled to marshal (or be subrogated to) securities which have been granted to another creditor of the guarantor by the primary debtor liable under the guaranteed debt?
b) Does the answer depend in any way on the rights which the guarantor has as against the holder of the guarantee or as against the primary debtor?
c) Does any such claim to marshalling or subrogation take precedence over prohibitions contained in the Restraint Order, either as of right or by virtue of the exercise of some discretion of the Crown Court?’
Held: The equitable principle applied. Lady Morrison may claim the proceeds of the assets subject to the Agricultural Charge by the application of the principle of marshalling, and is entitled to prove as an unsecured creditor in the administration for any shortfall.
Norris J said: ‘The principle of marshalling is an equitable principle. In its classic form it applies where two creditors are owed debts by the same debtor, one of whom can enforce his claim against more than one security but the other can resort to only one. In those circumstances the principle gives the second creditor a right in equity to require that the first creditor be treated as having satisfied himself as far as possible out of the security to which the latter has no claim.’
Norris J
[2013] EWHC 238 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 71, [2014] 2 WLR 1129, [2014] 1 CH 359
Agricultural Credits Act 1928, Partnership Act 1890 39
England and Wales
Cited – Highbury Pension Fund Management Company and Another v Zirfin Investments Management Ltd and Others CA 3-Oct-2013
Lewison LJ discussed the operation of the principle of marshalling: ‘One consequence of the application of the principle is that if the first mortgagee with more than one security satisfies his debt out of the property over which the second . .
Cited – In Re Ritson ChD 1898
. .
Cited – In Re Ritson, Ritson v Ritson CA 1899
The joint debts of a partnership are payable out of the joint assets if sufficient even though secured on the separate property of one partner.
Chitty LJ said of a deceased partner that his ‘interest in the joint assets [of the partnership] . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470996
The defendant firm of solicitors had acted for the claimants under instructions to secure a first charge over the secured property. They failed to secure the discharge of the existing first charge, causing losses. AIB asserted breach of trust.
Held: The bank’s appeal failed. However, the judge was wrong to treat the breach of trust as limited to that part of the mortgage advance which was paid to the borrowers instead of being used to discharge their liability to Barclays on the second account. the solicitors had no authority to release any part of the funds advanced by the bank unless and until they had a redemption statement from Barclays coupled with an appropriate undertaking which enabled them to be sure that they would be able on completion to register the bank’s charge as a first charge over the property.
Where the breach of trust occurred in the context of a commercial transaction such as the present, Target Holdings established that equitable principles of compensation ‘although not employing precisely the same rules of causation and remoteness as the common law, do have the capacity to recognise what loss the beneficiary has actually suffered from the breach of trust and to base the compensation recoverable on a proper causal connection between the breach and the eventual loss’.
Given the law, and, on the facts, Patten LJ said: ‘If one asks as at the date of trial and with the benefit of hindsight what loss AIB has suffered then the answer is that it has enjoyed less security for its loan than would have been the case had there been no breach of trust. If [the solicitors] had obtained from Barclays a proper redemption statement, coupled with an undertaking to apply the sums specified in the statement in satisfaction of the existing mortgage, then the transaction would have proceeded to complete and AIB could have obtained a first legal mortgage over the Sondhis’ property. But although that did not happen, AIB did obtain a valid mortgage from the Sondhis which they were eventually able to register as a second charge and use to recover part of their loan from the proceeds of the security in priority to the Sondhis’ other creditors. Even had there been no such mortgage they would have been subrogated to Barclays’ first charge insofar as they discharged part of the Sondhis’ indebtedness by the payment of the andpound;1.2m. In my view all of these are matters to be taken into account in considering what loss has ultimately been caused by the solicitors’ breach of trust. In the light of the judge’s findings it is not open to AIB to contend that but for the breach of trust it simply would have asked for its money back.’
Arden, Sullivan and Patten LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 45
England and Wales
Appeal from – AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co (A Firm) ChD 23-Jan-2012
The claimant bank sought damages from the defendant solicitors, saying that they had paid on mortgage advance moneys but failed to deliver as promised and required, a first mortgage over the property purchased. The solicitors had failed to discharge . .
Cited – Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (A Firm) and Another HL 21-Jul-1995
The defendant solicitors had acted for a purchaser, Crowngate, which had agreed to buy a property from a company called Mirage for andpound;775,000. Crowngate had arranged however that the property would first be passed through a chain of two . .
At CA – AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co Solicitors SC 5-Nov-2014
Bank not to recover more than its losses
The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470899
British Columbia
Lord Moulton
[1913] UKPC 10
Canada
Approved – In re Dagenham (Thames) Dock Co; Ex parte Hulse CA 1873
The Court of Appeal in chancery heard an appeal from the Master of the Rolls from his refusal of the Master of the Rolls to make a declaration in the winding up of the purchaser company. The purchaser had sought a direction that if the balance of . .
Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.467453
Negligence short of fraud gave no right to damages for non-disclosure.
Evans LJ
Times 17-Apr-1997, [1997] PNLR 641, [1997] EWCA Civ 1339, [1997] 4 All ER 705
England and Wales
Cited – Halton International Inc (Holding) and Another v Guernroy Ltd ChD 9-Sep-2005
Parties had entered into a shareholders’ agreement as to voting arrengemets within a company. Thay disputed whether votes had been used in reach of that agreement, particularly as to the issue of new shares and their allotment, but the court now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141735
Where a party sought rectification of a contract to supply into the contract an element without which the contract was intrinsically invalid, that application could only succeed if there was clear and convincing evidence that the parties had intended another effect, and precisely what that effect was. Here an assignment to unidentified trustees which was ineffective because of the uncertainty could not be repaired since the evidence required was not available.
Times 19-Jan-2000
England and Wales
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.84560
A parole agreement by all the shareholders in a company, to liquidate it, created a constructive trust. That a specifically enforceable agreement to assign an interest in property, created an equitable interest in the assignee, was unquestionably correct. A trust deed governed by s53(2) is not subject to the requirement to be in writing.
Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Rose and Lord Justice Aldous
Times 04-Apr-1996, [1997] Ch 14
Law of Property Act 1925 53(2)
England and Wales
Cited – London and South Western Railway Co v Gomm CA 1882
A grant was given to repurchase property, but was void at common law for the uncertainty of the triggering event.
Held: The ‘right’ to ‘take away’ the claimants’ estate or interest in the farm was immediately vested in the grantee of the right . .
Cited – Slater v Simm ChD 27-Apr-2007
The deceased and her partner did not marry but owned three properties together. They could not agree on the interpretation of the documents setting out their interests, and whether they had been varied.
Held: The court set out the various . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.84261
The presumption of advancement is now to be seen as a doctrine of last resort.
Times 13-Apr-1995, Gazette 12-Apr-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83546
The Public trustee appealed against an order which had recognised his appointment under the 1959 trust, but had held that because of the explicit prohibition in the trust instrument against a trustee acting alone, he could not act.
Held: Powers under a trust deed were satisfactorily exerciseable by the Public Trustee acting alone despite the trust deed’s express requirement that no trustee shall act alone. The powers given under the Act inevitably included this power: ‘It would be idle to appoint a trustee who was unable to act. Appointment and action were for this purpose inseparable.’ It was futile to distinguish between a power to appoint a sole trustee and the power of that trustee to act alone.
Nourse LJ, Henry LJ, Sir John Megaw
Times 19-Dec-1994, Gazette 16-Dec-1994, Ind Summary 06-Feb-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 425, [1994] EWCA Civ 21
England and Wales
Cited – In re Moxon 1916
Under the statutory power of appointing new trustees out of court, the public trustee could be appointed and act even though the instrument might require a minimum of two trustees to act. The section was ‘not merely by way of addition o the . .
Cited – Mettoy Pension Trustees v Evans ChD 1990
Where a trustee acts under a discretion given to him by the terms of the trust the court will interfere with his action if it is clear that he would not have so acted as he did had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to . .
Cited – Re Hastings-Bass; Hastings v Inland Revenue CA 14-Mar-1974
Trustees of a settlement had exercised their power of advancement under the section, in order to save estate duty by transferring investments to be held on the trusts of a later settlement. However the actual effect of the advancement was that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.81858
The lease provided the tenant would pay the rent ‘without any deduction’.
Held: The words ‘without any deductions’ in a lease were ambiguous and were insufficient to exclude the tenant’s right to claim a set off. Clear words are needed before the court will impute to the parties an intention to exclude the equitable rights of set-off.
Gazette 16-Feb-1994, Independent 17-Sep-1993, Times 27-Jul-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 501
England and Wales
Cited – British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd ChD 19-Dec-1978
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence at law to a claim for unpaid rent; and where the tenant has suffered damage . .
Disapproved – Famous Army Stores v Meehan 1993
. .
Cited – Edlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited CA 22-Mar-2006
The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in . .
Cited – Marubeni Corporation v Sea Containers Ltd ComC 17-May-1995
Procedure – set-off – contract for supply of containers – construction of contract – clear words to exclude right of set-off – equitable set-off – abatement – defective containers. The words ‘without deduction’ have been held in the context of a . .
Cited – BOC Group Plc v Centeon Llc and Centeon Bio-Services Inc CA 29-Apr-1999
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.79441
A transaction entered into was manifestly disadvantageous to him. After a finding of undue influence, losses on the sale of a property are to be shared by both parties, so as to restore the parties to their original positions as near as might be.
Lord Nicholls Vice Chancellor
Independent 30-Aug-1993, Times 24-Aug-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 129
England and Wales
Cited – Vale v Armstrong, Armstrong ChD 21-May-2004
The claimant sought to set aside a transfer of his house to the defendants made at an undervalue and under an enduring power of attorney, who had charged it to raise money for their business. He had received independent advice.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.79002
The claimant bank sought damages from the defendant solicitors, saying that they had paid on mortgage advance moneys but failed to deliver as promised and required, a first mortgage over the property purchased. The solicitors had failed to discharge an existing first charge (to Barclays). The parties now disputed whether the sum due to the bank was the entire sum loaned, or only the net sum lost after the sale.
Held: The solicitors had acted in good faith, but in breach of trust.
Prima facie the bank was entitled to reconstitution of the trust fund by repayment of the amount wrongly paid away. As to the bank’s alternative claim for equitable compensation or damages, he said that where the breach consisted of failure to discharge a prior mortgage, with the result that the bank’s interest had been postponed to the Barclays charge, the bank was entitled to equitable compensation for the additional amounts due to Barclays for which Barclays had security in priority to the bank. The solicitors were therefore liable to the bank for the additional amount ultimately obtained by Barclays by reason of its prior security.
The court analysed the breach of trust: ‘ In the present case, . . . what the defendant’s instructions authorised them to do with the funds paid to them was to pay to Barclays (or to its account) such sum as was required to procure a release of its charge, and pay the balance to the borrowers or to their order. Had they complied with their instructions they would have paid (taking all the figures in round terms) andpound;1.5m to Barclays and andpound;1.8m to the borrowers. In the event they paid andpound;1.2m to Barclays and andpound;2.1m to the borrowers. In my judgment, in so doing they committed a breach of trust in so far as payment was made contrary to the authority they had been given.
It does not however in my judgment necessarily follow that the whole of the payment of andpound;3.3m was made in breach of trust. The difference between what the defendant did and what it ought to have done if it had complied with its instructions was the andpound;300,000 that should have been paid to Barclays but was instead paid to the borrowers. That in my judgment was the extent of the breach of trust committed. It was not a breach of trust to pay andpound;1.2m to Barclays; that payment was made as partial performance of the authority and obligation to discharge Barclays’ secured debt. It was not a breach of trust to pay andpound;1.8m to the borrowers, as that was the sum to which they were entitled. The breach consisted of the failure to retain an additional andpound;300,000 and apply that to the discharge of the Barclays debt.’
David Cooke HHJ
[2012] EWHC 35 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Cook v The Mortgage Business Plc CA 24-Jan-2012
The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to . .
Appeal from – AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co Solicitors CA 8-Feb-2013
The defendant firm of solicitors had acted for the claimants under instructions to secure a first charge over the secured property. They failed to secure the discharge of the existing first charge, causing losses. AIB asserted breach of trust.
At ChD – AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co Solicitors SC 5-Nov-2014
Bank not to recover more than its losses
The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450453
Vos J
[2011] EWHC 1897 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442267
Lewison, Floyd, David Richards LJJ
[2018] EWCA Civ 1100, [2018] WLR(D) 304, [2019] Ch 331, [2018] 2 P and CR 18, [2019] 2 WLR 330
England and Wales
Appeal from – General Motors UK Ltd v The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd ChD 30-Nov-2016
The claimants had had a long standing licence to discharge water in the defendant’s canal. Having failed to pay the license fee, the licence was revoked. The claimants sought relief from forfeiture.
Held: Granted . .
At CA – The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd SC 23-Oct-2019
Limits on relief from forfeiture of land
In the context of land, equitable relief is only available for forfeiture of property rights, as opposed to a right to possession under a contract. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.616330
A plaintiff’s failure to investigate an alleged fraud was no bar to recovery of damages for the fraud.
Times 24-Dec-1996
England and Wales
Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.79517
Moneys due under a will had been misdistributed. The correct beneficiary sought repayment. The executor sought to rely upon a trustee exemption clause.
Held: The trustee exemption clause was effective to protect the executor as such. She had acted mistakenly and negligently, but honestly. However, in her additional capacity as an overpaid beneficiary, she was liable to repay the sums. Also the rule against double portions applied to require repayment by one recipient of a mispayment.
[2005] EWHC B17 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Allcard v Skinner CA 1887
The donor had parted with almost all her property. She now sought to have the transaction set aside for undue influence.
Held: Where a wife has entered into a gratuitous transaction with her husband, the burden was on the husband as donee to . .
Cited – Armitage v Nurse; etc CA 19-Mar-1997
A clause in a trust deed may validly excuse trustees from personal liability for even gross negligence. The trustee was exempted from liability for loss or damage ‘unless such loss or damage shall be caused by his own actual fraud’.
Held: The . .
Cited – In re Pollock; Pollock v Worrall 1885
An example of a gift which is made under a special consideration is where the gift satisfies a particular moral duty identified in the will. . .
Cited – In re Vaux CA 1939
The term ‘portion’ has a ‘qualitative significance’ as well as purely quantitative significance. As to the doctrine of ademption: (Sir Wilfrid Greene MR) ‘The rule against double portions rests upon two hypotheses; first of all, that under the will . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.236337
Newman J
[2004] EWHC 808 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431906
A financial adviser was not liable in negligence for the allegedly negligent selection of sub-underwriters. On the issue of knowing receipt in a claim for restitution, ‘What the decision in Belmont (No 2) . . shows most clearly is that in a ‘knowing receipt’ case it is only necessary to show that the defendant knew that the monies paid to him were trust monies and of circumstances which made the payment a misapplication of them. Unlike a ‘knowing assistance’ case it is not necessary, and never had been necessary, to show that the defendant was in any sense a participator in the fraud.’
Vinelott J
Independent 28-Sep-1994, [1993] 1 WLR 484
England and Wales
Cited – Belmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2) 1980
It had been alleged that there had been a conspiracy involving the company giving unlawful financial assistance for the purchase of its own shares.
Held: Dishonesty is not a necessary ingredient of liability in an allegation of a ‘knowing . .
Approved – Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd and Another v Akindele CA 22-Jun-2000
The test of whether a person who received funds held them on constructive trust, was not whether he himself was dishonest, but rather whether he had knowledge of circumstances which made it unconscionable to hold on to the money received. In respect . .
Cited – Criterion Properties Plc v Stratford UK Properties and others CA 18-Dec-2002
The parties came together in a limited partnership to develop property. The appeal was against a refusal to grant summary judgment on a claim that one party had been induced to enter the contract by a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Held: In . .
Cited – Criterion Properties Plc v Stratford UK Properties Llc and others ChD 27-Mar-2002
Criterion sought to set aside a shareholders agreement. Their partner had said they were concerned that another party was taking Criterion over and that this would put at risk their working relationships. The agreement sought to add a poison pill to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80209
Application for specific performance of contract.
Gross J
[2010] EWHC 204 (Comm)
England and Wales
Cited – Yewbelle Ltd v London Green Developments Ltd, Knightsbridge Green Limited ChD 8-Dec-2006
The court considered what were the obligations undertaken by a party contracting to use reasonable endeavours.
Held: The question is one of substance, not form, to be determined objectively. Lewison J said: ‘the essence of the obligation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.396727
Not all debts which were eligible for proof in bankruptcy were also eligible for a set off.
Rose Ljexplained the doctrine of equitable marshallling, saying: ‘The doctrine of marshalling applies where there are two creditors of the same debtor, each owed a different debt, one creditor (A) having two or more securities for the debt due to him and the other (B) having only one. B has the right to have the two securities marshalled so that both he and A are paid so far as possible. Thus if a debtor has two estates (Blackacre and Whiteacre) and mortgages both to A and afterwards mortgages Whiteacre only to B, B can have the two mortgages marshalled so that Blackacre can be made available to him if A chooses to enforce his security against Whiteacre. For the doctrine to apply there must be two debts owed by the same debtor to two different creditors.’
. . and ‘[Marshalling] is never allowed to delay or defeat the creditor with several securities in the collection of his debt and the enforcement of his securities. He is allowed to realise his securities as he pleases’.
Rose LJ
Gazette 02-Oct-1996, [1996] Ch 245, [1996] 2 BCLC 254, [1996] 2 WLR 631, [1996] 2 All ER 121
England and Wales
Cited – Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency SC 23-Oct-2013
S owned several propertie in charge to the bank, but the Agency said that each had been acquired with the proceeds of criminal activity. The parties had settled the claim by the grant of a second charge in favour of the Agency. However when that . .
Cited – LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.78144
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.
Gazette 17-Dec-1999, Gazette 20-Jan-2000, Times 08-Feb-2000
England and Wales
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81050
The deposit of title documents, without more, gives rise to an inference that the deposit was intended by the parties to operate as creating an equitable charge or mortgage over the property whose title document is deposited. In logic there could be no distinction between deposits to secure a first and third party indebtedness.
Templeman J said: ‘But in my judgment this is a contractual lien – it is said to be a contractual lien – and that makes all the difference. It is also a contractual charge; true it is that the charge arises by presumption, but it does not arise by operation of law. What the court does is to say: `We shall not compel the parties to write down in so many words what the effect of the deposit of title deeds is; we shall simply assume that when they contract, and although they probably do not know the consequences, the person who takes the title deeds contracts not only to retain them but also to have an equitable charge on the land.’ The presumption reads into the contract the charge which is implied. If that is right, the charge was created by the company and is therefore registrable under s95.’
Templeman J
[1974] 1 WLR 391, [1974] 1 All ER 561, [1974] AC 467
England and Wales
Cited – United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others CA 2-Feb-1996
The bank appealed against a decision that the simple deposit of deeds with a bank did not take effect as an equitable charge.
Held: Depositing deeds with a bank is not sufficient to create a charge over them. The old law as to the creation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.434815
A widow had thought that she was to receive the bulk of her husband’s estate by survivorship, but discovered, only out of time and after the six months limit, that this was not the case. She applied for leave to apply out of time to rectify the will, saying that the revocation of the necessary provision was an error.
Held: The application should be decided on similar principles to applications for an extension of time under the Inheritance etc Act. The failure to proceed arose from a fundamental mistake as to the value of the estate. The beneficiaries had operated under the same misapprehension, and had not therefore acted to their detriment because of the delay. Leave was given.
David Donaldson QC
Times 05-Apr-2000, (2000) 1 WTLR 643
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Administration of Justice Act 1975 4
England and Wales
Distinguished – Escritt v Escritt 1981
. .
Cited – In re Salmon (Deceased) 1981
The time limit under the 1975 Act is ‘a substantive provision laid down in the Act itself and is not a mere procedural time limit imposed by rules of court which will be treated with the indulgence appropriate to procedural rules. The burden on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.82244
Where a quasi-partnership had been created with the expectation that a party would be involved in the management of the business, it was a breach of his right to exclude him. This was a consequence of the restraint imposed by equity on relations between majority and minority partners, and not the cause of it. Because the continuing partners would continue the business, the share of the partner ordered to be purchased, should be valued as a going concern.
Times 04-Jul-2000, Gazette 06-Jul-2000
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.81869
The court was asked whether, for the purposes of establishing a company’s liability under the knowing receipt head of constructive trust, the knowledge of one of its directors can be treated as having been the knowledge of the company.
Held: The company was fixed with the knowledge of its part-time chairman and a non-executive director, because he had acted as its directing mind and will for the particular purpose of arranging its receipt of the tainted funds. It was sufficient that the director had management and control so far as the receipt of the fraud was concerned, having made arrangements for the receipt and disposal of the money, even though he had no general managerial responsibility in the company.
Hoffmann LJ set out the ingredients of knowing receipt: ‘For this purpose the plaintiff must show, first a disposal of his assets in breach of fiduciary duty; secondly, the beneficial receipt by the defendant of assets which are traceable as representing the assets of the plaintiff; and thirdly, knowledge on the part of the defendant that the assets are traceable to a breach of fiduciary duty.’
When asking who was the controlling mind of a company, the relevant test is to find the person who had management and control in relation to the act or omission in point. The formal position or status as a director is relevant but not decisive. A ‘pragmatic’ approach is necessary: ‘Decided cases show that, in regard to the requisite status and authority, the formal position, as regulated by the company’s articles of association, service contracts and so forth, though highly relevant, may not be decisive. Here Millett J adopted a pragmatic approach. In my view he was right to do so, although it has led me, with diffidence, to a conclusion different from his own’ and ‘ . . different persons may for different purposes satisfy the requirements of being the company’s directing mind and will. ‘ The court considered the ingredients of the tort of ‘knowing receipt’: ‘For this purpose the plaintiff must show, first, a disposal of his assets in breach of fiduciary duty; secondly, the beneficial receipt by the defendant of assets which are traceable as representing the assets of the plaintiff; and thirdly, knowledge on the part of the defendant that the assets he received are traceable to a breach of fiduciary duty.’ (Hoffmann LJ)
Nourse LJ said: ‘The doctrine attributes to the company the mind and will of the natural person or persons who manage and control its actions. At that point, in the words of Millett J ([1993] 3 ALL ER 717 at 740): ‘Their minds are its mind; their intention its intention; their knowledge its knowledge.’ It is important to emphasise that management and control is not something to be considered generally or in the round. It is necessary to identify the natural person or persons having management and control in relation to the act or omission in point. This was well put by Eveleigh J in . . R v Andrews Weatherfoil Ltd . .
Decided cases show that, in regard to the requisite status and authority, the formal position, as regulated by the company’s articles of association, service contracts and so forth, though highly relevant, may not be decisive. Here Millett J adopted a pragmatic approach. In my view he was right to do so, although it has led me, with diffidence, to a conclusion different from his own.’
Nourse, Rose, Hoffmann LJJ
Times 03-Jan-1994, [1994] 2 All ER 685, [1993] EWCA Civ 4, [1994] BCC 143, [1994] 1 BCLC 464
England and Wales
Appeal from – El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Plc and Another ChD 3-Jan-1993
A non active director may still be company’s ‘directing mind’. The doctrine of attributing the actions of individuals to a company is that ‘Their minds are its mind; their intention its intention; their knowledge its knowledge.’
Tracing was no . .
Cited – Lennard’s Carrying Company Limited v Asiatic Petroleum Company Limited HL 1915
The House was asked as to when the acts of an individual became those of his employer under section 502 (‘any loss or damage happening without (the ship owner’s) actual fault or privity’).
Held: Viscount Haldane LC said: ‘It must be upon the . .
Cited – Regina v Andrews-Weatherfoil Ltd CACD 1972
For so long as it is possible for persons concerned in a single offence to be tried separately, it is inevitable that the verdicts returned by the two juries will on occasion appear to be inconsistent with one another. Eveleigh J: ‘It is necessary . .
Applied – Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd and Another v Akindele CA 22-Jun-2000
The test of whether a person who received funds held them on constructive trust, was not whether he himself was dishonest, but rather whether he had knowledge of circumstances which made it unconscionable to hold on to the money received. In respect . .
Cited – Crown Dilmun, Dilmun Investments Limited v Nicholas Sutton, Fulham River Projects Limited ChD 23-Jan-2004
There was a contract for the sale of Craven Cottage football stadium, conditional upon the grant of non-onerous planning permissions. It was claimed that the contract had been obtained by the defendant employee in breach of his fiduciary duties to . .
Cited – Mahonia Limited v JP Morgan Chase Bankwest Lb Ag QBD 3-Aug-2004
The Claimant claimed on a letter of credit issued by the Defendant on behalf of Enron Ltd, who asserted it was not liable to pay there having been unlawful behaviour by Enron Ltd. Swap agreements had been entered into, and the defendant said the . .
Cited – Fassihim, Liddiardrams, International Ltd, Isograph Ltd v Item Software (UK) Ltd CA 30-Sep-2004
The first defendant (F) had been employed by a company involved in a distribution agreement. He had sought to set up a competing arrangement whilst a director of the claimant, and diverted a contract to his new company.
Held: A company . .
See Also – El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Plc ChD 1995
The tracing of assets into the hands of a third party depends upon a notional charge. There are no inflexible rules. The essential elements of ‘knowing receipt’ are: ‘For this purpose the plaintiff must show, first, a disposal of his assets in . .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – KR and others v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc CA 3-Nov-2006
The insurer appealed findings of liability under the 1930 Act. Claims had been made for damages for child abuse in a residential home, whom they insured. The home had become insolvent, and the claimants had pursued the insurer.
Held: The . .
Cited – Charter Plc and Another v City Index Ltd and others ChD 12-Oct-2006
An employee of the claimant had fraudulently spent several million pounds of the claimant’s money on personal bets through the defendant company. The claimant said that the defendants knew the origin of the funds and were liable to repay them. . .
Cited – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
Cited – Akers and Others v Samba Financial Group SC 1-Feb-2017
Saad Investments was a Cayman Islands company in liquidation. The liquidator brought an action here, but the defendant sought a stay saying that another forum was clearly more appropriate. Shares in Saudi banks were said to be held in trust for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.262615
The bank had received and paid substantial sums from the company before the petition for insolvency had been presented, and had discharged the director’s charge on his house. The liquidator sought restitution under the Act. The bank replied that it had acted already in such a way as to put its own position at risk, and that the claim in restitution should be denied.
Held: The court was required to try to achieve equal payment pari passsu of the debts. The bank was entitled to an order validating payments it had made prior to presentation. For payments made subsequently, the defence of restitution might be available according to the facts of the case allowing for good and bad faith. Here the alleged change of position resulted form the bank’s own act, not on any assessment of the validity of the credits.
Nicholas Warren QC
Times 08-Jul-2003, Gazette 31-Jul-2003
England and Wales
Cited – Dextra Bank and Trust Company Limited v Bank of Jamaica PC 26-Nov-2001
(Jamaica) A cheque was drawn which was used as part a complex financial arrangement intended to purchase foreign currency to work around Jamaica’s foreign exchange control regulations. It was asserted that by presenting the cheque used in the . .
Cited – Bank of Ireland v Hollicourt (Contracts) Limited CA 20-Oct-2000
A bank continued to pay on cheques presented to it against the company’s bank account even after the presentation of a petition for bankruptcy. The liquidator sought recovery of the amounts paid from the bank as well as the payees. It was held that . .
Cited – Re S A and D Wright Ltd, Denney v John Hudson and Co Ltd CA 1992
Fox LJ said: ‘A disposition carried out in good faith in the ordinary course of business at a time when the parties were unaware that a petition had been presented would usually be validated by the court unless there is ground for thinking that the . .
Cited – In re Gray’s Inn Construction Co Ltd CA 1980
After the presentation of a petition for the winding up of the company moneys were paid in and out of the company’s bank account which was overdrawn. The liquidator issued a summons for a declaration that the amounts credited and/or debited to the . .
Cited – Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.184532
A non active director may still be company’s ‘directing mind’. The doctrine of attributing the actions of individuals to a company is that ‘Their minds are its mind; their intention its intention; their knowledge its knowledge.’
Tracing was no longer available at common law because funds received had become mixed with others, but the remedy remained available in equity.
Millett J
Times 03-Jan-1993, [1993] 3 All ER 717
England and Wales
Cited – Shalson v Russo ChD 11-Jul-2003
The claimant sought recovery of substantial sums he had advanced by way of loan, where the loan was induced by fraud. He sought to trace the funds into, inter alia, a motor yacht which it had been used to purchase.
Held: The transaction was . .
Appeal from – El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Ltd CA 2-Dec-1993
The court was asked whether, for the purposes of establishing a company’s liability under the knowing receipt head of constructive trust, the knowledge of one of its directors can be treated as having been the knowledge of the company.
Held: . .
Cited – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
See Also – El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Plc ChD 1995
The tracing of assets into the hands of a third party depends upon a notional charge. There are no inflexible rules. The essential elements of ‘knowing receipt’ are: ‘For this purpose the plaintiff must show, first, a disposal of his assets in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.80281
A father entered into a written contract with his daughter by which he transferred to her his car hire business in return for her agreement to pay him a pension and discharge certain expenses. In their discussions it had been agreed between them that these expenses should include the father’s gas, electricity and coal bills and the cost of home help. The court considered an application for rectification. At first instance, the court held that the signed contract did not on its proper interpretation provide for payment of these expenses, but rectification was granted. The daughter appealed, contending that as a matter of law the remedy of rectification was not available to the father in the absence of an antecedent concluded contract.
Held: The daughter’s contention as rejected. Rose v Pim did not assert or reinstate the view that an antecedent complete concluded contract was required for rectification. It only showed that prior accord on a term or meaning of a phrase to be used must have been outwardly expressed or communicated between the parties. The burden of proof on the party asking for rectification is high.
A contractual document could only be rectified in order to bring it into conformity with a contract that already existed before the document was executed and which the document failed accurately to record as a result of a mutual mistake.
Buckley LJ, Russell LJ
[1970] 2 QB 86
England and Wales
Explained – Frederick E Rose (London) Limited v William H Pim Junior and Co Limited 1953
The plaintiffs, who were London merchants, had been asked by Egyptian buyers to supply ‘feveroles’. Not knowing what this term meant, they asked the defendants’ representative, who responded that ‘feveroles’ meant horsebeans. Relying on this . .
Approved – Crane v Hegeman-Harris Co Inc ChD 1939
A continuing common intention of the parties to a document alone will not suffice to justify rectification. For rectification to be appropriate, there must be convincing proof that the concluded instrument does not represent the common intention of . .
Cited – Lovell and Christmas Ltd v Wall CA 1911
The written contract contained a restrictive covenant limiting the defendant’s freedom to carry on the business of a ‘provision merchant’ other than on behalf of the plaintiff company. On the facts found, the parties in their discussions before the . .
Cited – AMP (UK) Plc and Another v Barker and Others ChD 8-Dec-2000
The claimants were interested under a pension scheme. Alterations had been made, which the said had been in error, and they sought rectification to remove a link between early leaver benefits and incapacity benefits. The defendant trustees agreed . .
Cited – Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Feb-2000
Standard Conract – Wide Exclusions, Apply 1977 Act
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages.
Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or . .
Cited – Oun v Ahmad ChD 19-Mar-2008
The parties agreed in writing for the sale of leasehold property to the claimant. One document had been signed, but later one said that it had not included an aportionment. Another document then set out the apportionment. When the defendant refused . .
Cited – FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd CA 31-Jul-2019
Rectification – Chartbrook not followed
Opportunity for an appellate court to clarify the correct test to apply in deciding whether the written terms of a contract may be rectified because of a common mistake.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge was right to conclude that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.184577
[2007] EWHC 1632 (Comm)
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of Congo and Another ComC 20-Jul-2006
The claimant sought leave to cross examine an officer of the defendant in connection with his affidavit sworn in search order proceedings. The case had a history of deceit and dishonest oral evidence.
Held: Though such an order would be . .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of the Congo; Glencore Energy UK Limited, Sphynx UK Limited, Sphynx (BDA) Limited, Africa Oil and Gas Corporation, Cotrade SA (Third Parties) ComC 28-Nov-2005
The claimant had taken an assignment of debts owed by the defendant, and obtained judgment in US$121m. They sought to enforce the judgment and obtained third party debt orders against the parties listed.
Held: Officers in the third party . .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of The Congo ComC 16-Apr-2003
. .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of the Congo CA 13-May-2003
The claimant had obtained judgment against the defendant for US$60m, and had sought a Mareva injunction against the defendant republic’s assets and against the assets of companies through which it operated in the UK. The claimant now appealed . .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd and Another v Republic Of the Congo ComC 26-May-2006
. .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of Congo and Another ComC 20-Jul-2006
The claimant sought leave to cross examine an officer of the defendant in connection with his affidavit sworn in search order proceedings. The case had a history of deceit and dishonest oral evidence.
Held: Though such an order would be . .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of Congo CA 7-Nov-2007
The defendants appealed against orders requiring them to disclose documents in an action regarding the payment of bribes, saying that the requirement effectively required them to incriminate themselves.
Held: The appeal failed. The public . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258166
When striking out a claim for rectification of a contract on the basis of a unilateral mistake: ‘the remedy of rectification for unilateral mistake is a drastic remedy, for it has the result of imposing on the defendant to the claim a contract which he did not, and did not intend to, make. Accordingly the conditions for the grant of such relief must be strictly satisfied.’
Lightman J
[2007] EWHC 32 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Connolly Ltd v Bellway Homes Ltd ChD 23-Apr-2007
The claimant sought rectification of a contract for the sale of land, or damages in deceit. They said that it had been agreed that the price would be adjusted to reflect any change in values. The formula inserted made no great sense mathematically, . .
Cited – Connolly Ltd v Bellway Homes Ltd ChD 23-Apr-2007
The claimant sought rectification of a contract for the sale of land, or damages in deceit. They said that it had been agreed that the price would be adjusted to reflect any change in values. The formula inserted made no great sense mathematically, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248253
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.
Sir William Page Wood VC
[1861] 1 John and Hem 546, [1861] 30 LJ CH 878, [1861] 5 LT 203, [1861] 7 Jur NS 771, [1861] 70 ER 862, [1861] EWHC Ch J51
England and Wales
Followed – Burgess v Rawnsley CA 15-Apr-1975
. .
Cited – Barton v Morris 1985
A couple lived together as man and wife and bought a property for use as a guest house business to be run as a partnership. The conveyance executed by both of them included an express declaration that they held the property upon trust for themselves . .
Cited – Re Palmer (A Deceased Debtor), Palmer v Palmer CA 6-Apr-1994
Property had been conveyed to the deceased and the appellant, his widow, to be held as joint tenants. The deceased dies whilst under investigation for defalcations as a solicitor, and an insolvency administration order was obtained in the estate. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238854
The father thought he had given his younger son land in Wales, in signing a memorandum and presenting it to him ‘for the purpose of furnishing himself with a dwelling-house’. The memorandum was not by deed. The son built his home on the land. When the father died, the elder son disputed his brother’s title.
Held: The Master of the Rolls said younger son was entitled to a life interest. Lord Westbury LC allowed the younger son’s appeal, saying: ‘About the rules of the Court there can be no controversy. A voluntary agreement will not be completed or assisted by a Court of Equity, in cases of mere gift. If anything be wanting to complete the title of the donee, a Court of Equity will not assist him in obtaining it; for a mere donee can have no right to claim more than he has received. But the subsequent acts of the donor may give the donee that right or ground of claim which he did not acquire from the original gift . . so if A puts B in possession of a piece of land, and tells him, ‘I give it to you that you may build a house on it,’ and B on the strength of that promise, with the knowledge of A, expends a large sum of money in building a house accordingly, I cannot doubt that the donee acquires a right from the subsequent transaction to call on the donor to perform that contract and complete the imperfect donation which was made. The case is somewhat analogous to that of verbal agreement not binding originally for the want of the memorandum in writing signed by the party to be charged, but which becomes binding by virtue of the subsequent part performance.’ The Lord Chancellor awarded the younger son the fee simple since ‘no one builds a house for his own life only.’
The Lord Chancellor Lord Westbury
[1862] EWHC Ch J67, [1862] 45 ER 1284, (1862) 4 De GF and J 517, [1862] EngR 908, (1862) 4 De G F and J 517, (1862) 45 ER 1285
England and Wales
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.245427
PC (New Zealand) The parties’ relationship failed. They had bought a house together and entered into a trust deed.
Held: ‘Defeasible interests in land are certainly conceptually possible. In England such interests may, for example, be created under the School Sites Acts. And, subject always to the rule against perpetuities, private trusts may create beneficial interests subject to defeasance on the occurrence, or non-occurrence, of specified events. But defeasance conditions in private trusts are invariably express conditions.’ In this case the claimant sought an implied condition. The breakdown of the relationship was no reason to vary the express trusts created.
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond
[2004] UKPC 41
England and Wales
Cited – Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd; etc HL 31-Oct-1968
R Ltd were in serious financial difficulties. The company’s overdraft with the appellant bank was almost twice its permitted limit. The company sought a loan of 1 million pounds from a financier, who was willing to lend the company that sum provided . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200080
The Building Society chargee was entitled to possession because the charge was signed, but only to extent of the knowledge of the person signing charge. A woman partner had charged the house originally, but her partner had then unlawfully re-mortgaged it without her knowledge. Her interests did not have precedence up to the value of the original loan.
Gazette 15-Jan-1992
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.80359
[1985] CLY 2950, [1985] 2 All ER 606, [1985] EWCA Civ 6, [1985] 1 WLR 778
England and Wales
Applied – Equity and Law Home Loans Ltd v Prestidge CA 1992
A house was bought in the name of one partner in an unmarried couple. It was subject to a mortgage, and the non-owner contributed a capital sum. The landowner later remortgaged for a larger sum, but without the partner’s consent. The landowner then . .
Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187402
A railway company and its assignees brought action the Government. Under the contract the company was to build a railway subsidised by the government. The railway was not completed. The parties disputed whether the contract was ‘entire’ and no part of the subsidy was payable unless the railway as a whole was completed. The company succeeded on that. The government counterclaimed for the non-completion, and sought a set off from the subsidies.
Held: The Board emphasised the intertwined nature of the obligations, and said that it ‘had no hesitation in saying that in this contract the claims for subsidy and for non-construction ought to be set against one another.’ The set-off could not be made as against the assignees: that once notice of the assignment of the debt had been given, ‘the debt or claim is so severed from the rest of the contract that the assignee may hold it free from any counter-claim in respect of other terms of the same contract.’ However it distinguished between a set-off properly allowable under the contract itself, which bound an assignee of a debt due under that contract, and a cross-claim which might ‘arise from any fresh transaction freely entered into by [the government] after notice of assignment by the company.’ In the first case, ‘It would be a lamentable thing if it were found to be the law that a party to a contract may assign a portion of it, perhaps a beneficial portion, so that the assignee shall take the benefit, wholly discharged of any counter-claim by the other party in respect of the rest of the contract, which may be burdensome. There is no universal rule that claims arising out of the same contract may be set against one another in all circumstances . . Unliquidated damages may be set off as between the original parties, and also against an assignee if flowing out of and inseparably connected with dealings and transactions which also give rise to the subject of the assignment.’
Lord Hobhouse
(1888) 13 App Cas 199, [1888] UKPC 7
Canada
Cited – Smith v Muscat CA 10-Jul-2003
The tenant was sued by his landlord for arrears of rent, but sought an equitable set-off for damages for disrepair accruing under the previous landlord.
Held: If the entitlement to recover arrears of rent passes from assignor to assignee, and . .
Cited – Edlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited CA 22-Mar-2006
The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in . .
Cited – Geldof Metaalconstructie Nv v Simon Carves Ltd CA 11-Jun-2010
The parties contracted for the supply and installation of pressure vessels by Geldof (G) for a building constructed by Simon Carves (SC). The contract contained a clause denying the remedy of set-off. G sued for the sale price, and SC now sought an . .
Cited – Dole Dried Fruit and Nut Co v Trustin Kerwood Ltd CA 1990
The defendant had an exclusive distributorship agency for the plaintiff in England. Under that agreement, the plaintiff sold its prunes and raisins to the defendant under separate contracts of sale. The plaintiff claimed the price of goods sold . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185867
The claimants requested a declaration that an option to repurchase land was void under the 1964 Act.
Held: The option to repurchase land was prima facie void. The right arose on the coming into existence of the agreement, or at the latest on the original purchase. The defendants sought assistance in equity under an estoppel by convention. The fact that the defendant’s right arose under statute did not prevent equity overriding that right. To establish an estoppel generally it was necessary to identify some unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendant. None was shown here. To establish an estoppel by convention, there was no requirement for unconscionable behaviour, but it was necessary to show some common mistake as to the meaning of the contract, followed by a course of conduct establishing reliance upon that conventional interpretation. That was absent here. The parties were merely mistaken.
Simon Berry QC
Times 21-Feb-2003, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, Gazette 10-Apr-2003, [2003] EWHC 750 (Ch), [2003] 23 EG 136, [2003] 2 EGLR 63, [2003] 10 EG 164, [2003] WTLR 609
Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 9(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Adams v Lindsell KBD 5-Jun-1818
No Contract by Post until Acceptance Received
The defendant sent his offer of wool for sale to the plaintiff by post. The plaintiff’s acceptance was at first misdirected. Before receiving the reply the defendant had sold the wool elsewhere, but this was only after he would have received the . .
Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
Cited – Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
Cited – Keen v Holland CA 1984
Oliver LJ rejected a submission that, where parties were shown to have a common view about the legal effect of a contract into which they had entered and it was established that one of them would not, to the other’s knowledge, have entered into it . .
Cited – Shah v Shah CA 10-Apr-2001
The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the . .
Cited – Taylor v Couch ChD 1-Mar-2012
The case raised the question of law involving the application of the rule against perpetuities to what, on the claimant’s case, is a right of pre-emption created before the coming into force in 2010 of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180367
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.
Times 18-Feb-1999, Gazette 24-Feb-1999
England and Wales
See also – D B Ramsden and Co Ltd v Nurdin and Peacock Plc and Another ChD 14-Sep-1998
The tenant overpaid rent, including a payment in May 1997 on advice that the payment would be recoverable following litigation establishing that it was an overpayment. The court later held that the payments in question were indeed overpayments. The . .
See Also – D B Ramsden and Co Ltd v Nurdin and Peacock Plc and Another ChD 14-Sep-1998
The tenant overpaid rent, including a payment in May 1997 on advice that the payment would be recoverable following litigation establishing that it was an overpayment. The court later held that the payments in question were indeed overpayments. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84391
The doctrine of ‘unconscionable bargain’ does not extend to gifts obtained by undue influence.
Times 24-Feb-1995, [1995] 2 FLR 890
England and Wales
Cited – Randall v Randall ChD 30-Jul-2004
The executor sought to set aside gifts made by the deceased, an elderly aunt before her death to his brother, alleging undue influence.
Held: The recipient had acted falsely in failing to declare overpayments of benefits. The deceased had been . .
Cited – Forsdike v Forsdike CA 21-Feb-1997
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim to set aside a transfer by way of gift by his father on the basis of an alleged undue influence.
Held: The judges was entitled to make the findings he had done, and to be impressed by the spacing of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.82950
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.
Gazette 01-Dec-1999, Times 11-Jan-2000
England and Wales
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83272
Walton J drew attention in his judgment to the need for the courts, in considering how the equity of exoneration should work as between a husband and a wife, to take into account the relationship which husbands and wives bear, or ought to bear, to one another in their family affairs in current times. The guide that Victorian cases can provide to the inferences which should be drawn from the dealings with one another of husbands and wives today is often not very valuable.
As to the case of Hall v Hall: ‘I do not think I have to go into the interesting question whether that case is now good law in view of completely changed social conditions. It appears to me that that case was decided in the days when the wife did nothing except sit at home and run the household and boss the servants about, and the husband was expected to be, and indeed was, the provider. Times have now changed, and I am very far from that if that case were to be heard on precisely the same facts tomorrow, the decision would necessarily be the same.’ ‘
Walton J
Unrported,19 November 1979
England and Wales
Cited – Hall v Hall ChD 1911
An equity of exoneration in favour of a wife arises ‘at the time she charges her estate’. The doctrine of exoneration is based on an inference in each case from all the facts of that particular case. Where one co-habitee joins in granting a charge . .
Cited – In Re Pittortou (a bankrupt) ChD 1985
H and W charged the property to secure the H’s overdrawn bank account. The account was used both for his business and for payment of expenses relating to the matrimonial home. H was adjudicated bankrupt. W sought her equity to be exonerated from H’s . .
Cited – Day v Shaw and Another ChD 17-Jan-2014
Mr and Mrs Shaw had granted a second charge over their jointly-owned matrimonial home to secure the personal guarantee given by their daughter and by Mr Shaw in respect of a bank loan to a company (Avon). Their daughter and Mr Shaw were the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.567253
The solicitor, acting in a land purchase transaction for his lay client and the plaintiff, had unwittingly misled the claimant by telling the claimant that the purchasers were providing the balance of the purchase price themselves without recourse to further borrowing when he knew that they were using an overdraft to obtain further funding. The plaintiff claimed in breach of trust.
Held: A claim for damages for a solicitor’s failure to disclose the existence of a 2nd mortgage must show that damage flowed from the failure alleged.
Millett LJ said: ‘A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. This core liability has several facets. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to indicate the nature of fiduciary obligations. They are the defining characteristics of the fiduciary.’
He is not subject to fiduciary obligations because he is a fiduciary; it is because he is subject to them that he is a fiduciary: ‘A fiduciary who acts for two principals with potentially conflicting interests without the informed consent of both is in breach of the obligation of undivided loyalty; he puts himself in a position where his duty to one principal may conflict with his duty to another . . This is sometimes described as ‘the double employment rule.” and
‘Finally, the fiduciary must take care not to find himself in a position where there is an actual conflict of duty so that he cannot fulfil his obligations to one principal without failing in his obligations to the other . . If he does, he may have no alternative but to cease to act for at least one and preferably both. The fact that he cannot fulfil his obligations to one principal without being in breach of his obligations to the other will not absolve him from liability.’
As to breach of the duty: ‘Breach of fiduciary obligation, therefore, connotes disloyalty or infidelity. Mere incompetence is not enough. A servant who loyally does his incompetent best for his master is not unfaithful and is not guilty of a breach of fiduciary duty.’
If the trustee has benefited from the breach, the court will order him to account for it on the application of the beneficiary. Millett LJ described such relief as ‘primarily restitutionary or restorative rather than compensatory’.
Millett LJ
Times 02-Aug-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 533, [1998] Ch 1, [1997] 2 WLR 436, [1996] 4 All ER 698
England and Wales
Cited – Birmingham Midshires Building Society v Infields (A Firm) TCC 20-May-1999
The defendant solicitors had acted for the lenders and borrower in a mortgage transaction. The claimant sought repayment of the entire loan, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, in having preferred the interests of one client over those of another. . .
Cited – Arklow Investments Ltd and Another v Maclean and Others PC 1-Dec-1999
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 . .
Cited – DEG-Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v Koshy and Other (No 3); Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (in receivership) v Same (No 3) CA 28-Jul-2003
The company sought to recover damages from a director who had acted dishonestly, by concealing a financial interest in a different company which had made loans to the claimant company. He replied that the claim was out of time. At first instance the . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Goldberg, Mcavoy ChD 26-Nov-2003
The Secretary of State sought a disqualification order. The director argued that one shoul not be made in the absence of some breach of legal duty, some dishonesty should be shown.
Held: The answer was a mixture of fact and law. A breach of . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer plc v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (A Firm) ChD 2-Jun-2004
The claimant sought an injunction preventing the respondent form of solicitors acting for a client in a bid for the claimant, saying that the firm was continuing to act for it, and that a conflict of interest arose.
Held: Though the . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Group Plc and Another v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer CA 3-Jun-2004
The defendant firm of solicitors sought leave to appeal against an injunction requiring them not to act for a client in making a bid to take over the business of the claimant, a former client of the firm.
Held: Leave was refused. The appeal . .
Cited – Newgate Stud Company, Newgate Stud Farm Llc v Penfold, Penfold Bloodstock Limited ChD 21-Dec-2004
The claimants sought damages from the defendant. He had been employed to manage their horse-racing activities, and it was alleged that he had made secret profits. The defendant denied any dishonesty, saying all matters were known to the deceased . .
Cited – Hilton v Barker Booth and Eastwood HL 3-Feb-2005
The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for him, where he was to contract with another client of the same solicitor in a land development. The solicitor failed to disclose that the other client had convictions for dishonesty, and . .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Ratiu, Karmel, Regent House Properties Ltd v Conway CA 22-Nov-2005
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The defendant through their company had accused him acting in such a way as to allow a conflict of interest to arise. They said that he had been invited to act on a proposed purchase but had used the . .
Cited – Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Markandan and Uddin (A Firm) ChD 14-Oct-2010
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant firm of solicitors had failed to deal properly with a conveyance having paid across the mortgage funds to a non-existent firm of solicitors and without obtaining the appropriate documents at all. . .
Cited – Barnes and Another v Black Horse Ltd QBD 31-May-2011
The claimants sought repayment by the bank of sums paid to them for Payment Protection Insurance policies sold to them in connection with loans made by the bank. The Bank now resisted an application for leave to amend the particulars of the . .
Cited – Cook v The Mortgage Business Plc CA 24-Jan-2012
The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to . .
Cited – Portman Building Society v Hamlyn Taylor Neck (a Firm) CA 22-Apr-1998
The mortgage advance had been against an express requirement that the client use the property as his private residence. After the client defaulted, the appellant lender discovered that the solicitors acting for themselves and the lay client had . .
Cited – Mortgage Express v Abensons Solicitors (A Firm) ChD 20-Apr-2012
The claimant lender sought damages against the defendant solicitors alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty by them in acting for them on mortgage advances. The defendants now argued that the allowance of an amendment to add the allegation . .
Cited – Leeds and Holbeck Building Society v Arthur and Cole ChD 2001
A claim for breach of fiduciary duty by a solicitor as against his lender client, required that it be found that the solicitor ‘did not disclose matters which he admittedly ought to have done to the claimant, intentionally and consciously, knowing . .
Cited – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC 16-Jul-2014
Approprietary remedy against Fraudulent Agent
The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .
Cited – AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co Solicitors SC 5-Nov-2014
Bank not to recover more than its losses
The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to . .
Cited – Halton International Inc (Holding) and Another v Guernroy Ltd ChD 9-Sep-2005
Parties had entered into a shareholders’ agreement as to voting arrengemets within a company. Thay disputed whether votes had been used in reach of that agreement, particularly as to the issue of new shares and their allotment, but the court now . .
Cited – Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper SC 29-Jul-2020
Charitable Company- Directors’ Status and Duties
A married couple set up a charitable foundation to assist children in developing countries. When the marriage failed an attempt was made to establish a second foundation with funds from the first, as part of W leaving the Trust. Court approval was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140400
(New Zealand) Mr and Mrs Goss, had been granted a loan by the claimant finance company under a mortgage instrument that had been avoided by the claimant because it had been fraudulently altered by Mr Haddon, an employee of the claimant, without the claimant’s authority. Mr Haddon was the brother of Mrs Goss. The advance from the claimant having been made available to Mr and Mrs Goss, it was as agreed between them and Mr Haddon in fact received by Mr Haddon. Mr and Mrs Goss took no security from Mr Haddon. Mr Haddon was unable to repay the advance. Mr and Mrs Goss argued that their inability to recover the money from Mr Haddon constituted a defence of change of position to the claimant’s action for restitution of the money paid for a consideration that had totally failed.
Held: The loan remained repayable despite the unenforceability of the mortgage instrument under which it was secured. The defence failed because Mr and Mrs Goss knew that the money lent would have to be repaid to the claimant and, in paying it to Mr Haddon, they had taken the risk that the loss would fall on them.
Lord Goff said: ‘From the beginning, the Defendants were under an obligation to repay the advance once it had been paid to them or to their order; and this obligation was of course unaffected by the fact that they had allowed the money to be paid over to Mr Haddon. The effect of the alteration of the mortgage instrument was that their contractual obligation to repay the money was discharged; but they had nevertheless been enriched by the receipt of the money, and prima facie were liable in restitution to restore it. They had however allowed the money to be paid over to Mr Haddon in circumstances in which, as they well knew, the money would nevertheless have to be repaid to the company. They had, therefore, in allowing the money to be paid to Mr Haddon, deliberately taken the risk that he would be unable to repay the money, in which event they themselves would have to repay it without recourse to him. Since any action by them against Mr Haddon would now be fruitless they are seeking, by invoking the defence of change of position, to shift that loss onto the company. This, in their Lordships’ opinion, they cannot do. The fact that they cannot now obtain reimbursement from Mr Haddon does not, in the circumstances of the present case, render it inequitable for them to be required to make restitution to the company in respect of the enrichment which they have received at the company’s expense.’
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon
Gazette 12-Jun-1996, Times 06-Jun-1996, [1996] UKPC 17, [1996] AC 788
England and Wales
Cited – Davidson, Public Officer, &Amp;C v Cooper And Another 6-Jul-1844
. .
Cited – Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd HL 15-Jun-1942
A contract for the supply by the respondents of special machinery to be manufactured by them was treated as an ordinary contract for the sale of goods. It began valid, but suffered frustration by the outbreak of war.
Held: Lord Wright restated . .
Cited – David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia 7-Oct-1992
(High Court of Australia ) Restitution – Money paid under mistake – Mistake of law – Right to recover – Unjust enrichment – Defences – Change of position. . .
Cited – Kommune and Another v DEPFA Acs Bank ComC 4-Sep-2009
Local authorities in Denmark sought to recover sums paid to the defendant banks for swap trading, saying that the payments had been outwith their powers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80939
Where partnership terms required benefit of all contracts to be assigned to the partnership, this included unassignable personal contracts which were to be held in trust for partnership, unless stated otherwise.
Lightman J said: ‘The existence of an obligation binding the conscience of the person vested with the legal ownership is the hallmark of a trust.’ and ‘in principle I can see no objection to a party to contracts involving skill and confidence or containing non-assignment provisions from becoming trustee of the benefit of being the contracting party as well as the benefit of the rights conferred. I can see no reason why the law should limit the parties’ freedom of contract to creating trusts of the fruits of such contracts received by the assignor or to creating an accounting relationship between the parties in respect of the fruits.’
Lightman J
Times 13-Apr-1998, Gazette 13-May-1998, [2000] Ch 291, [1998] 2 All ER 608
See Also – Don King Productions Inc v Warren King and Another (No 2) ChD 18-Jun-1998
An application for a Mareva injunction made ex parte was exceptionally justified when a partner failed to explain unaccounted for receipts after a full opportunity had been given, and there was no logical or innocent basis for the concealment of . .
Cited – Vandepitte v Preferred Accident Insurance Corp. of New York PC 1933
The plaintiff was injured in a motor accident. He failed in a direct claim against the insurers of the negligent defendant driver. The insurance was effected by the father (Mr Berry) of the negligent driver and provided that an indemnity would be . .
Cited – Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (A Firm) and Another HL 21-Jul-1995
The defendant solicitors had acted for a purchaser, Crowngate, which had agreed to buy a property from a company called Mirage for andpound;775,000. Crowngate had arranged however that the property would first be passed through a chain of two . .
See Also – Don King Productions Inc v Warren King and Another (No 2) ChD 18-Jun-1998
An application for a Mareva injunction made ex parte was exceptionally justified when a partner failed to explain unaccounted for receipts after a full opportunity had been given, and there was no logical or innocent basis for the concealment of . .
Appeal from – Don King Productions Inc v Warren; Roberts; Centurion Promotions Limited (Formerly Sports Network Limited); Sports Network Usa, Inc; Time Warner Entertainment Company, Lp and Sport International, Inc CA 19-Nov-1998
Contracts between the members of a firm and third parties, and which were subject to the partnership contract, but which were expressed to be personal and incapable of assignment, were still held on trust for the partnership, and renewals made . .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Barbados Trust Company Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Another CA 27-Feb-2007
The creditor had assigned the debt, but without first giving the debtor defendant the necessary notice. A challenge was made to the ability of the assignee to bring the action, saying that the deed of trust appointed to circumvent the reluctance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80091
No defence of contributory negligence was to be allowed against a claim involving an allegation of corruption by means of bribery. The defendants had bribed one of the plaintiff’s employees. The plaintiff claimed restitution, and an account from the defendants as constructive trustees for profits. The defendants wanted to assert that there was an equivalent to contributory negligence within the law of equity. There was no proper reason for distinguishing deceit by bribery from other forms of deceit. There had to be something to have put the plaintiff on notice of the deceit, and that was absent here.
Gazette 13-Dec-1996
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79515
A person must know of the existence of an obligation of trust to be liable as an accessory to an act in breach of that trust. A person cannot be liable for dishonest assistance in a breach of trust unless he knows of the existence of the trust or at least the facts giving rise to the trust.
Rimer J
Times 23-Oct-1995, [1996] CLC 133
See Also – Brinks Ltd and Another v AbuSaleh and Others ChD 6-Mar-1995
A delay in issuing Order 14 proceedings is not in itself relevant. . .
Not approved – Barlow Clowes International Ltd and Another v Eurotrust International Ltd and others PC 10-Oct-2005
(Court of Appeal of the Isle of Man) Defendants appealed a finding of dishonest assistance in the activities of Barlow Clowes.
Held: The judge had been able to reach the conclusions on the basis of the evidence. The appeal of the deemster . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78584
An equitable interest was not acquired by a license’s contributing no special amounts as against owners of equitable charge to bank.
Gazette 25-Mar-1998
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78157
(New South Wales) Mr and Mrs P owned and controlled W Ltd. W Ltd borrowed monies from Citibank which took security for repayment in the form of a charge over the home of Mr and Mrs P and also a charge over the home of the parents of Mr P. On the face of the documents, Mr and Mrs P and the parents of Mr P were co-sureties for the debt of W Ltd. W Ltd defaulted and Mr and Mrs P were made bankrupt. Their trustee in bankruptcy sold their home and repaid the debt to Citibank. The trustee then claimed an equal contribution from Mr P’s parents on the basis that they were co-sureties with Mr and Mrs P and that the default position was that the co-sureties were equally liable to contribute to the payment of the debt.
Held: The claim by the trustee in bankruptcy was dismissed. Mr P’s parents had entered into the charge at the request of Mr and Mrs P and therefore Mr and Mrs P were liable to indemnify Mr P’s parents and, accordingly, were not entitled to claim a contribution from them. A right of contribution may not arise where two persons borrow money but that money is applied for the purposes of only one of them, or if one guarantor enjoys the whole benefit of the guarantee in another capacity to the exclusion of his co-surety.
In considering whether common intention is essential to rebut contribution, Bryson J said: ‘The position taken by the plaintiff’s counsel before me was to the effect that the prima facie right of contribution can only be rebutted if a common intention to the contrary is clearly proved by evidence of some agreement or arrangement. No doubt it is very usual that rebuttal takes that form, but in my opinion it is not necessary that there should be a common intention or a bilateral arrangement, and it is not necessary that there should be any expression of an intention or arrangement, as circumstances can occur in which an intended outcome is so clear and obvious that it must be imputed to the parties that they intended it. Quite apart from any intention held by the parties or imputed to them, circumstances can occur in which, without there being any expression of intention or actual advertence to the subject of contribution, it is clear that equity does not require that an obligation to make contribution should be imposed on a party. The court should not lose sight of the origin of the right to contribution in the equitable principle that equity is equality, or forget that facts may exist in which it is not appropriate to treat parties under a common liability as in an equal position, or in which some other equitable principle ought to be given effect.’
Bryson J
[1999] BPIR 754, (1995) 38 NSWLR 116
Cited – Day v Shaw and Another ChD 17-Jan-2014
Mr and Mrs Shaw had granted a second charge over their jointly-owned matrimonial home to secure the personal guarantee given by their daughter and by Mr Shaw in respect of a bank loan to a company (Avon). Their daughter and Mr Shaw were the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567255
[1789] EngR 449, (1789-1817) 2 Ves Jun Supp 363, (1789) 34 ER 1133 (E)
See Also – Craythorne v Swinburne 23-Jul-1807
No contribution in favour of one Surety against another : his engagement, according to the bond, and parol evidence, which was held admissible, being, not as Co-surety, but, without the privity of the other, as a distinct collatteral secnrity, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.366080
Parents having a power of appointing an estate to all or any of their children appointed it absolutely to two of their sons, upon the understanding that the appointments should resettle the estate upon certain trusts for the benefit of all the children then living during their respective lives, and subject thereto for the benefit of the children of the sons. This resettlement was made by a contemporaneous deed. Held, that the transaction could not be supported by analogy to the common case of an appointment to a daughter in contemplation of her marriage, accompanied by a contemporaneous settlement of the appointed fund, but that the appointment was void in equity, as made upon a bargain for the benefit of persons not objects of the power,
Knight Bruce LJ
[1864] EngR 412, (1864) 3 De G J and S 205, (1864) 46 ER 353
England and Wales
Cited – Eclairs Group Ltd and Glengary Overseas Ltd v JKX Oil and Gas Plc SC 2-Dec-2015
Company Director not Trustee but is Fiduciary
The Court was asked about an alleged ‘corporate raid’, an attempt to exploit a minority shareholding in a company to obtain effective management or voting control without paying what other shareholders would regard as a proper price.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.282126
Whatever alteration of form any property may undergo, the true owner is entitled to seize it in its new shape if he can prove the identity of the original material.
(1808) 15 Ves 442, [1808] EngR 429, (1808) 15 Ves Jun 432, (1808) 33 ER 817
England and Wales
Cited – Foskett v McKeown and Others HL 18-May-2000
A property developer using monies which he held on trust to carry out a development instead had mixed those monies with his own in his bank account, and subsequently used those mixed monies to pay premiums on a life assurance policy on his own life, . .
Cited – Indian Oil Corporation v Greenstone Shipping SA 1988
A ship had on board some oil of the shipowners and it was mixed with oil, the property of the receivers, and transported to India. The mixture could not be separated for practical purposes and the question was how much of the oil were the receivers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.220693
The courts of equity have recognised that a fiduciary relationship can exist ‘in almost every shape’.
Field J
(1885) 52 LT 646
Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.216364
(New South Wales Supreme Court) ‘I am satisfied that both parties believed that the agreement for lease would validly take effect according to its terms and that had they known of the substantial variation which the Retail Leases Act 1994 would impose upon the agreement, they would not have entered into it’ and ’42. I do not need to consider the vexed question of whether the mistake in the present case is one of fact or one of law. As to whether, in the law of Australia, the doctrine of common ‘mistake applies to’ a mistake of law, I need do no more that set out the following passage from Cheshire and Fifoot’s Law of Contract 8th Aust Ed., para 12.8: ‘Operative mistake traditionally has been confined to mistakes of fact and not of law. This distinction has always been blurred and has been notoriously difficult to apply. It appears that equity did not draw a clear line between mistakes of fact and law. If there was such a rule, it was often honoured in the breach. In Western Australia the law/fact distinction has been abolished by legislation (with certain safeguards). The whole question has now almost certainly been laid to rest by the decision of the High Court in David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 175 CLR 353. In that case the distinction between mistake of law and mistake of fact was rejected in the light of a very considerable body of judicial and academic criticism of the distinction. . . . the rule precluding recovery of moneys paid under a mistake of law should be held not to form part of the law in Australia.’
Palmer J
[2002] NSWSC 115
England and Wales
Cited – Margaret Brennan v Bolt Burdon, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co QBD 30-Oct-2003
The claimant had sought relief for the injury to her health suffered by condition of her flat. The legal advisers had settled the matter, thinking that the claim had not been timeously served. The defendant appealed an order that the compromise was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187292
A brochure listing properties to be sold at auction decribed the property as being subject to a terminable licence. In fact it was a secure tenancy. The question arose as to whether a misrepresentation of law could found a cause of action.
Held: ‘I have concluded that the ‘misrepresentation of law’ rule has not survived the decision in Klienwort Benson Ltd. Its historical origin is as an off-shoot of the ‘mistake of law’ rule, created by analogy with it, and the two are logically inter-dependent. Both are grounded in the maxim ‘ignorantia juris non excusat’, a tag whose dubious utility would have been enhanced, had it gone on to explain who was not excused and from what. As it stands, it means no more than that ignorance of the general law does not excuse anyone from compliance with it, a proposition with which criminal lawyers are familiar. In translation, it has become distorted and amplified meaning, in such expressions as ‘everyone’ is taken to know the Law’, from which follow two further propositions (underpinning the ‘mistake of law’ and ‘misrepresentation of law’ rules respectively) (i) ‘ as you are taken to know the law, it is your fault if you are mistaken as to it, even if I have misrepresented it to you, and because of that you should have no relief’. Those two propositions bear little relation to, and do not follow logically from, the maxim ‘ignorantia juris non excusat’, but save for its Latin roots, no basis for the ‘misrepresentation of law’ rule is to be found, as Lane L.J. remarked in Andre. The distinction between fact and law in the context of relief from misrepresentation has no more underlying principle to it than it does in the context of relief from mistake. Indeed, when the principles of mistake and misrepresentation are set side by side, there is a stronger case for granting relief against a party who has induced a mistaken belief as to law in another, than against one who has merely made the same mistake himself. The rules of the common law should, so far as possible, be congruent with one another, and based on coherent principle. The survival of the ‘misrepresentation of law’ rule following the demise of the ‘mistake of law’ rule would be more than a quixotic anachronism. Its demise rids this area of the law of a series of distinctions, such as the ‘private rights’ exception, whose principal function has been to distinguish the ‘mistake of law’ rule, and confine it to a very narrow compass, albeit not to extinguish it completely.’
Rex Tedd QC
[2002] EWHC 2441 (Ch)
England and Wales
Applied – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Margaret Brennan v Bolt Burdon, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co QBD 30-Oct-2003
The claimant had sought relief for the injury to her health suffered by condition of her flat. The legal advisers had settled the matter, thinking that the claim had not been timeously served. The defendant appealed an order that the compromise was . .
Cited – Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187291
Shares in a company had been given by a promoter to the defendant to induce him to become a director.
Held: They belonged to the company.
Sir James Bacon V-C
(1878) 12 Ch D 738
Cited – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC 16-Jul-2014
Approprietary remedy against Fraudulent Agent
The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.551506
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.
Blackburne J
Unreported, 21/12/1999
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270353
A unilateral document could not be rectified to make it into something which it was not intended to be at the time it was executed, even if the alteration would give better effect to the general intention of the parties. The choice of different means to achieve the same object was not to be allowed by rectification.
Times 03-Feb-2000
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79281
Lord Cranstown was the absentee owner of a valuable estate in a Caribbean island, but he owed the defendant Johnston a modest amount of money. Johnston sued for the money to be brought in the local court, whose laws permitted a form of substituted service. He nailed the writ on a post and on the courthouse door. Thus, as Johnston had intended all along, Lord Cranstown received no actual notice of the proceedings. Judgment was given by default, the estate was put up for auction to satisfy the judgment, and Johnston, who was the only bidder, acquired the property for the amount of the debt, which was far less than the value of the estate. From beginning to end Johnston uttered no false representation to anyone, nor did he violate any law of the island, nor did he owe any contractual obligation to Lord Cranstown; but he did know that he was going behind Lord Cranstown’s back in getting the estate for a pittance. Lord Cranstown brought suit in England to recover the estate.
Held: Although he would not question the jurisdiction of the foreign court, or the regularity of its proceedings, and although he would not presume that the local laws would set aside the transaction, it was a fraud all the same according to English rules of equity, and that the defendant Johnston must restore the estate upon being repaid the original debt and expenses.
Arden MR
(1796) 3 Ves 170
England and Wales
Cited – R Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2) ChD 12-May-2004
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant’s interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.199521
A company director had advanced part of a loan for the purchase of a mine in Prussia. He died, and because of lack of funds, his estate risked losing everything. His estate sought its recovery.
Held: ‘With respect to this advance, I think that, upon the authority of Penn v. Lord Baltimore, which has often been acted upon, the Plaintiff would have been entitled to succeed if he could have proved that the claim for a declaration of the proposed charge or lien on the Maria Anna mine was founded on any contract or privity between him or the deceased [director] and the Defendants, the purchasers of the mine, and if there had not been a suit in the Prussian Courts, in which the same question was raised and had been decided in the Plaintiff’s favour. But I agree in thinking with the Master of the Rolls that the Plaintiff has failed to shew any such contract or privity. Upon the evidence adduced the purchasers of the mine, whom he sues, are to be considered as mere strangers, and any notice which they may have had of the transactions between [the deceased director] and [the old company] (which has now ceased to exist) cannot give this Court jurisdiction to declare the proposed lien or charge on lands in a foreign country. An English Court ought not to pronounce a decree, even in personam, which can have no specific operation without the intervention of a foreign Court, and which in the country where the lands to be charged by it lie would probably be treated as a brutum fulmen. I do not think that the Court of Chancery would give effect to a charge on land in the county of Middlesex so created by a Prussian Court sitting as Dusseldorf or Cologne. But another objection is lis alibi pendens, a suit pending before the proper tribunal in Prussia, and that by this tribunal, a decree has actually been pronounced in favour of the Plaintiff, giving him what he seeks . . We must suppose that the Court at Dusseldorf has ample means to enforce the whole of its decree, and that the Plaintiff will have the full benefit of that decree, which may be considered as creating a debt for which the opposite parties are personally liable and a charge upon the property sold.’
Lord Campbell LC
(1862) 3 De G.F. and J. 583
England and Wales
Appeal from – Norris v Chambres 1861
A company director had committed suicide; the claim was brought by his estate. The company had been established in England to work a Prussian coal mine, and the director had personally advanced a large sum towards its purchase. The company agreed to . .
Cited – Penn v Lord Baltimore 1750
The court compelled Lord Baltimore to comply with the obligations he had assumed to the Penn family, by setting the Mason-Dixon line, demarcating boundaries between the privately-owned territories of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and . .
Cited – R Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2) ChD 12-May-2004
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant’s interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant . .
Cited – Deschamps v Miller 1908
The parties disputed land in India. A French couple, had married in France in community of property. So according to the French marriage contract the wife was supposed to be entitled to one half of the husband’s after-acquired property. The husband . .
Explained – Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc and Others (No 3) ChD 1-Jul-1993
Bona fide chargees for value of shares situated in New York and held on trust for Macmillan were able, by application of New York law, to take the shares free of Macmillan’s prior equitable interest of which the chargees had had no notice. Where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.199520
The bank made an advance to the owner of property in Accra which was used to pay off his indebtedness to Barclays (DC and O) Ltd, secured by an equitable mortgage. The owner executed a legal mortgage in favour of the Ghana Bank, but this was invalidated by a previous attachment of the property by a creditor.
Held: The Ghana Bank was entitled to be subrogated to the equitable mortgage which had been paid off. ‘It is not open to doubt that where a third party pays off a mortgage he is presumed, unless the contrary appears, to intend that the mortgage shall be kept alive for his own benefit.’
Lord Jenkins
[1960] AC 732
Commonwealth
Cited – Butler v Rice 1910
The wife owned a Bristol property and a Cardiff property subject to a andpound;450 charge in favour of a bank with whom the title deeds had been deposited. The husband asked the plaintiff to lend him andpound;450 to pay off the mortgage. The . .
Cited – UCB Group Ltd v Hedworth CA 4-Dec-2003
The defendant challenged the claimant’s right to possession under a legal charge. She appealed a finding that she had not established the undue influence of her husband, a solicitor.
Held: A lender who received a voidable security was entitled . .
Cited – Boscawen and Others v Bajwa and Others; Abbey National Plc v Boscawen and Others CA 10-Apr-1995
The defendant had charged his property to the Halifax. Abbey supplied funds to secure its discharge, but its own charge was not registered. It sought to take advantage of the Halifax’s charge which had still not been removed.
Held: A mortgagee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190508
The claimant had failed in an action for damages against the respondent, and had failed to pay the costs award. The respondent issued a statutory demand. He claimed that it was invalid because the chief constable had changed in the interim, and there had been no assignment of the benefit of the order.
Held: The office of chief constable was not a corporation, but an office. Some assignment was required. There was no statutory assignment, but there had been an equitable one. An equitable assignment need take no particular form: ‘All that is needed is a sufficient expression of an intention to assign’. Equity would treat as done that which ought to have been done.
Times 24-Dec-2003, [2003] EWHC 3391, [2004] 1 WLR 1425
Insolvency Rules 1986 (1986 No 1925) 6.1
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney-General for New South Wales v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd PC 14-Mar-1955
(Australia) The Crown could not recover damages for the loss of the services of a police constable as the result of injuries caused by the negligence of a third person. A chief constable was an office held under the Crown, and the usual relationship . .
Appeal from – Coulter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police CA 8-Oct-2004
The appellant had failed in his action against the police and been ordered to pay the costs. A statutory demand was issued in the name of the respondent, but as the new chief constable had no deed of assignment, he was only equitable assignee.
See Also – Coulter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police CA 13-Jul-2005
An appeal was made against an order refusing to set aside a second statutory demand. The demand was to enforce payment of an order for costs made in proceedings between the parties. The first statutory demand had been upheld, and the judge found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189946
A short delay in the sale of a property by a mortgagee was appropriate to allow proper advertising of a property.
[2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 741
England and Wales
Cited – Den Norske Bank Asa v Acemex Management Company Ltd CA 7-Nov-2003
Money had been loaned for the purchase of three ships,and mortgages over the ships had been given given. The borrowers were in default, and the lender sought to arrest the vessels. The defendant argued that the way the arrest had been undertaken . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187672
In discussing what was said to be unconscionable contract, the Board accepted that ‘It is not sufficient to attract the jurisdiction of equity to prove that a bargain is hard, unreasonable or foolish; it must be proved to be unconscionable, in the sense that ‘one of the parties to it has imposed the objectionable terms in a morally reprehensible manner, that is to say in a way which affects his conscience’
Lord Templeman
[1995] 69 PandCR 298
Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd QBD 1983
To establish that a contract was unconscionable, a party had to have made an unconscientious use of its superior position or superior bargaining power to the detriment of someone suffering from some special disability or disadvantage. This weakness . .
Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd CA 1985
The court was asked whether the terms of a lease and lease back amounted to an unconscionable bargain and was unenforceable.
Held: The court affirmed the decision at first instance, but emphasised the need for unconscientious behaviour rather . .
Cited – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Cited – Portman Building Society v Dusangh and Others CA 19-Apr-2000
The defendant sought to set aside an order for possession under a mortgage.
Held: Where a case was strong enough on its face in terms of conduct and terms, unconscionable conduct could be inferred if there was no explanation offered to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186677
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.
Times 13-Aug-1999
Financial Services Act 1986 47
England and Wales
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84363
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.
Nourse LJ, Sedley LJ, Colman J
Gazette 08-Sep-1999, Times 28-Sep-1999, [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep Banking 511
England and Wales
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81307
The court rejected a request to apply the doctine of election despite evidence that the testator might have disapproved of the result.
(1852) 2 De G M and G 705
England and Wales
Cited – Frear v Frear and Another CA 2-Dec-2008
Claim for interest in land
The claimant asserted an interest in the house in his mother’s estate and claimed against the personal representatives. He had lived in the house with his mother. He had previously assisted in the purchase of an earlier family home after being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.278401
In the case of mixed motives the Court will apply a ‘but for’ test, namely whether the power to transfer would have been exercised but for the intent to achieve the ulterior purpose or whether the power would have been exercised in any event
(1884) 28 Ch D 205
England and Wales
Cited – Eclairs Group Ltd and Glengary Overseas Ltd v JKX Oil and Gas Plc SC 2-Dec-2015
Company Director not Trustee but is Fiduciary
The Court was asked about an alleged ‘corporate raid’, an attempt to exploit a minority shareholding in a company to obtain effective management or voting control without paying what other shareholders would regard as a proper price.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.595478
Austlii High Court of Australia – Banker and customer – Penalty doctrine – Consumer and commercial credit card accounts – Honour fee – Dishonour fee – Late payment fee – Non-payment fee – Over limit fee – Whether those fees penalties – Whether penalty doctrine limited to circumstances where there is breach of contract – Significance of law respecting penal bonds – Grounds for equitable intervention – Whether penalty doctrine now wholly a rule of common law.
Equity – Doctrines and remedies – Relief against penalties – Significance of law respecting penal bonds – Whether relief available only in cases of breach of contract – Whether penalty doctrine now wholly a rule of common law.
Words and phrases – ‘bond’, ‘condition’, ‘dishonour fee’, ‘exception fees’, ‘honour fee’, ‘penalty’.
French CJ, Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell JJ
[2012] HCA 30, (2012) 247 CLR 205, (2012) 290 ALR 595, [2012] ASC 155, (2012) 86 ALJR 1002
Australia
Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.593106
The Court of Appeal in chancery heard an appeal from the Master of the Rolls from his refusal of the Master of the Rolls to make a declaration in the winding up of the purchaser company. The purchaser had sought a direction that if the balance of the purchase monies were paid with interest it should be relieved from termination of the contract brought about by its not paying the purchase money by the due date. The Lord Justices held that the forfeiture was in the nature of penalty from which the court would relieve. Relief was to be granted, not against the forfeiture of the instalments, but against the forfeiture of the estate under a contract which involved the retention of the purchase money. The Court granted the purchaser, who had been in possession for five years and carried out improvements, further time to pay the second and final instalment of a purchase price on the ground that the clause requiring him to vacate and to forfeit the first instalment for not having paid the second instalment on time, was a ‘penalty’.
(1873) LR 8 Ch App 1022
England and Wales
Approved – Kilmer v The British Columbia Orchard Lands Limited PC 26-Feb-1913
British Columbia . .
Cited – Legione v Hateley 1982
(High Court of Australia) Purchasers of land were put on notice that unless they paid the price by 10th August the contract of sale would be rescinded. On 9th August the purchasers’ solicitor telephoned the vendor’s solicitors and spoke to the . .
Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.593110
The plaintiff paid for goods bought from the defendant. The defendant then brought an action for payment of the price alleging that he had not been paid. The claimant could not find his receipt for the first payment, and was ordered by the court to pay again. He then found the receipt and brought an action for money had and received to recover the second payment.
Held: Where money has been wrongly paid under the compulsion of legal process it cannot be recovered back in action for money had and received to the payer’s use.
Lord Kenyon said: ‘I am afraid of such a precedent. If this action could be maintained I know now that cause of action could ever be at rest. After a recovery by process of law there must be an end to litigation, otherwise there would be no security for any person.’
Lord Kenyon CJ
[1775-1802] All ER Rep 631
England and Wales
Applied – Wilson v Ray 1-May-1839
Lord Denman CJ descirbed the pronciple establishedin Marriott: .that what a party recovers from another by legal process, without fraud, the loser shall never recover back by virtue of any facts which could have availed him in the former proceeding. . .
Cited – John Ruskin College v Harley QBD 26-Nov-2013
A sum had been paid into court in 1997. Other sums were paid out, but this sum was left against costs liability. It was discovered much laterand paid out to the claimant. The former defendant now said that it had been paid out twice, and alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.593141
(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) The Court considered the equitable doctrine of mutual wills. The doctrine recognised that the executors and trustees of a will may be required to hold affected assets upon a constructive trust in terms of a revoked will.
Held: The imposition of a constructive trust based on mutual wills has two fundamental requirements:
(a) There was an underlying consultation and coordination between two testators which resulted in an agreement or an arrangement as to how they would make their respective wills (which were then made).2 I will refer to this as the requirement for ‘corresponding wills’. Reference is sometimes made to ‘mirror wills’ and, more ambiguously and confusingly, to ‘mutual wills’.
(b) There must have been a contract or mutual understanding (intended to bind each testator to a future cause of action) that neither testator
Richardson P, Blanchard J,Tipping J
[2000] NZCA 39, [2001] 2 NZLR 21, (2000) 20 FRNZ 86
England and Wales
Cited – Legg and Another v Burton and Others ChD 11-Aug-2017
Testing for Mutual Wills
The parties disputed whether wills were mutual. The claimants challenged the probate granted to a later will of their deceased mother, saying that her earlier will had been mutual and irrevocable after the death of their father.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.593131
The landlord sought an injunction against the defendant. The defendant countered, relying upon sec 2(1).
Held: The remedy provided by the section was limited to the award of damages. It could not, therefore, be used to defend an action for an injunction. Whilst he might be entitled in equity to repudiate the lease, he could not repudiate only part of the lease. The landlord might e criticised for its earlier conduct of the case, but rule 44 was concerned with the behaviour of the parties in conducting the litigation itself, and the rule could not be used to overturn the costs consequences because of misbehaviour outside the litigation.
Mr Justice Park
Times 26-Jun-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1), Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4)(a)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.174083
A security was granted to secure a debt owed by a third party.
[1997] 4 All ER 568
England and Wales
Cited – China and South Sea Bank Limited v Tan Soon Gin PC 1990
A mortgagee’s decision on sale is not constrained by reason of the fact that the exercise or non-exercise of the power will occasion loss or damage to the mortgagor. He can sit back and do nothing. He is not obliged to take steps to realise his . .
Cited – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and Others ChD 15-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether, as second mortgagee on the defendant’s properties, the claimant agency had the equitable power of marshalling of prior charges. The first chargee had charges over two properties, and sold the first, satisfying it debt, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.425367
Fraudulent execution of a power to jointure. A power to jointure having been executed under an agreement that the creditor of the husband should have part of the jointure, the appointment was set aside as far as the creditors were to benefit. The fraud being on the remainder man confirmation by the wife after husband’s death of no effect.
[1754] EngR 106, (1754) Amb 233, (1754) 27 ER 155
England and Wales
Cited – Eclairs Group Ltd and Glengary Overseas Ltd v JKX Oil and Gas Plc SC 2-Dec-2015
Company Director not Trustee but is Fiduciary
The Court was asked about an alleged ‘corporate raid’, an attempt to exploit a minority shareholding in a company to obtain effective management or voting control without paying what other shareholders would regard as a proper price.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.378085
Power of jointuring executed in favour of a wife, but with an agreement that the wife should only receive a part as an annuity for her own benefit, and that the residue should be applied to the payment of the husband’s debts : held, a fraud upon the power and the execution set aside, except so far as related to the annuity, the bill containing a submission to pay it, and only seeking relief against the other objects of the appointment
[1758] EngR 208, (1758) 1 Eden 132, (1758) 28 ER 634
England and Wales
Cited – Eclairs Group Ltd and Glengary Overseas Ltd v JKX Oil and Gas Plc SC 2-Dec-2015
Company Director not Trustee but is Fiduciary
The Court was asked about an alleged ‘corporate raid’, an attempt to exploit a minority shareholding in a company to obtain effective management or voting control without paying what other shareholders would regard as a proper price.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.342509
An absolute appointment was made to an object of a power, under a prior ‘understanding’ between the appointor and appointee, to hold in ‘In trust ‘ for persons, some of whom were objects and some not.
Held: The whole was void.
Sir John Romilly MR
[1858] EngR 441, (1858) 25 Beav 299, (1858) 53 ER 651
England and Wales
Cited – Eclairs Group Ltd and Glengary Overseas Ltd v JKX Oil and Gas Plc SC 2-Dec-2015
Company Director not Trustee but is Fiduciary
The Court was asked about an alleged ‘corporate raid’, an attempt to exploit a minority shareholding in a company to obtain effective management or voting control without paying what other shareholders would regard as a proper price.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.288912
[1662] EngR 195, (1662-63) 1 Rep Ch 235, (1662) 21 ER 559 (B)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.409439
Mr Chawda and his wife jointly owned a residential property which they charged to secure a loan, part of which refinanced the original purchase loan. The case concerned the balance of about 78,000 pounds. Mr Chawda and his brother carried on business together. The sum of 78,000 pounds had been used to refinance the purchase of a property which had been jointly purchased by Mr Chawda and his brother and in which Mrs Chawda had no interest. The brothers converted it into flats and business premises which they let. They received the rental income. It was re-mortgaged to raise andpound;285,000 which was used to make payments to businesses run by one or both of the brothers and to make a personal payment to Mr Chawda’s brother and his wife. The property was later sold for 690,000 pounds, resulting in a very substantial capital profit. After paying off the secured loan, the proceeds were applied in making a variety of payments. 10,000 pounds was paid to a company run by Mr Chawda, of which Mrs Chawda was the sole director. Its business was subsequently sold. A total of some 68,000 pounds out of the proceeds of sale was paid to the joint account of Mr and Mrs Chawda and spent for the benefit of themselves and their family.
Held: The circumstances of the case negated any inference that the equity of exoneration should apply in favour of Mrs Chawda. The transactions had to be seen ‘in the context of the Chawdas functioning as a family unit as many, perhaps even most, modern families do’. In her evidence, Mrs Chawda more than once referred to ‘us’ and ‘we’ when discussing their affairs. Other factors also established that they ‘operated as one’: Mrs Chawda worked in her husband’s business, initially without pay for seven days a week; they did not have separate bank accounts but operated and had joint control over joint bank accounts, into which they paid all their income from all sources; they both took the benefits of the ups and the burdens of the downs of Mr Chawda’s businesses. The benefits included a half-share in a house bought for 925,000 pounds, the monies totalling 68,000 pounds received from the sale of a business, and family holidays, leading the Chief Registrar to comment that ‘the parallels between the circumstances of the Chawda and the Pittortou families are clear’ He concluded: ‘It seems to me that in the circumstances in which a husband and wife operate as the Chawdas have, pooling their earnings and profits, administering their financial affairs jointly and enjoying together a prosperous life, if not an extravagance one such as that of the Pagets. It is as unattractive as it is artificial for one of them to take the benefits while at the same time seeking to enforce an individual right in one respect only to the disadvantage of the other spouse (or in this case his creditors).’
Chief Registrar Baister
[2014] BPIR 49
England and Wales
Cited – Armstrong v Onyearu and Another CA 11-Apr-2017
Exoneration of partner’s equity on insolvency
The court considered the equity of exoneration, where property jointly owned by A and B is charged to secure the debts of B only, A is or may be entitled to a charge over B’s share of the property to the extent that B’s debts are paid out of A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.581748
Federal Court of Australia – BANKRUPTCY – constructive trust – transfer of property to beneficiary – whether void as against trustee in bankruptcy
EQUITY – equity of exoneration – how defeated
TRUSTS – ‘common intention constructive trust’ – whether trustee in bankruptcy takes subject to trust – time at which trust ari
A surety, or a person in the position of a surety, has a right of exoneration whereby he or she is entitled to be indemnified by the principal debtor against any liability incurred as a consequence of being called on to pay the debt, describing it as an incident of the relationship between surety and principal debtor.
‘Where co-owners mortgage their property so that money can be borrowed for the benefit of one mortgagor, the other co-owner will be treated as if he or she was a surety and the equity of exoneration will also arise. In those circumstances that other has an interest in the property of the co-mortgagor whose property is to be regarded as primarily liable to pay the debt: Parsons at [21], Duncan, Fox and Co v North and South Wales Bank (1880) 6 App Cas 1 at 10.
However, the right to exoneration is lost where the surety receives a benefit from the loan or the funds raised in respect of which the charge has been given. ‘So, if the borrowed funds are applied to discharge the surety’s debts, the surety could not claim exoneration, at least in respect of the benefit received.’
Here, the giving of the [Brighton Westpac mortgage] might have created a relationship whereby Mr Mogilevsky would be treated as a surety and Mrs Mogilevsky would be treated as principal debtor if:
the mortgage was for the purpose of raising money to benefit the co-owner, in this case Mrs Mogilevsky;
the money borrowed was used for that purpose; and
Mr Mogilevsky derived no benefit from the money so raised.’
Black CJ, Kiefel, Finkelstein JJ
[2001] FCA 376, (2001) 109 FCR 120, 192 ALR 772
Australia
Cited – Armstrong v Onyearu and Another CA 11-Apr-2017
Exoneration of partner’s equity on insolvency
The court considered the equity of exoneration, where property jointly owned by A and B is charged to secure the debts of B only, A is or may be entitled to a charge over B’s share of the property to the extent that B’s debts are paid out of A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.581747
A partner had made a secret profit from the sale of partnership property.
Held: The other partner sought and obtained relief ‘substantially in accordance with the first and second paragraphs of the prayer of the bill’, which had sought ‘a declaration . . that the Plaintiff was entitled to share equally with the Defendant in the profits . . and that the Defendant was bound to make over to the Plaintiff one half of the profits . .’ Because of the importance which equity attaches to fiduciary duties, ‘informed consent’ to a fiduciary acting for two parties is only effective if it is given after ‘full disclosure’.
Sir George Jessel MR said of a partner: ‘The Defendant was not only in law the agent of the partnership to sell (being himself a partner, and every partner being an agent of the partnership), but he was in fact the agent who had been engaged in negotiating the sale.’
Sir George Jessel MR
(1874) LR 18 Eq 524
England and Wales
Cited – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC 16-Jul-2014
Approprietary remedy against Fraudulent Agent
The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .
Cited – Hosking v Marathon Asset Management Llp ChD 5-Oct-2016
Loss of agent’s share for breach within LLP
The court was asked whether the principle that a fiduciary (in particular, an agent) who acts in breach of his fiduciary duties can lose his right to remuneration, is capable of applying to profit share of a partner in a partnership or a member of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.551499
Parker J
[1911] 2 Ch 448
England and Wales
Cited – Szepietowski v The Serious Organised Crime Agency CA 21-Jul-2011
The claimant owned properties subject to charges in favour of a bank. The Agency alleged that the properties represented the proceeds of crime. The agency had settled its claim by taking a second charge over one property. When that was sold, only . .
Cited – Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency SC 23-Oct-2013
S owned several propertie in charge to the bank, but the Agency said that each had been acquired with the proceeds of criminal activity. The parties had settled the claim by the grant of a second charge in favour of the Agency. However when that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540470
Wood V-C said that a first mortgagee has the right to have recourse to ‘any of his securities which first come to hand’ and to ‘realise his securities in such manner and order as he thinks fit’.
Wood V-C
(1855) 2 Jur (NS) 179
England and Wales
Cited – Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency SC 23-Oct-2013
S owned several propertie in charge to the bank, but the Agency said that each had been acquired with the proceeds of criminal activity. The parties had settled the claim by the grant of a second charge in favour of the Agency. However when that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540469
Payment without acquittal.-A mm payeth debt upon a single obligation without taking acquittance, therefore this will not discharge him at the common law, but he shall be relieved therein in chancery (quare 22 E. 4. 6 [1482]) by the party’s oath,
but not by witness.
[1482] EngR 2, (1482) Cary 2, (1482) 21 ER 1 (B)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.470385
Trust Lands no Assets in Equity, tho’ the Trust be decreed in Equity.
[1662] EngR 253, (1662) 1 Chan Cas 12, (1662) 22 ER 669 (B)
England and Wales
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.409497
[1675] EngR 1709, (1675) 1 Rolle 331, (1675) 81 ER 522
England and Wales
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.405834
The plaintiff brought his claim for money had and received by the purchaser of shares in a company. He said that he had been induced to purchase the shares by a fraudulent misrepresentation but he had failed in his action at common law.
Held: Erle J: ‘the plaintiff cannot avoid the contract under which he took the shares, because he cannot restore them in the same state as when he took them.’ Crompton J: ‘when once it is settled that a contract induced by fraud is not void, but voidable at the option of the party defrauded, it seems to me to follow that, when that party exercises his option to rescind the contract, he must be in a state to rescind it; that is, he must be in such a situation as to be able to put the parties into their original state before the contract . . . The plaintiff must rescind in toto or not at all; he cannot both keep the shares and recover the whole price. That is founded on the plainest principles of justice. If he cannot return the article he must keep it, and sue for his real damage in an action on the deceit.’
Crompton J, Erle J
(1858) EL BL and EL 148
England and Wales
Cited – Halpern and Another v Halpern and others ComC 4-Jul-2006
The court considered whether a party can avoid a contract procured by duress in circumstances where he cannot offer the other party substantial restitutio in integrum.
Held: Unless the claimant could offer counter-restitution, the remedy of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.244659
In a case of inordinate, culpable and prejudicial delay where it is seriously arguable that the cause of action would be time-barred if fresh proceedings were issued, the better course may be to dismiss the action for want of prosecution and leave the question of limitation for determination in those fresh proceedings if issued.
After considering the principle in Birkett v James that it is exceptional to strike out an action for want of prosecution if the limitation has not expired, Lord Justice Staughton said: ‘It seems to me that the House of Lords was not there considering a case where it was open to doubt and serious argument whether the cause of action would be time barred if a fresh writ were issued. In such a case it may well be that the interests of justice are best served by dismissing the action for want of prosecution, leaving it to the plaintiff, if he chooses to do so and if he has the funds, to start a fresh action. The alternative is that masters, and judges on appeal and even this court, may become embroiled, on an application to dismiss for want of prosecution, in long and elaborate arguments as to whether some future action, if it were brought, would be time barred. There is a good deal to be said for the view that masters should not have that task forced upon them when the problem may never arise and, if it does arise, could perhaps more conveniently be considered in another way.’
Lord Justice Staughton
[1990] 1 WLR 343, [1990] 1 All ER 1040
England and Wales
Cited – Birkett v James HL 1977
Exercise of Power to Strike Out
The court has an inherent power to strike out an action for want of prosecution, and the House set down the conditions for its exercise. The power is discretionary and exercisable only where (a) there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay and . .
Cited – Hopkinson and Others and Birmingham Mid-Shires Building Society v Tupper CA 30-Jan-1997
The plaintiffs appealed from an order striking out their claim for want of prosecution. The defendant’s property had been sold by the mortgagees, and the plaintiffs as assignees of their debt sought to recover the balance outstanding from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.235773
D had advanced monies to a distillery company on the security of manufactured whisky stored in a warehouse. On the occasion of each advance, the company delivered to D an invoice and a warrant which described the particulars of the whisky and stated that it was deliverable to D or his assigns.
Held: A person against whom the unauthorised liquidator is litigating may not object to such lack of authorisation, for it is a matter between the liquidator and the creditors. Lord Parker stated: ‘in my opinion s.151 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, which enables a liquidator in the case of a winding-up in Ireland to bring or defend legal proceedings with the sanction of the Court, was not intended to confer, and does not confer, on third parties any right to object to proceedings brought by a liquidator in the name of the company, on the ground that no such sanction has been obtained.’
Delivery of the subject property is absolutely necessary to complete a pledge, although the transfer of possession may be actual or constructive: ‘There are, however, cases in which possession may pass to the pledgee without actual delivery, for example, whenever there is some agreement between the parties the effect of which is to change the possession of the pledger from a possession on his own account as owner into a possession as bailee for the pledgee: see Meyerstein v. Barber.(1) Such an agreement operates as a delivery of the goods to the pledgee and a redelivery of the goods by the pledgee to the pledger as bailee for the purposes mentioned in the agreement. A mere book entry cannot, however, have this effect . .’
The terms of the warrant were ambiguous. Lor Parker said that if the true meaning of the warrant was that it was intended to be an acknowledgement by the distillery company that it held the goods referred to as bailee for D or his assigns by indorsement: ‘it is sufficient to change the nature of the company’s possession, operating as an actual delivery of the goods to [D], and a redelivery of the same goods by him to the company to hold as bailee for him. Under these circumstances, on the hypothesis that the company was in actual possession, [D] obtained a good pledge at common law.’
Lord Parker of Waddington
[1914] AC 823, 111 LT 8
Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908
England and Wales
Cited – Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others HL 27-Mar-2001
The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194545
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.’
Nourse LJ
Times 31-Dec-1998, Gazette 13-Jan-1999, Gazette 10-Feb-1999, [1999] 3 All ER 652
England and Wales
Cited – Crown Dilmun, Dilmun Investments Limited v Nicholas Sutton, Fulham River Projects Limited ChD 23-Jan-2004
There was a contract for the sale of Craven Cottage football stadium, conditional upon the grant of non-onerous planning permissions. It was claimed that the contract had been obtained by the defendant employee in breach of his fiduciary duties to . .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89022
Appeal from strike out of defence to claim in unjust enrichment.
[2018] EWCA Civ 1762
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620454
[2018] EWCA Civ 1594
England and Wales
Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618969
Saffman HHJ
[2018] EWHC 500 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616137
Generator appealed from a refusal of an equitable interest in land acquired by the responent
Longmore, Lewison LJJ, Rose J
[2018] EWCA Civ 396
England and Wales
Cited – Pallant v Morgan ChD 1952
The agents of two neighbouring landowners orally agreed in the auction room that the plaintiff’s agent would refrain from bidding at auction and that the defendant, if his agent’s bid was successful, would divide the land according to an agreed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.605786
