The House considered the equitable doctrine of advancement, and the admission of evidence which might go to rebut it.
Held: The presumption is one which ‘should not . . give way to slight circumstances’.
Viscunt Simonds approved, from Snell’s Principles: ‘The acts and declarations of the parties before or at the time of the purchase, or so immediately after it as to constitute a part of the transaction, are admissible in evidence either for or against the party who did the act or made the declaration . . But subsequent declarations are admissible as evidence only against the party who made them, and not in his favour.’
Judges:
Viscount Simonds, Lord Morion of Henryton, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Somervell of Harrow
Citations:
[1954] UKHL 2, [1955] AC 431, [1954] 3 All ER 494
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts, Equity
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.248521