A policy of insurance was created in which one department of an insurance company purported to effect a contract with another department of the same company. Although different individuals were parties to the contract, they all contracted as agents for the company with the intention that it alone should be able to sue and be sued on the policy.
Held: The policy was a nullity. It infringed the two party rule. A company, even though it might operate different kinds of business from separate premises, cannot contract with itself. It is merely whimsical to grant a lease of one’s own property to oneself. Two agents of the same principal cannot contract with each other.
Judges:
Stuart V-C
Citations:
(1856) 1 Giff 438, 65 ER 990
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners IHCS 1990
It was not possible in Scottish law for a man to grant a lease to a nominee for himself: (Lord Hope) ‘I have, as I have said, no difficulty in the concept by which the title to property and the beneficial interest are separated, the title being held . .
Cited – Ingram and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 10-Dec-1998
To protect her estate from Inheritance Tax, the deceased gave land to her solicitor, but then took back a lease. The solicitor then conveyed the land on freehold on to members of her family.
Held: The lease-back by the nominee was not void as . .
Cited – Rye v Rye HL 1962
Two brothers were in partneship in unequal shares, but acquired a property for use by the business which they held in equal shares. They agreed a parol yearly tenancy between themselves as owners and as partners. After one died his son took over his . .
Cited – Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Contract
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.223768