(Bahamas) The provisions in the Acts of 1833 and 1874 did away with the earlier doctrine of ‘non adverse’ possession, under which, in the absence of an ouster, the possession of one joint tenant or tenant in common was regarded as the possession of the others, so that time did not run against those who … Continue reading Paradise Beach and Transportation Co Ltd v Price-Robinson: PC 1968
A mortgage deed contained an express covenant to repay on demand the amount advanced. The principal sum and interest were secured by a mortgage of real property. A demand for payment was made, but not satisfied. An action was brought on the covenant (not on a simple contract debt) for the sum due under the … Continue reading Sutton v Sutton: 1882
The freeholder charged the land in 1856. He remained in possession, and did not make any payments or give any acknowledgment of the mortgagee’s title. In 1870 the mortgagee presented a bill for foreclosure, and in 1874 a bill of redemption or foreclosure was granted, with foreclosure being made absolute in 1877, and possession sought … Continue reading Heath v Pugh: CA 1881
The local authority had incurred expense in paving a street. They were entitled to apportion those expenses amongst the owners of the properties fronting onto that street and summarily to recover from the respective owners the amounts so apportioned. In addition statute provided that such expenses should be charged on the premises in respect of … Continue reading Hornsey Local Board v Monarch Investment Building Society: CA 1889
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 agreements were unlawful. Kleinwort Benson then sought restitution of … Continue reading Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc: HL 29 Jul 1998
A limited company is not a trustee of its funds, but their beneficial owner. However, the fiduciary character of the duties of its directors mean that they are treated as if they were trustees of those funds of the company which are in their hands . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The claimant sought to bring a claim against the administrators of a partnership alleging a duty of care to creditors. Held: Such an administrator owed no greater duty to creditors than would a director. That duty was no different whether the duty was also a fiduciary duty or one at common law. His position was … Continue reading Oldham and others v Georgina Kyrris and Another: CA 4 Nov 2003
Mrs Jolly let a farm to her son who paid rent until 1881, but not thereafter, and her title to the farm was extinguished in 1893. She died in 1898. The question which arose was whether at her death any rent arrears remained due. Held: The extinction of the title also determined her entitlement to … Continue reading In Re Jolly: CA 1900
One of the testatrix’s children was thought to be profligate, and had failed to maintain his own son. Acting under an enduring power of attorney, the testatrix’s attorneys made a substantial gift in establishing an educational trust for that son’s son. On her death, the other children argued that the share to be taken by … Continue reading In Re the Estate of Marjorie Langdon Cameron (Deceased); Peter David Phillips v Donald Cameron and Others: ChD 24 Mar 1999
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners. Held: The acts complained of were so close to the activities which a solicitor would normally undertake, that … Continue reading Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others: HL 5 Dec 2002
Where a trespasser on land let on lease has as against the lessee acquired a title under the Statutes of Limitations, and the lessee subsequently surrenders the lease to the lessor, the lessor has no right of re-entry, and the period of. limitation does not begin to run, until the expiration of the term for … Continue reading Walter v Yalden: KBD 19 Jun 1902
An administrator de son tort, who was also a beneficiary, held the estate property on trust, and so could not establish adverse possession against the estate during the period of trusteeship. He held a sufficient interest in the assets already. A . .