Click the case name for better results:

Kahn and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; In re Toshoku Finance plc: HL 20 Feb 2002

A company went into liquidation, being owed substantial sums by another company in the same group, but itself insolvent. A settlement did not include accrued interest, but was claimed to be taxed as if it had, and on an accruals basis. If so, was this an expense properly arising in the insolvency, and payable as … Continue reading Kahn and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; In re Toshoku Finance plc: HL 20 Feb 2002

Hambro and Others v The Duke of Marlborough and Others: ChD 25 Mar 1994

A scheme to transfer benefits without consent of the beneficiary was approved. The court may vary trusts against the wishes of a beneficiary even of full age and capacity. Citations: Gazette 22-Jun-1994, Independent 15-Apr-1994, Times 25-Mar-1994 Statutes: Settled Land Act 1925 64 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Trusts Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81188

Margerison v Bates and Another: ChD 30 May 2008

The court considered the construction of a restrictive covenant after the disappearance of the covenantee. The covenant required no additional building without the consent of the covenantee, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The term ‘vendor’ had been defined without including her successors in title. Held: The court considered the construction of the clause … Continue reading Margerison v Bates and Another: ChD 30 May 2008

Ofulue and Another v Bossert: CA 29 Jan 2008

The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to deny the claimants’ title. Held: The appeal failed. A finding by the ECHR that a particular … Continue reading Ofulue and Another v Bossert: CA 29 Jan 2008

Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others: ChD 30 Jan 2006

The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse. Held: The power was validly exercised. Provided the recovery of the sums for which the security was given … Continue reading Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others: ChD 30 Jan 2006

Kilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd, Targetfollow Group Ltd: ChD 9 Nov 2004

The defendant entered into an agreement for lease, incurring substantial obligations. When it could not meet them it sought assistance from the claimant, who now claimed to have an interest in a joint venture. The draft documentation originally suggested a loan, but then changed. Disagreements persisted after completion. Held: There was insufficient agreement to constitute … Continue reading Kilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd, Targetfollow Group Ltd: ChD 9 Nov 2004

Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others: CA 21 Dec 2021

This appeal concerns the question whether an area of land in Bath known as the Recreation Ground, commonly called ‘the Rec’, is still subject to a restrictive covenant imposed in a conveyance of the Rec dated 6 April 1922 (‘the 1922 conveyance’). That turns on the question whether there is anyone who can now claim … Continue reading Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others: CA 21 Dec 2021

Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams and Others: ChD 29 Jan 2010

The claimant sought a declaration that restrictive covenants imposed in 1896 affecting its land were no longer effective. Held: The declaration was granted. Under the 1881 Act (as opposed to the 1925 Act) covenants were not automatically attached to the land. Here there was no implied or explicit annexation of the covenants. The covenants were … Continue reading Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams and Others: ChD 29 Jan 2010

Munton v Greater London Council: CA 1976

With respect to the words ‘subject to contract’, Lord Denning said, ‘It is of the greatest importance that no doubt should be thrown on the effect of those words’. As to the difference netween the procedures of compulsory purchase and ordinary contracts: ‘First, when notice to treat is given, it binds the acquiring authority to … Continue reading Munton v Greater London Council: CA 1976

Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz: HL 29 Oct 2008

The lease had been assigned by the claimant to the defendant and on again to a tenant who became insolvent. The landlord had recovered sums said to be due from the claimant who now sought an indemnity from the defendant. The defendant said that the claimant had overpaid, including sums excused by section 17 of … Continue reading Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz: HL 29 Oct 2008

Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd: CA 1 May 2020

Only Limited Ownership of pond fish BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or animals domitae naturae. Held: The appeal was … Continue reading Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd: CA 1 May 2020

Matalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs: ChD 5 Aug 2009

The taxpayer imported swimwear for sale. The respondent had incorrectly indicated that such swimwear had one classification. The claimant sought to prevent the respondent reclassifying the goods, saying that they had made given binding tariff information. It depended on the proportion of rubber in the suits. The respondent viewed the calculation differently. Held: the commissioners … Continue reading Matalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs: ChD 5 Aug 2009