It was not possible for two trustees to retire, and be replaced by and leaving only one trustee, not being a trust corporation. The two trustees were not therefore discharged from the trust, and the solicitors who had advised them in the exercise had been negligent. A discharge of the second trustee could only be … Continue reading Adam and Company International Trustees Ltd and Others v Theodore Goddard (A firm): ChD 17 Mar 2000
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 University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive covenants remained in effect. The University sought their discharge. Held: The Borough had owned the dominant and … Continue reading University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others: ChD 9 Dec 2004
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003
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
