swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Equity - From: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
D O Ferguson and Associates v M Sohl (1992) 62 BLR 199
1992
CA
Contract, Equity
A building contract was repudiated by the builders at a time when the works had been partly completed. The contract price was approximately £32,000. At the time when the builders abandoned the site they had been paid over £26,000 and the value of work done by them was about £22,000. Held: The owner was entitled to claim in restitution for the sum of £4,673, representing the amount by which the sums paid to the builders exceeded the value of the work done. The builders had objected that there had not been a total failure of consideration under the contract, since most of the building work had been done, but the court held that there had been a total failure of consideration for the amount by which the builders had been overpaid.
1 Citers
Westfield Holdings Ltd v Australian Capital Television (1992) 32 NSWLR 194; 5 BPR 11,615
1992
Young J
Commonwealth, Banking, Equity
The court concluded, after looking at whether there had been a clog on the equity of redemption in an arm's length commercial mortgage transaction where a mortgagee had obtained the right to purchase the whole of the mortgaged property, that: "There does not appear to be any commercial reason why, in 1992, the court should invalidate any transaction merely because a mortgagee obtains a collateral advantage or seeks to purchase a mortgage property. Quite obviously, equity must intervene if there is unconscionable conduct. Again equity must intervene in a classic case where it can see that a necessitous borrower it not, truly speaking, a free borrower.
In my view, in 1992, the rule [concerning clogs on the equity of redemption] only applies where the mortgagee obtains a collateral advantage which in all the circumstances is either unfair or unconscionable. It may be that the court presumes from the mere fact of a collateral advantage that the transaction is unconscionable unless there is evidence to the contrary, but the principle does not extend to invalidate automatically cases in which the mortgagee has obtained the right to purchase the whole or part of the mortgaged property in certain circumstances or has obtained a collateral advantage where the circumstances show that there has been no unfairness or unconscionable conduct."
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia; 1992 - (1992) 175 CLR 353
Lonhro v Fayed (No 2); 1992 - [1992] 1 WLR 1
Denney v John Hudson and Co Ltd [1992] BCLC 901
1992
Equity
1 Citers
Equity and Law Home Loans Ltd v Prestidge [1992] 1 WLR 137; [1992] 1 All ER 909
1992
CA
Equity, Land
A house was bought in the name of one partner in an unmarried couple. It was subject to a mortgage, and the non-owner contributed a capital sum. The landowner later remortgaged for a larger sum, but without the partner's consent. The landowner then left without making repayments, and the lender sought possession. Held: The charge ranked ahead of any interest of the non-owner, and an order for possession was made. It ranked ahead however only to the extent of the original mortgage.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Equity and Law Home Loans Ltd v Prestridge and Another Gazette, 15 January 1992
15 Jan 1992
CA
Equity
The Building Society chargee was entitled to possession because the charge was signed, but only to extent of the knowledge of the person signing charge. A woman partner had charged the house originally, but her partner had then unlawfully re-mortgaged it without her knowledge. Her interests did not have precedence up to the value of the original loan.
David Securities Pty. Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353
7 Oct 1992
Equity, Commonwealth
(High Court of Australia ) Restitution - Money paid under mistake - Mistake of law - Right to recover - Unjust enrichment - Defences - Change of position.
1 Citers
[ Austlii ]
KM v HM (1992) 96 DLR (4th) 289; [1992] 3 SCR 6; 14 CCLT (2d) 1; AZ-92111111; EYB 1992-67549; JE 92-1644; [1992] SCJ No 85 (QL); 36 ACWS (3d) 466; 57 OAC 321
29 Oct 1992
La Forest, L'Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ
Commonwealth, Limitation, Equity, Trusts
Supreme Court of Canada - Limitation of actions - Torts - Assault and battery - Incest - Woman bringing action against father for damages for incest - Whether or not action limited by Limitations Act - Application of the reasonable discoverability principle - Whether or not incest a separate and distinct tort - Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, s. 45(1)(j), 47.
Limitation of actions - Equity - Fiduciary relationship - Parent/child - Woman bringing action against father for incest - Whether incest constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty by a parent - Whether limitation period applicable and whether the defence of laches applies.
Limitation of actions - Fraudulent concealment - Incest - Whether a limitation period in an incest action is postponed by defendant's fraudulent concealment.
1 Citers
[ Canlii ]
Downsview Nominees Ltd and Another v First City Corporation Ltd and Another; PC 19-Nov-1992 - Gazette, 09 December 1992; [1993] AC 295; Times, 15 December 1992; [1992] UKPC 34