Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 1994 To: 1994

This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Shelley Films Ltd v Rex Features Ltd [1994] EMLR 134
1994
ChD
Mr Martin Mann QC
Media, Intellectual Property, Equity
Still photographs had been taken of a forthcoming film, which the producers had taken steps to keep confidential. Held: A chancery judge may grant an injunction to restrain the publication of photographs taken surreptitiously in circumstances such that the photographer is to be taken to have known that the occasion was a private one and that the taking of photographs by outsiders was not permitted.
Mr Martin Mann QC said: "whether or not equity imposes an obligation to keep information confidential depends upon a great many factors often unique to the case in which it is said to do so. However, most cases will have certain common constituents, namely, the existence of a body of information which a plaintiff wishes to keep confidential for the protection of some lawful interest of his, a defendant coming into possession of such information in circumstances in which he actually knows (or is fixed by operation of law with knowledge of) or ought as a reasonable person to know the plaintiff intends to be kept confidential, a detriment actual or potential to the plaintiff from publication, the non-availability of such information to the public and the absence of any public interest in disclosure."
1 Citers


 
Britoil plc v Hunt Overseas Oil Inc [1994] CLC 561
1994
CA
Glidewell LJ and Hobhouse LJ, Hoffmann LJ
Equity, Contract
The agreement between the parties was alleged not to be in accordance with what had previously been agreed in summary heads of agreement. Held: (Hoffmann LJ dissenting) The appeal failed, and rectification was refused. The defendants had failed to establish that there was a prior common agreement or intention in terms that the court could ascertain or that the definitive agreement failed to reflect that prior agreement. Hobhouse LJ noted that Saville J “did not base himself upon any consideration of the evidence as to the actual state of mind of the parties”
1 Citers


 
Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd v Wilf Gilbert (Staffordshire) Ltd [1994] FSR 723
1994

Aldous J
Contract, Equity
The bookmaker defendant received a broadcast information service for which he was prepared to pay. That service carried another information service ("BAGS") for which the second provider also sought payment. The bookmaker was not prepared to pay for that, and said so. However the two services were not severable - one could not receive the first without the second. BAGS sought to claim from the bookmaker inter alia on the footing that he had received a service, benefited from it and knew that BAGS wanted payment for it in the sense that it was not free. Held: Aldous J asked and answered the question as follows: "Does the law impose a duty upon a person to pay, when he receives and uses a service knowing that it is not being offered free; when he makes it clear to the provider of the service that he does not want the service and that he will not pay for it? The answer is, I believe, no . . When a party makes it clear to the provider of a service that he will not pay for it or does not want it, then it cannot be against the conscience of that man that he should refuse to pay for the service." and "If the provider of the service knows that the recipient does not intend to pay, he cannot complain if the recipient does not ultimately pay. In such circumstances, the law will not help him to obtain recompense unless he has some proprietary or contractual right."
1 Citers



 
 Clark v McLean; IHCS 1994 - 1994 SC 410
 
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council [1994] 4 All ER 972
1994
ChD
Hobhouse J
Equity, Limitation
A claim for money had and received fell within section 5 Limitation Act, should be treated with caution. Hobhouse J said: "The cause of action in money had and received arises when the relevant money is paid by the plaintiff to the defendant."
As to the general claim for recovery after unjust enrichment: "The position is therefore that if a plaintiff is entitled to a proprietary remedy against a defendant who has been unjustly enriched, the court may but is not bound to order the repayment of the sum with compound interest. If on the other hand the plaintiff is only entitled to a personal remedy which will be the case where, although there was initially a fiduciary relationship and the payer was entitled in equity to treat the sum received by the payee as his, the payer's, money and trace it, but because of subsequent developments he is no longer able to trace the sum in the hands of the payee, then there is no subject matter to which the rationale on which the compound interest is awarded can be applied. The payee cannot be shown to have a fund belonging to the payer or to have used it to make profits for himself. The legal analysis which is the basis of the award of compound interest is not applicable. (It is possible that in some cases there might be an intermediate position where it could be demonstrated that the fiduciary had, over part of the period, profited from holding a fund as a fiduciary even though he no longer held the fund at the date of trial and that in such a case the court might make some order equivalent to requiring him to account for those profits; but that is not the situation which I am asked to consider in the present case.)"
Limitation Act 1980 5
1 Citers



 
 Rhone and Another v Stephens; HL 18-Mar-1994 - Independent, 23 March 1994; Times, 18 March 1994; [1994] 2 WLR 429; [1994] 2 AC 310; [1994] UKHL 3; [1994] 2 All ER 65
 
Robert Leonard Developments Limited v Wright Unreported, 23 March 1994
23 Mar 1994
CA
Dillon LJ, Henry LJ
Contract, Equity, Land
The terms expressly agreed by the parties provided for the grant of a lease and the sale of the contents of the property. There was a single agreement for the lease and the contents. The written document did not incorporate the terms as to the sale of the contents and so did not comply with section 2. Held: Rectification of the written document was ordered so as to include the terms as to the sale of the contents, with the result that the written document as rectified did comply with section 2. Dillon LJ remarked that the availability of rectification in that case was "obvious" and "straightforward".
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
1 Citers


 
Kensington and Others v Unrepresented Non-Allocated Claimants and Others Times, 02 June 1994; Gazette, 22 June 1994
2 Jun 1994
PC

Equity, Commonwealth
Purchasers of unallocated shares in a quantity of bullion had no priority over those having a floating charge over the same assets.

 
Matharu v Matharu Gazette, 29 June 1994; Independent, 18 May 1994; Times, 13 May 1994
29 Jun 1994
CA

Estoppel, Equity
A proprietary estoppel was established by the carrying out of repairs after the making of a representation, and created a right to a licence to occupy the property for life.

 
Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan and Others Times, 14 July 1994
14 Jul 1994
ChD

Trusts, Equity
A tracing remedy is defeated when the account into which the money is paid is overdrawn.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Re Maxwell Communications Corporation Plc: Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan Gazette, 07 October 1994; Ind Summary, 26 September 1994; [1995] 1 All ER 347
26 Sep 1994
CA
Leggatt LJ
Equity, Financial Services
The remedy of tracing is not available through a bank account which was subsequently overdrawn. Nor does the doctrine of tracing extend to following value into a previously acquired asset: “there can be no equitable remedy against an asset acquired before the misappropriation of money takes place, since ex hypothesi it cannot be followed into something which existed and so had been acquired before the money was received and therefore without its aid.”
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Eagle Trust Plc v SBC Securities Ltd; Same v Sbci Bank Corporation Investment Banking Ltd Independent, 28 September 1994; [1993] 1 WLR 484
28 Sep 1994
ChD
Vinelott J
Professional Negligence, Equity
A financial adviser was not liable in negligence for the allegedly negligent selection of sub-underwriters. On the issue of knowing receipt in a claim for restitution, "What the decision in Belmont (No 2) … shows most clearly is that in a 'knowing receipt' case it is only necessary to show that the defendant knew that the monies paid to him were trust monies and of circumstances which made the payment a misapplication of them. Unlike a 'knowing assistance' case it is not necessary, and never had been necessary, to show that the defendant was in any sense a participator in the fraud."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 In Re Duxbury's Settlement Trusts; CA 21-Nov-1994 - Times, 19 December 1994; Gazette, 16 December 1994; Ind Summary, 06 February 1995; [1995] 1 WLR 425; [1994] EWCA Civ 21
 
Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of Bank of England Times, 06 December 1994; Independent, 13 December 1994; [1996] QB 292
6 Dec 1994
CA
Peter Gibson LJ
Equity, Banking, Litigation Practice
Equitable assignors of a deposit cannot pursue a claim for recovery of the assigned debt without joining in the assignee as a party, though it can sue in its own name.
1 Citers


 
Commissioner of State Revenue v The Royal Insurance Australia Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 51
7 Dec 1994

Brennan, Toohey and McHugh JJ
Commonwealth, Equity
(High Court of Australia) A payment had been made under statute which was later repealed with retrospective effect. Held: The monies paid under the retrospectively repealed statute had not been paid under a mistake of law at common law.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.