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: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Philip Collins Limited v Davis [2000] 3 All ER 808
2000

Jonathan Parker J
Equity
The court discussed the change of position needed to be established by a defendant resisting a claim for restitution of money paid under a mistake: The "change of position . . must, on the evidence, be referable in some way to the payment of [the] money." and "whether or not a change of position may be anticipatory, it must . . have been made as a consequence of the receipt of, or (it may be) the prospect of receiving, the money sought to be recovered."
1 Citers


 
Lansing Linder Ltd v Alber [2000] Pensions LR 15
2000
ChD
Rimer J
Equity, Financial Services
Pension scheme rules were amended varying the ages etc for retirement. The rules gave the company power to amend the rules with the consent of the Trustees. The original rules permitted early retirement on an immediate, but actuarially reduced, pension. Under the original rules, members of the scheme in service (actives) required the consent of the trustees and the company to take early retirement; those who had left service (deferreds) required the trustees' consent. The company claimed that the omission of the requirement for consent in the new rules was in error and that it was always intended that the right should be subject to consent of the company and trustees. The cost to the company of there being no requirement of consent was considerable, particularly with regard to the valuation of the benefits of deferreds. The memoranda and minutes of the trustees' meetings made no reference to consent being required for early retirement. Held: In relation to the actives, there was insufficient evidence that the absence in the new rules of the need for consent for early retirement between 60 and 65 on an unreduced pension failed to give effect to the intentions of the company and the trustees. But with regard to the deferreds, there was no positive intention to change their position. Rectification was refused, even as regards the deferreds, because "The evidence shows that, when they executed the deed, they had no clear common understanding of what it provided, and no clear common intention as to what it should provide. The only common thread of intention which appears to link the signatories was an intention to sign, wholly blindly, the document which was put before them on the basis that, as it was prepared by [the scheme administrators and scheme solicitors], it must be one they could safely sign. In short, their intention was no more complicated than to sign a deed in the form produced to them, whatever it in fact provided, and knowing that in material respects it had gone beyond the limits of what had been resolved ..." In any event there was no outward expression of accord. Responding to the argument that, since this was not a contract case, the applicable principles were those in Re Butlin's Settlement, and there was no need for outward expression of accord, "I agree... that the present claim is not one to rectify a contract, since no authority has been cited to me which expressly identifies the rectification requirements in a claim such as the present. I agree also that it may be said that to apply the Rose v Pim requirement of an outward expression of accord to the present case does involve a development of the principles. If so, however, I take the view that such a development requires only the smallest of steps."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Green v Cobham (2002) STC 820; [2000] EWHC 1564 (Ch); (2001-02) 4 ITELR 785; [2000] WTLR 1101; [2002] STC 820; [2002] STI 879; [2002] BTC 170
19 Jan 2000
ChD
Jonathan Parker J
Capital Gains Tax, Equity
cw The Trustees had overlooked the fact that a Will Trust and two sub-settlements together constituted a single composite settlement for the purposes of CGT with a single body of trustees. As a result of his retirement from practice the solicitor to a non-resident will trust was no longer treated as non-resident for capital gains tax purposes, with the result that there was no longer a majority of non-resident trustees and the will trust became a United Kingdom resident trust. Held: The deed of appointment was set aside. The exercise of the power of appointment, by trustees failing to take any account of the potentially adverse capital gains tax consequences, was invalid.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pappadakis v Pappadakis Times, 19 January 2000
19 Jan 2000
ChD

Equity, Contract
Where a party sought rectification of a contract to supply into the contract an element without which the contract was intrinsically invalid, that application could only succeed if there was clear and convincing evidence that the parties had intended another effect, and precisely what that effect was. Here an assignment to unidentified trustees which was ineffective because of the uncertainty could not be repaired since the evidence required was not available.


 
 Collins v Jones and Others; ChD 3-Feb-2000 - Times, 03 February 2000

 
 Anthony Wroe (T/a Telepower) v Exmos Cover Limited; CA 8-Feb-2000 - Gazette, 24 February 2000; Times, 14 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 31
 
Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another Gazette, 10 February 2000; Times, 17 February 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 18; [2002] 2 All ER 117; [2000] EWCA Civ 3016; [2000] 2 WLR 772; [2000] Ch 372
10 Feb 2000
CA
Chadwick LJ
Trusts, Equity, Company
Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture. Held: Although there was no formal agreement, the first company had allowed its position to be worsened relying upon the expectation which the second party had allowed to arise, and had not informed the claimant before the purchase of its intention not to honour the agreement. At the date of exchange: "It is clear, therefore, that, to Banner's knowledge, exchange of contracts was to occur, and did occur, before the parties were signed up to any formal written agreement. It is equally clear that Luff had given Banner to understand that it was content to exchange contracts without requiring any form of separate guarantee committing Banner to contribute one half of the costs of the net site and that the reason for this was that the mutual rights and obligations of the parties would be set out in the shareholder agreement. It is also clear that both sides intended to enter into the shareholder agreement as soon as possible, the only reason for the delay being Mr. Vass's absence on holiday. At no stage was any indication given that reasons existed why the agreement should not be entered into. Specifically nothing was said on either side to indicate that any difference of principle existed which would prevent the parties from agreeing terms."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Gillett v Holt and Another; CA 23-Mar-2000 - Times, 17 March 2000; Gazette, 23 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 66; [2001] Ch 210; [2000] 2 All ER 289; [2000] 2 WTLR 195; [2000] Fam Law 714; [2000] 1 FCR 705; [2000] 3 WLR 815; [2000] 2 FLR 266

 
 In Re the Estate of Ronald Ernest Chittock (Deceased); Chittock v Stevens and Others; ChD 5-Apr-2000 - Times, 05 April 2000; (2000) 1 WTLR 643

 
 Foskett v McKeown and Others; HL 18-May-2000 - Times, 24 May 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000; [2000] UKHL 29; [2000] 3 All ER 97; [2000] Lloyd's Rep IR 627; [2001] 1 AC 102; [2000] WTLR 667; (1999-2000) 2 ITELR 711; [2000] 2 WLR 1299

 
 Crantrave Ltd (In Liquidation) v Lloyd's Bank Plc; CA 18-May-2000 - Times, 24 April 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 127; [2000] QB 917; [2000] 4 All ER 473; [2000] 3 WLR 877
 
Fyffes Group Ltd v Templeman and others [2000] EWHC 224 (Comm); [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 643
22 May 2000
ComC
Toulson J
Torts - Other, Equity
The claimants alleged that over a five year period from 1992 to 1996 their employee Mr Simon Templeman, the first defendant, took bribes amounting to over US $1.4 million from or with the connivance of the second to seventh defendants. The essential issues are whether the allegation is true; and, if so, what loss the claimants have suffered and what remedies are available to them.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Collins, Etridge; Gonzalez v Union Bank of Switzerland Barclays Bank Plc Richard Caplan and Co (a Firm) St Georges Street Trustees Limited St James's Trustees Limited; CA 25-May-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 176
 
Fyffes Group Ltd and Others v Templeman and Others Times, 14 June 2000; Gazette, 22 June 2000; [2000] 2 Lloyds Rep 643
14 Jun 2000
QBD
Toulson J
Agency, Equity
A person who bribed an agent to award a contract was liable to account for profits secured by the bribery as was the agent he bribed, but unlike for the agent, the extent of his liability was limited to exclude profits which he would have earned in any event. The recompense in damages should not be allowed to lead to the unjust enrichment of the injured party.
1 Citers


 
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd and Another v Akindele Times, 22 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000; [2001] Ch 437; [2000] EWCA Civ 502; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Bank 292; [2000] 4 All ER 221; (1999-2000) 2 ITELR 788; [2000] 3 WLR 1423; [2000] WTLR 1049; [2000] BCC 968
22 Jun 2000
CA
Nourse, Ward and Sedley LJJ
Equity, Torts - Other
The test of whether a person who received funds held them on constructive trust, was not whether he himself was dishonest, but rather whether he had knowledge of circumstances which made it unconscionable to hold on to the money received. In respect of commercial transactions actual knowledge rather than mere constructive knowledge was required. The court distinguished between cases of knowing receipt and cases of knowing or dishonest assistance. Just as "there is now a single test of dishonesty for knowing assistance, so ought there to be a single test of knowledge for knowing receipt. The recipient’s state of knowledge must be such as to make it unconscionable for him to retain the benefit of the receipt. A test in that form, though it cannot, any more than any other, avoid difficulties of application, ought to avoid those of definition and allocation to which the previous categorisations have led. Moreover, it should better enable the courts to give commonsense decisions in the commercial context in which claims in knowing receipt are now frequently made."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re Eurofinance Group Ltd; ChD 6-Jul-2000 - Times, 04 July 2000; Gazette, 06 July 2000
 
Walker and others v Stones and others Times, 26 September 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 864
19 Jul 2000
CA
Sir Christopher Slade
Company, Legal Professions, Trusts, Equity, Vicarious Liability
Beneficiaries under a trust sought damages from a solicitor trustee, and the firm of which he was a partner. Held: Where a trustee acted in breach of trust in a claimed belief that he was acting in the interests of the beneficiaries, but no reasonable trustee in his place could have that belief, then an allegation against him of dishonesty should proceed. A trusteeship is not part of the normal duties of a partner of a firm, and the firm is not vicariously liable for the acts of a partner in such trusts. The court rejected the 'Robin Hood' test of dishonesty (a person is only regarded as dishonest if he transgresses his own standard of honesty, even if that standard is contrary to that of reasonable and honest people) saying: "A person may in some cases act dishonestly, according to the ordinary use of language, even though he genuinely believes that his action is morally justified. The penniless thief, for example, who picks the pocket of the multi-millionaire is dishonest even though he genuinely considers that theft is morally justified as a fair redistribution of wealth and that he is not therefore being dishonest."
"a claimant is entitled to recover damages where:
(a) the claimant can establish that the defendant's conduct has constituted a breach of some legal duty owed to him personally (whether under the law of contract, torts, trusts or any other branch of the law) AND
(b) on its assessment of the facts, the Court is satisfied that such breach of duty has caused him personal loss, separate and distinct from any loss that may have been occasioned to any corporate body in which he may be financially interested.
I further conclude that, if these two conditions are satisfied, the mere fact that the defendant's conduct may also have given rise to a cause of action at the suit of a company in which the claimant is financially interested (whether directly as a shareholder or indirectly as, for example, a beneficiary under a trust) will not deprive the plaintiff of his cause of action; in such a case, a plea of double jeopardy will not avail the defendant."
1 Citers


 
Companhia De Seguros Imperio v Heath (REBX) Ltd and Others Times, 26 September 2000; [2001] 1 WLR 112; [2000] EWCA Civ 219
20 Jul 2000
CA
Waller LJ
Equity, Limitation
Although a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, as a claim in equity, was not subject to the same limitation periods imposed by the Act as claims in tort or contract, a court exercising an equitable jurisdiction should apply similar periods under the equitable principle of acquiescence. A six year limitation period should be applied by analogy to a claim for equitable compensation for dishonest breach of fiduciary duty by an underwriter. Claims against the underwriter in contract and tort based on the same facts were statute barred under sections 2 and 5 of the 1980 Act. More than six years had expired since the accrual of the cause of action. The analogy of the six year time limit for claims in contract and tort would have been applied by a court of equity before 1 July 1940 to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
Limitation Act 1980 2 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Collinge v Lee and Another; CA 26-Oct-2000 - Times, 26 October 2000; Gazette, 02 November 2000; Gazette, 09 November 2000

 
 Fisher v Wychavon District Council; CA 30-Nov-2000 - Times, 22 November 2000; Gazette, 30 November 2000; Gazette, 23 November 2000

 
 AMP (UK) Plc and Another v Barker and Others; ChD 8-Dec-2000 - HC 001897; [2000] EWHC Ch 42; [2001] OPLR 197
 
Lewis v Cotton [2000] NZCA 39; [2001] 2 NZLR 21; (2000) 20 FRNZ 86
18 Dec 2000

Richardson P, Blanchard J,Tipping J
Wills and Probate, Equity
(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) The Court considered the equitable doctrine of mutual wills. The doctrine recognised that the executors and trustees of a will may be required to hold affected assets upon a constructive trust in terms of a revoked will. Held: The imposition of a constructive trust based on mutual wills has two fundamental requirements:
(a) There was an underlying consultation and coordination between two testators which resulted in an agreement or an arrangement as to how they would make their respective wills (which were then made).2 I will refer to this as the requirement for "corresponding wills". Reference is sometimes made to "mirror wills" and, more ambiguously and confusingly, to "mutual wills".
(b) There must have been a contract or mutual understanding (intended to bind each testator to a future cause of action) that neither testator
1 Citers

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