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. Â
Equity - From: 2004 To: 2004
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
ÂGetronics Holdings Emea Bv and Another v Logistic and Transport Consulting Co and Others [2004] EWHC 808 (QB)
24 Mar 2004
QBD
Newman J
Torts - Other, Equity
[ Bailii ]
Â
R Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2) [2004] EWHC 1088 (Ch); Times, 27 May 2004; [2005] Ch 153; [2004] FSR 939
12 May 2004
ChD
Peter Prescott QC
Equity, Intellectual Property
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant's interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant sought an order for its transfer, and an order was so made. Before it was perfected the defendant brought this application, denying that the court had such power in the case of a foreign copyright. Held: The court had power to hear a new point, but not merely because the parties so agreed. We should treat the fact that the land is situate abroad as affecting the choice of law, not jurisdiction, if the case is one in which it is sought to enforce an equitable claim in personam: "a claim to have foreign land conveyed to one, based on an English contract and made against a purchaser of the land with prior notice of that contract, could in principle succeed, provided the foreign law would not overreach our doctrine of notice. It would be a claim in personam, not in rem." This case concerned the court's equitable in personam jurisdiction. As such it was not a breach of international comity to order transfer of the ownership of the foreign copyrights. This avoided the need for a multiplicity of proceedings, and it had not been shown that foreign courts would not respect the order made in equity here. The court did have power to make orders affecting the ownership of foreign intellectual property rights.
Copyright, Patents and Designs Act 1988
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Samuel v Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Corporation Ltd [1904] AC 323; [1904] UKHL 2
16 May 2004
HL
Earl of Halsbury, Lord Chancellor, Lord Macnaghten and Lord Lindley
Equity, Land
The appellant loaned £5000 to the respondent taking security of a £30,000 mortgage debenture stock which would allow him to purchase any part of the stock at 40 per cent within twelve months. The company sought to repay the advance within the period of twelve months, whereupon the appellant claimed to purchase the whole of the stock at the agreed price. The company brought a redemption action, seeking a declaration that the option was void. Held: The appeal failed. The company was entitled to the declaration. Lord Halsbury and Lord Macnaghten reached that conclusion with reluctance. If a court determined that a transaction was truly a mortgage, a court will strike down any term of the loan which prevents the mortgagor from getting back the property secured on repaying what was due to the mortgagee. A mortgage may not contain a clause that conferred on the mortgagee an option to buy the mortgaged property.
Lord Lindley said that the doctrine "Once a mortgage, always a mortgage" was not confined to deeds creating legal mortgages; it applied to all mortgage transactions, and: "The doctrine . . means that no contract between a mortgagor and a mortgagee made at the time of the mortgage and as part of the mortgage transaction, or, in other words, as one of the terms of the loan, can be valid if it prevents the mortgagor from getting back his property on paying off what is due on his security. Any bargain which has that effect is invalid, and is inconsistent with the transaction being a mortgage. This principle is fatal to the appellant's contention if the transaction under consideration is a mortgage transaction, as I am of opinion it clearly is."
[ Bailii ]
Â
Filby v Mortgage Express (No 2) Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 759; [2004] All ER (D) 198 (Jun)
22 Jun 2004
CA
Kennedy, May, Hooper LJJ
Equity
Mr and Mrs Filby's matrimonial home was charged to the Halifax. They also had an unsecured loan with the Midland Bank. Mr Filby sought to remortgage the matrimonial home with Mortgage Express. The mortgage advance was paid to solicitors who used part of it to redeem the Halifax mortgage and another part in the reduction of the debit balance on the development loan account with the Midland. However Mrs Filby had not signed the mortgage, and so, as against her, it was void. Mortgage Express claimed to be subrogated, amongst other things, to the rights of the Midland Bank against Mrs Filby to the extent that the joint debt to them had been discharged with their money. Held:
May LJ spoke as to subrogation: "Accordingly so far as is relevant to this appeal, the remedy of equitable subrogation is a restitutionary remedy available to reverse what would otherwise be unjust enrichment of a defendant at the expense of the claimant. The defendant is enriched if his financial position is materially improved, usually as here where the defendant is relieved of a financial burden - see Peter Birks, An Introduction to The Law of Restitution page 93. The enrichment will be at the expense of the claimant if in reality it was the claimant's money which effected the improvement. Subject to special defences, questions of policy or exceptional circumstances affecting the balance of justice, the enrichment will be unjust if the claimant did not get the security he bargained for when he advanced the money which in reality effected the improvement, and if the defendant's financial improvement is properly seen as a windfall. The remedy does not extend to giving the claimant more than he bargained for. The remedy is not limited to cases where either or both the claimant and defendant intended that the money advanced should be used to effect the improvement. It is sufficient that it was in fact in reality so used. The remedy is flexible and adaptable to produce a just result. Within this framework, the remedy is discretionary in the sense that at each stage it is a matter of judgment whether on the facts the necessary elements are fulfilled."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Potter v Potter [2004] UKPC 41
22 Jul 2004
PC
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond
Equity
PC (New Zealand) The parties' relationship failed. They had bought a house together and entered into a trust deed. Held: "Defeasible interests in land are certainly conceptually possible. In England such interests may, for example, be created under the School Sites Acts. And, subject always to the rule against perpetuities, private trusts may create beneficial interests subject to defeasance on the occurrence, or non-occurrence, of specified events. But defeasance conditions in private trusts are invariably express conditions." In this case the claimant sought an implied condition. The breakdown of the relationship was no reason to vary the express trusts created.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Â
Coulter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police [2004] EWCA Civ 1259; Times, 22 October 2004; [2005] BPIR 62; [2005] 1 WLR 130
8 Oct 2004
CA
Waller Chadwick Carnwath LJJ
Insolvency, Equity
The appellant had failed in his action against the police and been ordered to pay the costs. A statutory demand was issued in the name of the respondent, but as the new chief constable had no deed of assignment, he was only equitable assignee. Held: It had not been unfair not to set aside the statutory demand. Though the action was conducted in the name of the chief constable it was as nominee and for and on behalf of the police force. Appeal refused.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin [2004] EWCA Civ 1316; Times, 01 November 2004; [2004] 4 All ER 1
14 Oct 2004
CA
Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Tuckey Mr Justice Newman
Company, Jurisdiction, Equity
The claimant sought damages from what were said to be speculative trades carried out by the defendant whilst working in Russia. The claims were in both equity and in tort. He was a director of the company which was incorporated in Guernsey. Held: If the acts complained of did not relate to the constitution of a company, it must relate to its internal management. Where the claim related to the duties inherent in the office of director, the claim should be heard in the place of incorporation wherever the acts complained of took place. Russian law was applicable for the claim in tort, but Guernsey, where the company was incorporated, was the proper law of the claim in equity.
Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Mortgage Express v Mardner [2004] EWCA Civ 1859
17 Dec 2004
CA
Land, Equity
[ Bailii ]
Â
Cambridge Antibody Technology v Abbott Biotechnology Ltd and Another [2004] EWHC 2974 (Pat); [2005] FSR 590
20 Dec 2004
Patc
Laddie J
Intellectual Property, Contract, Equity
Rectification of an agreement was sought. Held: Laddie J rejected a submission that evidence of the subjective state of mind of one of the parties contained in statements which had not been communicated to the other party ("crossed the line") was inadmissible. I
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
