Ogilvie v Allen: HL 1899

The plaintiff, a widow, had executed deeds founding two charities and devoting to them a considerable part of the large fortune which she had inherited from her husband, but later brought proceedings to set the deeds aside asserting that she had not been fully and properly advised and had not fairly understood the nature and effect of the documents.
Held: Upheld. Lord Halsbury LC said that he agreed with the judgment of Lindley LJ, but he contemplated that there might be ‘circumstances when misunderstanding on both sides may render it unjust to the giver that the gift should be retained.’
Lord Halsbury LC, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Morris
(1899) 15 TLR 294
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromOgilvie v Littleboy CA 1897
Lindley LJ discussed the variation of a gift for mistake: ‘Gifts cannot be revoked, nor can deeds be set aside, simply because the donors wish they had not made them and would like to have back the property given. Where there is no fraud, no undue . .

Cited by:
mentionedBrazzill and Others v Willoughby and Others CA 27-May-2010
The regulated bank Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd (KSF) was in financial difficulties. The Bank of England required KSF to credit to a trust account all future deposits. KSF later went into insolvency. Some deposits had been credited to the . .
CitedFutter and Another v Revenue and Customs; Pitt v Same SC 9-May-2013
Application of Hastings-Bass Rule
F had created two settlements. Distributions were made, but overlooking the effect of section 2(4) of the 2002 Act, creating a large tax liability. P had taken advice on the investment of the proceeds of a damages claim and created a discretionary . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 May 2021; Ref: scu.416578