Ogilvie 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 influence, no fiduciary relationship between donor and donee, no mistake induced by those who derive any benefit by it, a gift, whether by mere delivery or by deed, is binding on the donor . . In the absence of all such circumstances of suspicion a donor can only obtain back property which he has given away by showing that he was under some mistake of so serious a character as to render it unjust on the part of the donee to retain the property given to him.’

Judges:

Lindley LJ

Citations:

(1897) 13 TLR 399

Cited by:

CitedPitt and Another v Holt and Others ChD 18-Jan-2010
The deceased had created a settlement in favour of his wife. He suffered serious injury and placed the damages in trust, but in a form which created an unnecessary liability to Inheritance Tax on his death. The wife’s mental health act receiver now . .
CitedPitt and Another v Holt and Another ChD 18-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to unravel a settlement she had made as receiver for her late husband, saying that it had been made without consideration of its Inheritance Tax implications. The Revenue said that there was no operative mistake so as to allow . .
Appeal fromOgilvie 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 . .
CitedBrazzill 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.402002