Tag: Trusts

Island Holdings Ltd v Birchington Engineering Co Ltd; 7 Jul 1981

References: Unreported, 7 July 1981
Coram: Goulding J
Two prospectively separate purchasers in a later ‘subject to contract’ arrangement between them had replaced their earlier concluded agreement as to how a property, if acquired, would be dealt with.
Held: Effect was to be given to the agreement by way of constructive trust, not to the ‘subject to contract’ arrangement but simply to the notion that the two parties should be obliged to share.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Banner Homes Group Plc -v- Luff Developments and Another CA (Gazette 10-Feb-00, Times 17-Feb-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 18, [2002] 2 All ER 117, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 3016, [2000] 2 WLR 772, [2000] Ch 372)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Gonthier and Another -v- Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 873)
    The question of a proprietary estoppel as between landlord and tenant arose. An agreement had been reached subject to contract for the grant of a lease, with an option to purchase. The tenant was allowed into possession before the documentation was . .
  • Cited – Thames Cruises Limited -v- George Wheeler Launches Limited, Kingwood Launches Limited ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 3093 (Ch))
    The parties had previously worked to gether to provide ferry services on the Thames. A new tender to operate the services was not submitted. It was alleged that the Defendants had inequitably seized for themselves a business opportunity which the . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 03-Mar-16 Ref: 188287

Fordyce v Sir Henry Bridges, Catherine Elizabeth Mary Reid, Madeline Curling, Jane Curling, Isabella Curling, Agnes Catherine Thomson, Mary Louisa Thomson, Emily Harriet Thomson, Gertrude Eliza Thomson, Florence Jessie Thomson, And Jo; 15 Mar 1848

References: [1848] EngR 347 (C), (1847-1848) 2 Coop T Cott 325
Links: Commonlii
If all the heirs of a Scotch entail were necessary parties to a suit in this Court, touching matters in which they are interested as such heirs of entail, the suit could not proceed, not only on account of their number, but because future heirs of entail coming into esse would not be bound by any proceedings in it, as their claim is not through any persons parties to the suit.
As you cannot have, in any shape, before the Court all the heirs of entail whom you seek to bind, it would be idle to prove that some are out of the jurisdiction.
When, to avoid a failure of justice in the Court from the peculiar nature of the interest under a Scotch entail, it shall become necessary to decide the point [as to making all the heirs of a Scotch entail parties to a suit], some rule must be laid down, for which there is no precedent.
Not possible to dispute the proposition, that the heir of a Scotch entail is not bound by the proceedings in a suit to which he was no parly, he claiming under the entail, and not deriving title through anyone, a party to the suit, and having a direct interest in the subject of that suit in his own right, though not in possession.
Although the heir is not bound by the proceedings in such suit, he cannot have a decree in his own suit, unless he can shew that he was injured by the former decree, or has interests inconsistent with its directions.

Proctor v Bulstrode; 7 Feb 1742

References: [1742] EngR 24, (1742) 2 Coop T Cott 534, (1742) 47 ER 1291 (C)
Links: Commonlii
LORD CHANCELLOR in this case, that where there is a power to grant a rent charge for life, and the rent is given during widowhood, it is a good execution of the power, for it is an estate for life. Like grant of a jointure during widowhood in bar of dower, it is a good jointure by the statute E27 Hen. VIn. c. 101. Power was to grant an annuity of 250 per annum. Grant of one of £40 per annum is a full execution ; and the extent of it could not after be made up by a subsequent execution for the rest, the first being a complete execution.

Knight v Bowyer; 1 Aug 1859

References: [1859] EngR 908, (1859) 4 De G & J 619, (1859) 45 ER 241
Links: Commonlii
This case cites:

  • See Also – Knight -v- Bowyer ((1858) 2 De G & J 421, [1858] EngR 673, Commonlii, (1858) 2 De G & J 421, (1858) 44 ER 1053)
    The doctrine of laches and delay did not apply to an express trust, save possibly where there was a release or abandonment by the beneficiary and that was capable of being presumed from the facts of the case. . .