GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Flashcards

Equity & Trusts Cases

Tom Dearden English 4.3Average rating 4.3 out of 5 (3 ratings) 131 cards

Cards in this deck (131)

  1. 1Paul v PaulOnce a trust is created it cannot be undone by settlor.
  2. 2Milroy v LordEquity will not perfect an imperfect gift.
  3. 3Re RoseWhere transferor has done all that is necessary *for him to do* to effect a transfer it would be unconscionable to renege on the promise.
  4. 4Knight v Knight3 Certainties.
  5. 5Paul v ConstanceAs much mine as yours.
    No need to have knowledge of creation of trust for it to be valid.
  6. 6Re KayfordSegregation of funds demonstrates an intention to hold money on trust for customers.
  7. 7Armitage v NurseProfessional manager, if they limit their liability, will (ironically) be held to a lesser standard than an amateur trustee.
  8. 8Re GoldcorpSegregation = trust.
    Lack of segregation = no trust.
  9. 9Hunter v MossNo need for certainty of subject matter where property is intangible.
  10. 10Re London WineRequires certainty of subject matter.
  11. 11White v Shortall (Australia)Hold entire pool of funds on trust, giving trustees power to divide the pool between beneficiaries.
  12. 12Lehman BrosFollows White v Shortall
  13. 13Sen v HeadleyDonatio mortis causa - gifts made during testator's lifetime intended to take effect after their death will constitute a valid gift.
  14. 14Baker v BakerProprietary Estoppel has broad range of remedies.
    Old man gives up home to live with children. Fall out.
    Remedy - they had to pay for his living in care home.
  15. 15Re Ralli's Will TrustWhere the settlor has no rights in the property at the time of making the promise then there will not be valid trust created.
  16. 16Morice v Bishop of DurhamThere must be someone in whose favour the court can decree performance of the trust in order for it to be valid.
  17. 17Leahy v Attorney General for New South WalesAbstract purpose. Not valid.
  18. 18Re DenleyThere would always be some employees who could act as claimant in respect to the trust, so it was valid.
  19. 19Re Grant's Will TrustLabour Party. No identified person.
    Void.
  20. 20Re LipinskiOutright transfer of capital = gift.
    Valid.
  21. 21Keech v SanfordTrustees cannot make a profit.
  22. 22Boardman v PhippsMisuse of trust property
    =
    profits held on constructive trust for beneficiaries.
    (Entitled to equitable accounting)
  23. 23Queensland Mines v HudsonFull disclosure
    =
    Granted authorisation. No breach of fiduciary duties.
  24. 24Royal Brunei Airlines v TanDishonest assistance
    =
    Personally liable for the full amount of the loss to trust property.
  25. 25Twinsectra v Yardley(Alternative to Tan)
    Dishonest assistance
    Did D realise that what he was doing would be considered dishonest by reasonable people?
  26. 26Starglade v Nash3rd test for dishonest assistance.
    Objective test from Tan
    +
    Personal characteristics
  27. 27Barlow Clowes v EurotrustA warped moral view will not pass the Twinsectra test.
  28. 28Polly Peck v NadirNo obligation on banks to proactively find out if there is something wrong with bank accounts.
  29. 29Gillett v HoltRepresentation
    +
    Reliance
    +
    Detriment
    = Proprietary Estoppel
  30. 30Lissimore v DowningClearly no representation, so no proprietary estoppel.
  31. 31Bank of Ireland v PexxnetUnconscionability = constructive trust
  32. 32Regal v GulliverCinema
    Managers cannot give themselves authorisation.
  33. 33Bray v FordTrustees cannot put themselves in a position where their personal interests conflict with duty as trustee.
  34. 34Industrial Development Consultants v CooleyManaging director. Pretended to be ill. Exploited new business opportunity.
    No disclosure, should have offered business to company.
    Constructive trust.
  35. 35Gascoigne v GascoigneHe who comes to equity must do so with clean hands.
  36. 36Tinsley v MilliganIllegal act was not part of purchase, so held on resulting trust for both of them.
  37. 37Tribe v TribeDespite illegal intention, no illegal act committed, so resulting trust.
  38. 38Tinker v TinkerPresumption of advancement stood. Equity will not aid in an illegal act.
  39. 39Sinclair Investments v VersaillesPonzi scheme. Applied Lister v Stubbs, so personal liability for whole of loss to trustees.
  40. 40Lister v StubbsBribes received create a personal liability to beneficiaries.
  41. 41AG HK v ReidBribes held on constructive trust.
    Equity looks as done that which ought to have been done.
  42. 42Barclays Bank v QuistcloseMoney held for specific purpose will result back to lender if not used for specified purpose.
  43. 43Midland Bank v WyattSham trusts will not be valid.
  44. 44Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington£1.5m loan to be repaid over 10 years. 5 years in, public bodies could not take interest loans.
    No knowledge to affect their conscience, so no constructive trust, but based on money had and received there was a resulting trust.
  45. 45In Plus Group v PykeDirector cast aside and excluded, therefore no fiduciary duty owed to company.
  46. 46Guinness v SaundersInsider trading. Unconscionable actions, breach of fiduciary duty. All profits held on constructive trust.
    Claim for equitable accounting refused as he had not acted in good faith.
  47. 47Ireland Export Finance v UmunnaGained expert knowledge while at company but quit. Later approached for similar work.
    Because opportunity was brought to him, and he no longer owed fiduciary duty to company, not constructive trust.
  48. 48Foster v BryantDirector forced to resign by another director and majority shareholder.
    Took clients, but owed no fiduciary duty.
  49. 49Reading v Attorney GeneralArmy Sergeant snuck smuggler past army checkpoints because of bribe.
    Money held on constructive trust for state.
    Misuse of office.
  50. 50Berryland Books v BK BooksMisuse of company property. Held on constructive trust for Berryland.
  51. 51Cobbe v Yeomans RowCommercial situation.
    Reliance on detriment without contract does not apply in commercial setting.
    Should have used formalities.
  52. 52Banner Homes v Luff DevelopmentCobbe, but without commercial context will be enforceable.
  53. 53Daraydan v SollandBribe. Artificially increased price of building work by 10%.
    Bribe held on constructive trust.
  54. 54Tesco Stores v PookIn charge of e-commerce for Tesco in Korea. Faked invoices to hide bribes.
    All bribes held on constructive trust for Tesco.
    AG HK v Reid principle.
  55. 55In the Estate of CrippenKilled wife and was to inherit her estate.
    Held her estate on resulting trust as he could not acquire it (he killed her)
    Equity will not reward criminal conduct.
  56. 56Jones v KernottBoth parties on legal title, but she contributed 90% of purchase price, he contributed 10%.
    90/10 split.
  57. 57Pettit v PettitLegal title vested solely in wife's name.
    He made renovation work.
    Must make financial contribution for common intention resulting trust, so he had no interest in it.
  58. 58Gissing v GissingParties shared home in husband's name.
    He paid off all mortgage repayments. She had no beneficial interest because no financial contribution.
  59. 59Lloyds Bank v RossettPurchase price contributed from husband's trust on condition that it was registered solely in his name. Wife made no financial contribution. Obvious that there was no intention for her to have a beneficial interest by the terms of the trust.
  60. 60Springette v DafoeBalance sheet approach.
    41% discount counted as cash contribution.
  61. 61Huntingford v HobbsD 61% purchase price. Rest on mortgage.
    C gave £2000 for conservatory, also given £25,000 to pay off the mortgage (she bought him out)
    Remainder of proceeds split 39% to C, 61% to D.
  62. 62Hammond v MitchellCouple lived together in house in H's name. M working for H. Couple living hand to mouth. Clear intention to share the home, so 50/50 split.
  63. 63Midland Bank v CookeCash contribution by way of wedding present meant a contribution by both parties.
  64. 64Jennings v RiceHandyman for widow. He and his wife move in to look after her for no pay.
    Not entitled to house, but to £200,000 for services rendered.
  65. 65Cox v JonesBarristers. He bought house, paid all mortgage payments. She quits job as barrister to supervise. Also need house in London which she gets discount on.
    He gets 75% essex house, she gets 25%.
    She also got London flat due to discount.
  66. 66Stack v Dowden65% - 35% split based on course of dealings.
    Modern approach to trust of homes.
  67. 67Re BashamStep daughter takes care of step father. Solves boundary dispute. Husband turns down house from work under assumption they would get his house when he dies.
    He leaves them nothing.
    Proprietary estoppel.
  68. 68Thorner v MajorSilent farmers. Representation can be made implicitly, without words.
  69. 69Porntip Stallion v Albert Stallion Holdings Ltd.Porntip gained equitable interest in the property for life under divorce settlement. This did not grant her exclusive possession, as that would be inequitable to new wife (and child).
  70. 70Baden v Societé General5 types of knowledge for unconscionable receipt:
    - Actual knowledge
    - Willfully shutting ones eyes to the obvious
    - Willfully and recklessly failing to make enquiries an honest and reasonable person would have made
    (4/5 disposed of by Re Montague's ST)
  71. 71Macmillan v BishopsgateIn trust law there is no positive obligation on banks to inspect money passing through.
    However there is under banking regulations.
  72. 72BCCI v AkindeleAkindele had not acted in an unconscionable way, despite receiving money, so no unconscionable receipt.
  73. 73Tesco v NattrassControlling mind test. Manager at one stores is not the controlling mind at Tesco, so company not liable for his actions.
  74. 74El Ajou v Dollar Land HoldingsNon-exec chairman is significant enough to be considered controlling mind, so company is liable for his breach of trust.
  75. 75Jones & Sons v JonesTransferred money to his wife, no fraud. Firm went insolvent.
    Wife made wise investments (made money)
    Common law tracing where no mix was successful.
  76. 76Re DiplockMust have equitable interest in order to bring a claim in equitable tracing.
    If trustee mixes trust money with money from an innocent 3rd party, beneficiaries are entitled to a proportionate share.
  77. 77Re Hallett's EstateHonest trustee approach (equitable tracing).
    Assumption that where fiduciary has mixed his own money with trust money, he intends only to use HIS money from that account, based on fiduciary duty.
  78. 78Re OatwayBeneficiary election approach.
    If trust money has gone in different ways, the beneficiaries are entitled to elect what property they wish to trace.
  79. 79Foskett v MckeownModern approach.
    Beneficiaries are entitled to a proportionate share.
  80. 80Clayton's CaseFirst in, first out rule in regard to current bank accounts.
  81. 81Re Ontario (Canada)Beneficiaries entitled to proportionate share if trust money is mixed with money from an innocent 3rd party.
  82. 82Russell Cook Trust v PrentisIf result from applying Clayton's rule is arbitrary and irrational, then court can apply proportionate approach from Re Ontario.
  83. 83Lipkin Gorman v Karp NaleIf innocent person's change in position would cause it to be more unjust to take money back than to keep it then 'change of position' defence applies.
  84. 84Niru Baltery v MilestoneBad faith will prevent the use of the defence of 'change of position'.
  85. 85Phillip Collins v DavisSinger was massively overpaid, employer claims money back. Change of position defence applied based on a grander scale of living.
    Court ordered half the money to be repaid.
  86. 86Scottish Equitable v DerbyBank mistakenly paid defendant early. D had spent money on fixing his roof. He would not have done so had he not received this money. Bank claimed the money back, Court applied change of position.
  87. 87Natwest v SomerSomer told bank he was expecting payment, Bank received payment and credited it to his account, informing him it had arrived. Based on this, Somer sent goods to customer. Natwest then realised the payment they received was for a different client and wanted money back. Estoppel by representation applied as they had received a rep by bank on which they relied, to their detriment.
  88. 88Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington (Defence to tracing)If trust property ends up with bona fide purchaser without notice, that will protect the purchaser.
  89. 89Jones v Lock"Look you here I give to this baby"
    Gave no intention to form trust.
  90. 90Tito v Waddell (No 2)Simple use of the word trust will not create a trust.
  91. 91Brazziil v WilloughbyFSA made an order to KSF that all future deposits to be credit to trust account. Did not make clear which deposits or customers' money were covered by the scheme.
    Irrelevant to FSA order this showed voluntary intention to create a trust.
  92. 92Mills v SportsDirect.comSegregation in commercial context.
  93. 93In Re Adams and Kensington Vestery"In full confidence" created only a moral obligation.
  94. 94Clough Mill v MartinNeeds to be an intention to create a trust, and not something else (e.g. floating charge)
  95. 95Sprange v BernardTrust over "remaining part of what is left" is too uncertain.
  96. 96Palmer v Simmonds"Bulk of my estate" is too uncertain.
  97. 97MacJordan v BrookmountQuestion of trust over bank account. No trust as it required segregation from other monies in the account.
  98. 98Re WaitRequirement of segregation in commercial context.
  99. 99Re StaplytonDitto Re London Wine, however under Sale of Goods Act, A specified quantity of unascertained goods are capable of being held on trust.
  100. 100Re Global TraderCASS Scheme. Those who opted out of scheme had no trust. Those who hadn't were protected, up to a certain amount. If it was not in their account then they were not protected.
  101. 101IRC v Broadway CottagesFixed Trust.
    Complete list test.
  102. 102Re Gulbenkin & MacPhail v DoultonIs or is not Test.
    Discretionary trust & Fiduciary power.
    MacPhail regarding friends/relatives.
  103. 103Re Baden (No 2)Reverse burden of proof, for is or is not.
    'Relatives'
  104. 104Re BarlowConcerned words 'friends or family'.
    Series of gift will validate trust.
  105. 105Re Hays STPersonal power will only be invalidated if exercised for fraud - cannot be invalid for certainty of object.
  106. 106Re AllenOne should seek to uphold the trust, if possible to identify at least some beneficiaries in the class.
  107. 107Sparfax v DommettTrust in favour of 'customers' was void for uncertainty.
  108. 108Re Tuck's STTrust can be validated by use of an expert in case of uncertainty.
  109. 109Re Astor's STTrust for preservation of integrity of newspapers void for lack of beneficiaries.
  110. 110Re ShawMoney left for creation of a new alphabet void for lack of beneficiary.
  111. 111Saunders v VautierBeneficiaries having reached age of majority may exercise proprietary right over trust property.
  112. 112Re RecherTrust in favour of Anti-vivisection
    Valid - accretion to trust's funds
  113. 113Conservative Association v BurrellTrust for benefit of unincorporated association valid, subject to mandate.
  114. 114Re Bucks ConstabularyFund to give relief to widows and orphans of deceased members. Surplus assets held for members at time of dissolution, unless there is only on member left.
  115. 115Re Horley Town FCSurplus will take effect as gift to members, subject to contract.
  116. 116Re Brooks STSettlor must have appropriate property rights at time of creation of trust.
  117. 117Hodgson v MarksWidow takes in lodger, agrees to transfer title to him. He sells property, but since she was in actual occupation, her interest overrides the sale.
  118. 118Bannister v BannisterStatute cannot be use as an engine for fraud.
    Therefore constructive trust.
    Wills Act 1837 s9 did not apply.
  119. 119Grey v IRCWished to create a trust to benefit grandchild, he was also beneficiary under trust. Oral agreement to transfer his interest for his grandchild. Oral disposition of equitable interest caught by s53(1)(c) LPA 1925.
  120. 120Vandervell v IRCTransferring legal title as well as equitable interest, not caught by s53(1)(c) LPA 1925.
    Automatic resulting trust. Option to repurchase shares did not specify who the owner is.
  121. 121Cowan v ScargillTrustees must seek highest available return.
  122. 122Nestlé v NatwestDefence - If you can prove that you have acted as a prudent person in business.
  123. 123Re Hastings BassCourt will reverse decision and revert trust to previous state if it can be shown that trustee has acted in a way
    - unauthorised by the power conferred upon him
    - had he
    1)taken into account things he ought not to have
    2)failed to take into account things which he ought to have.
  124. 124Pitt v HoltRe Hastings Bass applies only where there is a breach of fiduciary duty.
  125. 125O'Rourke v DerbyshireBeneficiary has right to information only if the right is a proprietary right.
  126. 126Re LondonderryNo obligation for trustees to give reasons for decisions, nor to disclose confidential information.
  127. 127Schmidt v Rosewood TrustNo beneficiary has an entitlement to a right of disclosure of anything that could plausibly be described as a trust document.
  128. 128Target Holdings v RedfernsTrustees are only liable for losses which stem directly from their breach of trust.
    If the losses do stem directly then they are liable to a personal remedy.
  129. 129Walker v StonesTest of dishonesty for professional trustees is entirely objective.
  130. 130Re CochranePurported marriage settlement which never went ahead. Purpose of trust failed so resulted.
  131. 131Re Gillingham FundBus crash, raised money. Surplus bounced back on resulting trust.

Information

Description
Flashcards on Equity & Trusts Cases, created by Tom Dearden on 15/05/2014.
Created by
Tom Dearden
Views
267
Rating
Average rating 4.3 out of 5 (3 ratings)

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?