‘A recent ruling by the High Court in London highlights the willingness of the UK courts to apply pragmatic thinking to novel questions of law as it applies to digital assets, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th February 2023
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Mattie Green discusses Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648, focusing mainly on the application of section 53 of the Law of Property Act 1925.’
Tanfield Chambers, 16th January 2023
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a party claiming a subsequent increase in their equitable share as a result of a post-acquisition changed common intention must show detrimental reliance on the changed common intention. In this case there had been sufficient detrimental reliance.’
Falcon Chambers, 22nd December 2022
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘The ever-troublesome common intention constructive trust (“CICT”) has been back before the Court of Appeal. Hudson v Hathway is a second appeal, from Kerr J. The first appeal was from HHJ Ralton in the County Court at Bristol.’
Guildhall Chambers, 22nd November 2022
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
‘In Ezair v. Conn [2020] EWCA (Civ) 687, the Court of Appeal has struck a blow in favour of established doctrine, in a case involving uncompleted contracts for the sale and sub-sale of land.’
Falcon Chambers, 4th June 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘Family home constructive trusts have been discussed ad nauseam. Nevertheless, there are still points to learn from new judgments. Sandford is no exception—four practical points can be gleaned from just six pages of judgment.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 14th November 2019
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘The High Court has determined a £35 million partition era dispute between India, Pakistan and successors in title to 7th Nizam of Hyderabad. Claims of Pakistan dismissed; claims of India, Prince Muffakham Jah and Prince Mukarram Jah upheld.’
Blackstone Chambers, 2nd October 2019
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘The breakdown of a loving relationship can cause both emotional and legal uncertainties. From a property law perspective, the key question is: who gets what? In most cases, the most valuable part of this question is: who gets the house?’
Radcliffe Chambers, 14th January 2019
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘Claire Molyneux Senior Associate, and Naomi Shelton, Associate, Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during March 2018.’
Family Law Week, 15th April 2018
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Bloom v Bloom [2018] Lexis Citation 16 concerned the applicant wife’s application that judgments in the financial remedy proceedings, where the respondent husband had been found to have defrauded her parents, should be published un-anonymised. The application was granted.’
Family Law, 22nd March 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘In the case of Legg and others v Burton and others [2017] EWHC 2088 (Ch) the claimants, children of Mrs Clark, successfully established a constructive trust under the doctrine of mutual wills. This had the effect of making invalid the 13 subsequent wills the deceased made between 2004 and 2014, after her husband died. It was held by His Honour Judge Matthews in the Chancery Division of the Bristol District Registry that the wills Mrs Clark made with her husband in mirror terms in 2000 were mutual wills and as such there was a binding agreement with her husband, which she could not go back on after his death.’
Family Law, 9th February 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘What is the difference between, on the one hand, Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55 and, on the other hand, Thorner v Majors [2009] UKHL 18? The standard answer is that Cobbe involved commercial parties who, well, ought to have known better than to rely on an incomplete agreement (no unconscionability), whereas, in Thorner, we were dealing with the delightfully taciturn farmers of the Quantock Hills (unconscionability in the circs).’
Nearly Legal, 10th August 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Money which an agent personally owed to its principal at the point the former became insolvent is not held on “constructive trust” for the principal, instead forming part of the assets of the insolvent business to be divided up between all creditors in a proportionate way, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th July 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The case of AIB Group (UK) plc v Turner [2015] EWHC 2994 (Ch), heard over a number of days in the Birmingham District Registry towards the end of 2015, is something of a puzzle.’
Tanfield Chambers, 22nd April 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Last summer the case of Southwell v Blackburn came before the Court of Appeal. The subject of the appeal was the correct application of the equitable remedy of proprietary estoppel within the context of a cohabiting couple. Judgment was handed down on 16th October 2014 (reported under [2014] EWCA Civ 1347) and was subsequently described in the national press as a ‘landmark ruling’ in relation to the rights and entitlements of unmarried couples when their relationships come to an end. This article examines whether the decision has in fact moved the law on in such seismic terms.’
No. 5 Chambers, 1st April 2015
Source: www.no5.com
Davies v O’Kelly [2014] EWCA Civ 1606; [2014] WLR (D) 535
‘In general, equity would not come to the aid of a party who had to rely on his unlawful purpose, but if his right to an equitable interest in property could be identified without the need to rely on his unlawful purpose it might be enforced. In particular, notwithstanding an unlawful purpose between a couple in purchasing property, where the couple later separated it was possible, in the case of a constructive trust just as in the case of a resulting trust, to find, where one of the parties was advancing a claim to his beneficial interest in the relevant property, that he had no need to rely on the unlawful purpose and could therefore advance his claim.’
WLR Daily, 11th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Directors and senior employees will often have wide-ranging managerial power over their companies: the ability to commit or disburse company assets, with significant autonomy and limited detailed oversight. Those in such positions will not always act responsibly, and will be attractive targets to others seeking a share of the potential spoils. In two important judgments from July, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court significantly increased the remedies available against both bribed fiduciaries and those who bribe them.’
Employment Law Blog, 2nd Ocotber 2014
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘As every student of equity knows well, a trust is a type of property ownership in which one or more people (the trustee(s)) hold property on behalf of one or more other people (the beneficiary/ies), exercise all the powers of an owner of property in relation to third parties, but are bound to do so for the exclusive interests of the beneficiaries. A trust can be express, made by a formal written implement, or implied, either by transfer of property without explanation (a resulting trust) or in circumstances where the common intention of the parties is or is deemed to be for the property to be held on trust (a constructive trust). Both express and implied trusts are genuine trusts: the property is owned by the trustee, subject to the interest of the beneficiaries.’
The Barristers’ Hub, 1st August 2014
Source: www.barristershub.co.uk
‘In Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Others [2007] Bus LR 1796, [2007] BusLR 1796, [2008] 1 All ER 425, [2007] UKHL 43 Lord Hoffmann described s.7 (2) and (3) of the Patents Act 1977 as “an exhaustive code for determining who is entitled to the grant of a patent.”‘
NIPC Law, 10th April 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Williams (Respondent) v Central Bank of Nigeria (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 10 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 19th February 2014
© Inner Temple Library 2024