RESULTING TRUSTS: A VICTORY FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT?

2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 500-503
Author(s):  
Rachel Leow ◽  
Timothy Liau
Keyword(s):  
Academic Interest ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal

WHEN do resulting trusts arise, and why? These questions were the subject of serious inquiry in the 1990s, following influential work by Peter Birks and Robert Chambers, which argued that resulting trusts arise to reverse unjust enrichment. The House of Lords in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] A.C. 669 remarked that the Birks/Chambers thesis was “avowedly experimental, written to test the temperature of the water”, but that “the temperature of the water must be regarded as decidedly cold”. Following Westdeutsche, the issue has received little consideration, although academic interest in the debate remains. The recent decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] SGCA 36 considered this issue in detail and is therefore worth examining.

Governmental Liability after Francovich

1993 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Caranta
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Community Law ◽  
District Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Governmental liability used to be on the retreat, especially but not only in the field of negligence liability. In Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the majority of the Court of Appeal flatly stated that not every infringement of Community law was a tort. Moreover, in the recent decision in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council the House of Lords, departing from Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, dramatically curtailed any hope—or fear, it depends on the point of view—of development of governmental liability in the field of economic loss.

scholarly journals Failing the System? Enfocing the Right to Education in New Zealand

2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 735 ◽  
Author(s):  
E J Ryan
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Right To Education ◽  
London Borough ◽  
High Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Domestic Level

At both the international and domestic level, the existence of a right to education is given widespread support. But what are the content and consequences of this right? The meaning of the right to education was examined recently in the context of special education by the High Court and Court of Appeal in Daniels v Attorney-General. The High Court saw the right as a substantive one; the Court of Appeal viewed it in procedural terms. These different conceptions of the right affected the remedies available to the plaintiffs. This article assesses the competing understandings of the education right in NZ, and concludes, particularly in light of the House of Lords' decision in Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council, that the High Court's approach is to be preferred.

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Whayman
Keyword(s):  
London Borough ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Part VI Early Perceptions of Legal Risk, 20 A Landmark Case and its Aftermath

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Historical Explanation ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Legal Risk ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Audit Commission ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City

This chapter discusses the case of Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, which had a profound effect on how the City of London perceived the dangers posed by legal risk. It involved a House of Lords decision on an ultra vires point — specifically, the power of the council in question to enter into ‘swap’ transactions. The case arose because this power was challenged by the auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. The surrounding circumstances and the unprecedented manner in which the City of London responded to the case provide both the classic case study and a historical explanation of why legal risk is seen to be so important and how seriously it is taken by those concerned with orderly financial markets.

THE LIABILITY OF SCHOOLS FOR BULLYING

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-294
Author(s):  
Jesse Elvin
Keyword(s):  
Health And Safety ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
County Council ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Sussex County ◽  
Reasonable Care ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

InBradford-Smart v. West Sussex County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 07, Leah Bradford-Smart, a former pupil of a school maintained by West Sussex County Council, based her claim for damages for psychiatric injury and consequent loss on the school’s failure to prevent fellow pupils bullying her outside the school. It is clear that “a school is under a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of the pupils in its charge” (Van Oppen v. Clerk to Bedford Charity Trustees [1990] 1 W.L.R. 235, 250), and that it also assumes responsibility for a pupil’s educational needs (X v. Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 A.C. 633, 766, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson; Phelps v. Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000] 2 A.C. 619). In Bradford-Smart, the Court of Appeal held that a school is generally responsible for its pupils only when they are inside the school, but that exceptional circumstances might arise when failing to take reasonable steps to combat bullying occurring outside the school would give rise to a breach of its duty of care to a pupil.

The Effect of Discharge by Breach on Exception Clauses

1970 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Coote
Keyword(s):  
Contract Price ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal

It was perhaps never very likely that the proponents of fundamental breach would allow their doctrine to die just because of some obiter dicta on the subject from the House of Lords. In that respect, therefore, the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Harbutt's “Plasticine” Ltd. v. Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd. need cause no surprise. What had happened in that case, essentially, was that the defendants had agreed to manufacture some equipment and to instal it in the plaintiffs' factory under a contract, clause 15 of which limited the defendants' liability to the amount of the contract price (£2, 330). A small and easily corrected defect in the equipment caused a fire which destroyed the factory and resulted in a loss to the plaintiffs of some £150,000. The Court of Appeal held (Lord Denning M.R. dubitante) that on its true construction clause 15 covered the loss in the events which had occurred. The whole court nevertheless joined in holding that the destruction of the factory and consequent discharge by breach of the contract had the effect of making clause 15 inapplicable. Judgment was given for the full amount of the loss.

Public authority negligence revisited

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.H. Bailey ◽  
M.J. Bowman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
London Borough ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Legitimate Interests

Following on from earlier consideration of this issue by the same authors in the 1980s, this article examines the principles governing the negligence liability of public authorities as articulated in recent cases, and in particular the decisions of the House of Lords in X v. Bedfordshire, Stovin v. Wise and Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council. It concludes that the various attempts to establish special principles to govern such liability have been misguided, and that the courts have proved too willing to reject claims on the basis of questionable policy considerations, to the extent that a blanket immunity might appear to have been established in some contexts. Ultimately, this approach has brought the United Kingdom into conflict with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that ordinary private law principles provide a wholly appropriate basis for reconciling the legitimate interests of public authorities with the need to accord justice to individual litigants.

incompleteness of the building work gave rise to difficulties. Normally, the rule is that an assignee will not be allowed to recover any more than the assignor could have done. As a result, it was argued on behalf of the builders that the council could not sue in respect of incompleteness since the bank was not liable for any incompleteness. The Court of Appeal, however, rejected this argument holding that the bank could have recovered substantial damages from the defendants, apparently on the basis that this case was covered by the principle established in Lenesta. However, it would appear that there are differences between Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier and Lenesta since, in the earlier case, it was assumed to be a requirement that the original contracting parties always envisaged a transfer of property in the thing which was the main subject matter of the contract. In contrast, in the Darlington case, ownership of the land remained with the council throughout. Steyn LJ’s reasoning in this case seems to be based more on pragmatic grounds than on a strict application of legal principle, since he makes the point that, but for an application of the principle in Lenesta, an otherwise meritorious claim would have disappeared down a legal black hole, but this was a black hole created by the parties themselves due to the clause relieving the bank of any liability for incompleteness. In any case, it has been established by the House of Lords in Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd that if a party has a valid claim under some other rule of law, the Lenesta exception will not apply. The relations between third party and promisee

1995 ◽  
pp. 769-769
Keyword(s):  
Black Hole ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Main Subject ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Reservation of title in England and New Zealand

Legal Studies ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard McCormark
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The One ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Reservations of title clauses have enjoyed mixed fortunes in recent times at the hands of the courts in Britain. On the one hand, the House of Lords has upheld the validity and effectiveness of an ‘all-liabilities’ reservation of title clause. On the other hand, claims on the part of a supplier to resale proceeds have been rejected in a string offirst instance decisions. Reservation of title has however been viewed more favourably as a phenomenon in New Zealand. In the leading New Zealand case Len Vidgen Ski and Leisure Ltd u Timam Marine Supplies Ltd. a tracing claim succeeded. Moreover in Coleman u Harvey the New Zealand Court of Appeal gave vent to the view that the title of the supplier is not necessarily lost when mixing of goods, which are the subject matter of a reservation of title clause, has occurred. There are now a series of more recent New Zealand decisions, some of them unreported, dealing with many aspects of reservation of title.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document