Reviewing the Decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in Huebner v AIE and PM Co Ltd: A Dissenting Opinion

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Chukwuebuka S Okeke
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Trust Law

Abstract In this case, the Nigerian Supreme Court had the opportunity to build on the foundations of Nigerian trust law. The court was faced with facts that should have led to the implication of a resulting trust in favour of the appellant, since he had purchased a large parcel of land in the name of the respondent. While accepting that it made no contribution to the purchase or development of the land, the respondent sought to escape its fiduciary duty by alleging illegality, using the provisions of the Land Use Act as a statutory shield. The Nigerian Supreme Court endorsed the respondent's position, by electing to focus on the breach of the statute, while ignoring that equity would not allow a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud. This article shows how the court erred, as the statutory breach was not fatal to the appellant's claim: equity does not demand that its suitors have led blameless lives.

Fiduciary Law, Good Faith, and Publicness

2019 ◽  
pp. 762-779
Author(s):  
Hillary A. Sale
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Corporate Development ◽  
Duty Of Loyalty ◽  
Trust Law

This chapter uses corporate law as a case study to evaluate the content of the fiduciary duty of good faith. Tracing its development from Van Gorkom through to the present, the chapter shows how good faith, though part of the duty of loyalty, has become a gap filler, policing the space between generally exculpated breaches of care and the more obvious breaches of loyalty. This chapter also surveys good faith case law to show the most common “red flags” for which corporate officers and directors should be monitoring. An analysis of two of the most recent good faith cases—City of Birmingham and In re Wells Fargo—show how the theory of publicness can be used to predict future good faith developments. Finally, the chapter ends by showing that the duty of good faith’s expansion into trust law parallels its corporate development by emphasizing its gap-filler function.

Fiduciary Principles in the Canon Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 489-504
Author(s):  
Richard H. Helmholz
Keyword(s):  
Canon Law ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
English Court ◽  
Medieval Church ◽  
Canonical Texts ◽  
Trust Law ◽  
The Church ◽  
Court Practice

This chapter discusses the scope of principles of fiduciary duty as they appear in the canon law. It first provides a historical background on canon law and its relation to fiduciary law, noting that the medieval church and principles of fiduciary duty were interconnected in direct and positive ways. In fact, the church was governed by many of the same principles of fiduciary law that are found in modern trust law, and these principles were fully and authoritatively stated in the Corpus iuris canonici during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The chapter proceeds by analyzing the Corpus iuris canonici and its two books: Gratian’s Concordia discordantium canonum, also known as the Decretum, and the books of Decretals. It also traces the development of fiduciary law inherent in some of the canonical texts and explains how fiduciary principles came to be enforced in the canon law, citing examples of the width of the scope of fiduciary principles found in English court practice, including a duty applied only to the clergy. Finally, it considers whether the modern law of trusts was shaped in any way by canonical influence.

scholarly journals Fiduciary Law and the Constructive Trust: Perfecting the Fiduciary Undertaking

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciara Toole
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Fiduciary Obligations ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
Fiduciary Relationships

Two recent unanimous decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada in Galambos v Perez and Alberta v Elder Advocates of Alberta Society have narrowed and refreshed the requirements for recognizing fiduciary relationships and obligations. All fiduciary obligations must be founded by an undertaking, either express or implied, on the part of the fiduciary to act in the best interest of the beneficiary. At the heart of the fiduciary obligation, the undertaking of a fiduciary may also serve as a foundation for the goals of fiduciary accountability. The developing “Galambos approach” remains incomplete in its application in this regard. In the spirit of Galambos and Elder Advocates, I propose that the undertaking of the fiduciary can provide principled guidance in the availability of gain-based relief for breach of fiduciary duty. Particularly, I suggest that the imposition of a constructive trust as proprietary gain-based relief may be rationalized under the objective of perfecting or enforcing the fiduciary undertaking. To demonstrate my proposal, I investigate three example undertakings and breaches of fiduciary duty in which the fiduciary acquires property through the breach of duty. By grounding this overall discussion towards a conceptual remedial goal of enforcing the fiduciary’s undertaking, Galambos may spark the development of a principled approach to understanding both the making and the breach of fiduciary obligations.

scholarly journals Corporate personality: utilising trust law to invoke the application of the concealment principle

Legal Studies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Allan ◽  
Stephen Griffin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Distinct Species ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Trust Law ◽  
Constituent Elements ◽  
Corporate Personality

AbstractThe landmark Supreme Court judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd provides a significant reassessment of the law relating to a court's ability to circumvent corporate personality. The Supreme Court considered that the application of ordinary legal principles (‘the concealment principle’) should ordinarily override a court's ability to apply an equitable veil-piercing doctrine (‘the evasion principle’). Whilst accepting the primacy of the concealment principle, this paper disputes the correctness of the Supreme Court's implied assertion that, in cases concerning ‘one-man type’ companies, the concealment principle should be advanced through application of agency-derived principles. Rather, this paper contends that the concealment principle should be progressed by adopting solutions derived from the law of constructive trusts and associated principles of equity. To an objective of providing a doctrinally sound framework for the development of the law in the post-Prest era, this paper further suggests that the constituent elements of the evasion principle could be consistent with the operation of a distinct species of constructive trust. Moreover, it is argued that, in future, this ‘evasion trust’ should, in complete abrogation of the equitable piercing doctrine, be developed so as to apply in all cases exhibiting intentional and fraudulent abuses of the incorporation process.

“For the Contrary View”: Reconsidering the Early Anti-Zoning Decisions”

2021 ◽  
pp. 153851322110475
Author(s):  
Francine S. Romero
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Early State ◽  
State Supreme Court ◽  
Contrary View ◽  
Previous State ◽  
Legal Arguments ◽  
The U.S

When the 1926 Euclid v. Ambler decision found municipal zoning valid under the U.S. Constitution, previous state cases opposing the practice were overruled and subsequently almost forgotten. This investigation analyzes those early State Supreme Court cases to determine systematically the basis of these rejections. After constructing a contextual background of the legal arguments that could have been used by the judges, I assess cases to determine which were used, and find a dominance of concern regarding land use segregation justified by municipalities through an “aesthetics” defense. I conclude by considering links between these cases and current controversies.

British Virgin Islands

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arabella di Iorio
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Virgin Islands ◽  
British Virgin Islands ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Eastern Caribbean ◽  
Common Law System ◽  
Trust Law

The legal system of the British Virgin Islands is a common law system based on the English model, comprising statute law and binding case precedents. The principles of English common law and equity apply in the BVI (subject to modification by BVI statutes) pursuant to the Common Law (Declaration of Application) Act (Cap 13) and the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Virgin Islands) Act (Cap 80) respectively. The general principles of trust law are based on English law.

18. Trespass to land and nuisance

2021 ◽  
pp. 537-582
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Actual Damage

This chapter examines torts of trespass to land and nuisance. Trespass to land is concerned with direct harm, and the tort’s primary importance is the protection of property rights. Harm in this context does not necessarily mean actual damage to the land concerned. The harm lies in the fact that land owned by one party has been unjustifiably interfered with by another. Private nuisance deals with indirect and unreasonable interferences to land, including what might be called consequential interferences resulting from a direct action. Private nuisance regulates relationships and conflicts between neighbours, defining their mutual rights and obligations with respect to land use. Many aspects of the law of nuisance, including determining whether an injunction or damages is the appropriate remedy, were clarified by the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence [2014].

18. Trespass to land and nuisance

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 535-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Actual Damage

This chapter examines torts of trespass to land and nuisance. Trespass to land is concerned with direct harm, and the tort’s primary importance is the protection of property rights. Harm in this context does not necessarily mean actual damage to the land concerned. The harm lies in the fact that land owned by one party has been unjustifiably interfered with by another. Private nuisance deals with indirect and unreasonable interferences to land, including what might be called consequential interferences resulting from a direct action. Private nuisance regulates relationships and conflicts between neighbours, defining their mutual rights and obligations with respect to land use. Many aspects of the law of nuisance, including determining whether an injunction or damages is the appropriate remedy, have recently been clarified by the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence [2014].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document