Search Results

Ch 1 (CA) and Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] 1 AC 421 (HL), both noted in Essential Cases , demonstrated there was a requirement of causation in compensation claims against

constructive trust cases. See Hopkins (2011) 31 LS 175 and Crossco (No 4) Unlimited v Jolan [2011] EWCA Civ 1619, [2012] 2 All ER 754, Court of Appeal, noted in Essential Cases.

been made liable (see also, e.g., Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 (HL), noted in Essential Cases ). It is said that this is ‘ pour encourager les autres ’ (at [74]). This appears very

proprietary claim cases. As the Supreme Court noted in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45, [2015] AC 250 [43] (noted in Essential Cases ), the monies

‘fair, just and reasonable’ ( Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 (HL) 109, noted in Essential Cases ). They show considerable reluctance to alter property rights except pursuant to specific

required was restated in the case of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele [2001] Ch 437 (CA) 452 (also noted in Essential Cases ). Also note that ‘knowledge’

European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45, both noted in Essential Cases , on these matters. Stephenson LJ briefly expressed doubts but concurred in the result

[1971] AC 424 (HL), and Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 2) [1973] Ch 9 (CA) (noted in Essential Cases ), for a discretionary trust, a complete list of objects was required. It was pressed

see further Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1, also noted in Essential Cases ). This core does not, however, include the duties of care and skill, prudence, and

mistake and Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467 to illegality (both noted in Essential Cases ) where certain acts are restrained from having legal effect. Is this the distinction

the effect of Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts [1987] Ch 264 (Ch) (also noted in Essential Cases ) was that it could not be ‘notice’ from the doctrine of notice (from 452). Constructive

Ch 373, Chancery Division Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch 373 (Ch), noted in Essential Cases ). Reform of the law would make it less likely that gifts fail because they do not

analysis in Essential Cases is distributed between the two notes. It once seemed probable, but not certain, that the principles in Stack applied also to single legal owner cases. A much

[2007] 2 AC 432 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2012] 1 AC 776, both noted in Essential Cases ). However, Etherton LJ rejected the claim on both bases. Since the parties were

not. See, e.g., Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 WLR 1752, noted in Essential Cases (and where remarks were made suggesting the two estoppels are ultimately the same)

evidential certainty. See the cases of McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424 (HL) and Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 2) [1973] Ch 9 (CA) and their notes in Essential Cases for more details.

in Nestlé v National Westminster Bank Plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260 (CA), also noted in Essential Cases , where breach was not proved. The difference is that here the kind of investment was