Equity and the Law of Trusts

Product Information

Hence, result of this case was to establish primacy of equitable jurisdiction over the common law - enshrined in statute today. BUT equity does not assume Common Law itself is wrong - doesn't abolish/compete with Common Law rules. Rather, it corrects the judgement, presupposing existence and application of Common Law rules. It provides a gloss/qualification on enforcement of Common Law rules. This book is part of a series of 8 textbooks that have been specially designed to cover academic law for students converting to law. Published and updated regularly, these user-friendly study manuals are designed to help you successfully acquire knowledge and understanding of the foundational law of England & Wales. This approach is particularly attractive where we have 2 bodies of law operating alongside, on same set of facts. Like cases should be decided alike, and mere historical differences do not justify differences in outcome.

But this legislative change was short lived! Right to devise freehold land by will eventually reestablished by the Statute of Wills 1540. Feudal incidences eventually abolished anyway. Sources: in the early days, law was mostly developed by successive Chancellors, as they extended protection of B (first against transferees with notice of the use, then against heirs of third parties who inherited the property, and then against anyone except Equity's Darling)Where two parties want the same thing and the court can’t honestly decide who deserves it most they will leave it where it is Equitable Remedies Injunctions

A trust is a device whereby rights (personal or proprietary) are held by one party for the benefit of Eg. Tort of nuisance is Common Law right of action, but if you want more than Common Law damages, like an equitable remedy of injunction, you must get judgment from Common Law court first and then bring judgment to Court of Chancery to get injunction (can't start off with latter because it has no jurisdiction) Three stage test on granting interlocutory injunctions was introduced in the English case (American Cyanamid) this was accepted and followed as law in the Irish case (Campus Oil V The Minister for Energy) :

Explore more

trusts of the family home, usually fall within this last category. The vast majority of constructive

further, Court of Chancery was prerogative court, with Lord Chancellor exercising discretion while acting as King's delegate: Common Law courts were hostile to this. The Common Law, however, would not take notice of uses. One effect of this, as Baker notes, is that uses could be utilised to put land outside the reach of creditors. [11] Another effect, however, is that it left those enttiled to the benefit of the land (called the cestui que use) without recourse in the Common Law courts. Initially, Uses would have been a mere matter of morality. It was only by appointing several notable local people, threatened with the shame of depriving another of their inheritance, that due execution of the use could be guaranteed. this gift by endorsing on the lease of the business premises a short memorandum: "This deed" they can ask that the property of the trust be transferred to them wholly. This means that the rights Set out if damages would be a suitable remedy. It must be impossible to quantify damages and must give an under taking which means in the event of an injunction not being granted they must compensate the other party for any losses.An opportunity to restore the full force of the English feudal law of inheritance (and thus the King's incidents) came when Lord Dacre died in 1533. [18] He had left a will of land through a Use and had thus deprived the King of his rights to wardship and premier seisin. Thus, when the case came up in 1535 Audley and Cromwell summoned the common law judges to discuss the case. [19] After initially dividing evenly on the question, Henry VIII "coaxed or coerced" [18] them to unanimously agree with his (extreme) position that uses of land intended to allow for wills of land were fraudulent and thus should not be enforced by the Chancery, or indeed the Common Law. This had the effect of invalidating any and all wills of land. Furthermore, however, this decision threw into question all previous wills of land that had been common to make for over a century. [20] BUT note that the 2 approaches of Common Law and equity might not really be alike - if judges are allowed to borrow ideas across the divide, they must be sensitive to the real substantive differences between jurisdictions. There may be good reasons to justify why equitable remedies are fault based - in Common Law contract, parties are expected to be vigilant (thus have partial defences like contributory negligence), but under equitable trust rules, there is no similar basis If there is an unreasonable delay in bringing proceedings the case may be disallowed in equity. Acquiescence is where one party breaches another’s rights and that party doesn’t take an action against them they may not be allowed to pursue this claim at a later stage. These may be used as defences in relation to equity cases. For a defence of laches courts must decide whether the plaintiff has delayed unreasonably in bringing forth their claim and the defence of acquiescence can be used if the actions of the defendant suggest that they are not going ahead with the claim so it is reasonable for the other party to assume that there is no claim. (Nelson v Rye 1996) There are many different types of trust that can be set up depending on how you want to control your assets. Bare trust