Related Research Articles
In the field of jurisprudence, equity is the particular body of law, developed in the English Court of Chancery, with the general purpose of providing legal remedies for cases wherein the common law is inflexible and cannot fairly resolve the disputed legal matter. Conceptually, equity was part of the historical origins of the system of common law of England, yet is a field of law separate from common law, because equity has its own unique rules and principles, and was administered by courts of equity.
English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law, each branch having its own courts and procedures.
A charitable trust is an irrevocable trust established for charitable purposes. In some jurisdictions, it is a more specific term than "charitable organization". A charitable trust enjoys varying degrees of tax benefits in most countries and also generates goodwill. Some important terminology in charitable trusts includes the term "corpus", referring to the assets with which the trust is funded, and the term "donor," which is the person donating assets to a charity.
Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties' conduct and worthiness. They were developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts that administer equity jurisdiction, including the law of trusts. Although the most fundamental and time honored of the maxims, listed on this page, are often referred to on their own as the 'maxims of equity' or 'the equitable maxims', it cannot be said that there is a definitive list of them. Like other kinds of legal maxims or principles, they were originally, and sometimes still are, expressed in Latin.
Restitution and unjust enrichment is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. In contrast with damages, restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution.
Glanville Llewelyn Williams was a Welsh legal scholar who was the Rouse Ball Professor of English Law at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1978 and the Quain Professor of Jurisprudence at University College, London, from 1945 to 1955. He has been described as Britain's foremost scholar of criminal law.
Charles Foster is an English writer, traveller, veterinarian, taxidermist, barrister and philosopher. He is known for his books and articles on Natural History, travel, theology, law and medical ethics. He is a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. He says of his own books: 'Ultimately they are all presumptuous and unsuccessful attempts to answer the questions 'who or what are we?', and 'what on earth are we doing here?'
Charles Christopher James Mitchell KC (Hon) is a British legal scholar acknowledged as one of the leading common-law experts on the English law of restitution of unjust enrichment and the law of trusts. He is the author of two leading textbooks and one practitioner's book. He is currently Professor of Law at University College London and Senior Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.
Paul Lyndon Davies KC (Hon), FBA is Allen & Overy Professor of Corporate Law Emeritus at the University of Oxford, Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, Emeritus Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Emeritus Professor of Law at the London School of Economics, where he was the Cassel Professor of Commercial Law from 1998 to 2009. He is an honorary Bencher of Gray’s Inn.
The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.
The Trustee Investments Act 1961 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers where trustees can invest trust funds. Given the royal assent on 3 August 1961, it removed the "Statutory Lists" system and replaced it with sets of specific investment areas. The Act was heavily criticised for the way it set these areas out, particularly the requirement that trusts trying to invest in multiple areas would need to be permanently divided. A 1997 Law Commission paper called its terms "overly cautious and restrictive", suggesting that some trusts were underperforming as a result. The passing of the Trustee Act 2000 effectively nullified the 1961 Act's terms in relation to trustee investment, and the 2000 Act is now the principal piece of legislation in this area.
Hunter v Moss [1994] 1 WLR 452 is an English trusts law case from the Court of Appeal concerning the certainty of subject matter necessary to form a trust. Moss promised Hunter 50 shares in his company as part of an employment contract, but failed to provide them. Hunter brought a claim against Moss for them, arguing that Moss's promise had created a trust over those 50 shares. The constitution of trusts normally requires that trust property be segregated from non-trust property for the trust to be valid, as in Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd. On this occasion, however, both Colin Rimer in the High Court of Justice and Dillon, Mann and Hirst LJJ in the Court of Appeal felt that, because this case dealt with intangible rather than tangible property, this rule did not have to be applied. Because all the shares were identical, it did not matter that they were not segregated, and the trust was valid. The decision was applied in Re Harvard Securities, creating a rule that segregation is not always necessary when the trust concerns intangible, identical property.
In English law, a purpose trust is a trust created for the fulfillment of a purpose, not for the benefit of a person. These are normally considered invalid by the courts because they have no legally recognized beneficiaries, therefore nobody to enforce the trust, with the exception of charitable trusts, which are enforceable by the Attorney General as they represent the public interest. As well as charitable trusts, there are several exceptions to the rule against purpose trusts. If the requirement to fulfill a purpose is a request, rather than an obligation, the trust is valid; a trust will also be found valid if, while being for a purpose, it involves beneficiaries in some respect. Purpose trusts can also be valid if they are for the erection or maintenance of tombs and memorials, the maintenance of animals, and arguably the saying of masses, although these must all obey the rule against perpetuities and not continue for more than 21 years after the testator's death.
A Quistclose trust is a trust created where a creditor has lent money to a debtor for a particular purpose. If the debtor uses the money for any other purpose, then it is held on trust for the creditor. Any inappropriately spent money can then be traced, and returned to the creditors. The name and trust comes from the House of Lords decision in Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd (1970), although the underlying principles can be traced back further.
Jeffrey Hackney is a legal academic specialising in property law, law of trusts, and legal history at the University of Oxford. He attended Wadham College, University of Oxford. He retired in 2009 from his position as a Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, and is now an Emeritus Fellow and Keeper of the Archives for the College. He was previously a Fellow of St Edmund Hall, and has taught at various universities in North America as a visiting professor. He was Keeper of the Archives of the university from 1987 to 1995, and also chaired various university boards, as well as serving on the editorial board of the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.
El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc[1993] EWCA Civ 4 is an English trusts law case concerning tracing and receipt of property in breach of trust.
The local authorities swaps litigation refers to a series of cases during the 1990s under English law relating to interest rate swap transactions entered into between banks and local authorities. The House of Lords ruled that such transactions were unlawful. As a result of the decision over 200 separate actions were filed as hundreds of interest rate swap contracts had to be unwound by the courts at great expense.
Goff and Jones on the Law of Unjust Enrichment is the leading authoritative English law textbook on restitution and unjust enrichment. First written by Robert Goff and Gareth Jones, it is presently in its tenth edition. It is published by Sweet & Maxwell and forms part of the Common Law Library.
Dame Sarah Elizabeth Worthington, is a British legal scholar, professor at LSE Law School, barrister, and Deputy High Court Judge in the Chancery Division, specialising in company law, commercial law, and equity. From 2011 to 2022, she was the Downing Professor of the Laws of England at the University of Cambridge. She is Treasurer of the British Academy and a trustee of the British Museum.
Re Nanwa Gold Mines Ltd [1955] 1 WLR 880 was a trust law decision relating to subscription monies for shares and what would subsequently come to be known as Quistclose trusts. The court held that where subscription monies had been paid over to enable the company to accomplish a specific purpose, if that purpose failed then the money was held on trust for the subscribers and did not form part of the assets of the company. Even though the decision was only a first-instance ex tempore decision, it has been repeatedly upheld, including by the House of Lords in Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd[1968] UKHL 4
References
- ↑ Alastair Hudson CV November 2014
- ↑ "Election Data 1997". Electoral Calculus. Archived from the original on 15 October 2011. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ↑ "THE CABINET OF TOMORROW?" . The Independent. London on Sunday. 9 February 1997. Archived from the original on 15 May 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
