This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Private Client

Halton International Inc & Anor v Guernroy Ltd (2006)

Judgment Date: 27 Jun 2006

A claim to certain shares on the basis that they were held on a constructive trust was statute-barred because the shares had come into existence only as a result of the transaction impeached, so that the constructive trust alleged was not of a kind that fell within the exception in the Limitation Act 1980 s.21(1) for claims to recover trust property.

View case

Robert Alan Kean v William McDonald & Ors (2006)

Judgment Date: 23 Mar 2006

A property freezing order obtained by the Assets Recovery Agency was not discharged despite it having been obtained by non-disclosure and innocent misrepresentation at a without notice hearing, because the agency's misjudgement had not been serious and a broad, merits-based evaluation of all the circumstances found no abuse of process.

View case

Harry Barrington Bowser v Valerie Ann Caley & Ors (2006)

Judgment Date: 06 Feb 2006

A transfer of property to the first respondent had not been set aside on the grounds of undue influence, misrepresentation or lack of capacity owing to the drunkenness of the appellant, since the evidence had not supported those findings, and solicitors acting for the latter during the transfer had not been in breach of their duty to him as he had been properly advised and had understood the transaction.

View case

Lennox Lewis v Eliades & Ors (2005)

Judgment Date: 21 Dec 2005

There was nothing wrong with the judge's finding that the first defendant was the beneficial owner of a property. Therefore the claimant was entitled to set off rent payments in respect of that property against a debt owed to him by the first defendant; and the bare trustees of the property, who in their role as estate administrators had disputed the first defendant's beneficial entitlement, could not recoup their litigation expenses against money that they held on his behalf.

View case

Simon Richard Fraser & Nathan George Fraser v Canterbury Diocesan Board Of Finance & Ors (2005

Judgment Date: 31 Oct 2005

There had been no reverter of the site of a school before the coming into force of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987, because until it had closed in 1995 the school had been used for the purpose of the education of poor persons within the School Sites Act 1841 s.2.

View case

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Gary Fielding & Ors (2005)

Judgment Date: 27 Jul 2005

Transactions between a company and a shadow director were voidable unless the requisite formalities had been observed. Where a person became a shadow director by virtue of the fact that the board of directors became accustomed to acting on his instructions, transactions entered into between the parties before that point in time were not retrospectively invalidated.

View case

Attorney-General v Trustees Of The British Museum (2005)

Judgment Date: 27 May 2005

The express prohibition in the British Museum Act 1963 s.3(4), on the disposal of objects in the collections of the British Museum, prevented the defendant trustees from returning drawings to their owners. The fact that the trustees were under a moral obligation could not justify a disposition in breach of s.3(4) and neither could the Attorney-General sanction their return by relying upon the decision in Re Snowden (1970) Ch. 700. Only legislation or a bona fide compromise could entitle the trustees to return the drawings.

View case

Jack Pennington & Ors v Harold Crampton Senior & Ors (2004)

Judgment Date: 17 Jun 2004

Where a commercial bargain had been made, equity would not intervene to relieve against forfeiture where a court had decreed specific performance.

View case

Pennington v Crampton (2004)

Judgment Date: 25 Mar 2004

The defendant (N) applied for an order that the claimant (H) should specifically perform his obligations contained in a schedule to a Tomlin order.

View case

Simon Fraser v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance (2004)

Judgment Date: 28 Jan 2004

The trustees of an 1866 trust deed were entitled to the proceeds of sale of part of the site of a school since the land had reverted to the successors in title of the grantor under s.2 School Sites Act 1841, because there had been a cessation of the purpose stipulated in the trusts on which the land was donated for use as a school.

View case

Sangeeta Mehra v Radiatben Rajnikant Shah & Ors (2003)

Judgment Date: 05 Aug 2003

Six sisters were not partners in a family business and only the surviving brothers or their representatives were entitled to the winding up of the partnership and realisation of the business assets.

View case

Peter Shalson & Jean-Claude Mimran & Ors v Onofrio Russo & Ors (2003)

Judgment Date: 11 Jul 2003

A claim to trace money into a valuable motor yacht and a bank account failed where the interest was dependant on there being a fiduciary relationship sufficient to invoke equity's tracing ability and there was no justification for the suggested consolidation of a current account with a deposit account to enable the claimant to say that the account was in credit rather than debit and was therefore an asset rather than a liability.

View case

Pennington v Waine (No.2) (2003)

Judgment Date: 03 Jul 2003

The registration of shares in the name of a deceased shareholder's executors had not been a transfer that enabled existing shareholders to invoke a right of pre-emption contained in a specifically adopted provision in a company's articles of association.

View case

Pennington v Harold Crampton & Ors (2003)

Judgment Date: 03 Jul 2003

The registration of shares in the name of a deceased shareholder's executors had not been a transfer that enabled existing shareholders to invoke a right of pre-emption contained in a specifically adopted provision in a company's articles of association.

View case

OT Computers Ltd (In Administration) v First National Tricity Finance Ltd & Ors (2003)

Judgment Date: 09 May 2003

The claimant company, who had set up trusts in anticipation of insolvency proceedings to safeguard customers' and suppliers' monies, remained the beneficial owners of the fund to the extent to which it had not effectively, by its declaration of trust, created benefical interests in the fund in favour of the beneficiaries.

View case

Shaker v Mohammed Al-Bedrawi & Ors (2002)

Judgment Date: 18 Oct 2002

The so-called "Prudential principle" did not preclude an action brought by a claimant not as a shareholder but as a beneficiary under a trust against his trustee for an account of profits received in relation to shares which were the subject of the trust, unless it could be shown that the whole of the claimed profit reflected what the company had lost and which it had a cause of action to recover.

View case

Ali v Khan & Ors (2002)

Judgment Date: 11 Jul 2002

A judge was wrong to conclude that the fourth defendant's transfer of his legal interest in a property to the claimant was also intended to transfer his beneficial interest in that property.

View case

Hurst v Crampton Bros (Coopers) Ltd (2002)

Judgment Date: 12 Jun 2002

Transfer of shares effective in equity though not registered in name of transferee; Whether pre-emption rights of other shareholders under articles of association of company triggered notwithstanding that legal title to shares not transferred.

View case

Prestige Properties Ltd v (1) Scottish Provident Institution (2) Chief Land Registrar (2002)

Judgment Date: 13 Mar 2002

A judge was wrong to conclude that the fourth defendant's transfer of his legal interest in a property to the claimant was also intended to transfer his beneficial interest in that property.

View case

R v The Charity Commissioners for England & Wales, ex parte Lynda Lucille Baldwin (2000)

Judgment Date: 07 Jul 2000

Although the trustees of an almshouse scheme had not invited representations from the applicant before setting aside her appointment as an almsperson, they had done just enough properly to inform themselves before making that decision. A decision of the Charity Commissioners in the exercise of their supervisory role was not amenable to judicial review.

View case

Practice areas
Charities
Private Client

1 2 3

Results 21 - 40 of 50