Introduction to Paralegal - Cases Flashcards
Lewis - V - Averay (1972)
This was a legal case where a Mr. Lewis advertised his card for sale and accepted a cheque from a buyer who made himself out to be a famous actor. (Richard Green who was the star of “Robin Hood”) Mr. Lewis said that he only accepted a cheque because he thought he was dealing with the real Richard Green. He wasn’t - and the cheque bounced. Mr. Averay in the meantime had purchased the car, in good faith, from the spurious Mr. Green. Mr. Lewis tried to recover the car from Mr. Averay. Both were innocent parties. Either Mr. Lewis would lose his car or Mr. Averay would lose the money he paid for it. Whoever won, it wouldn’t be fair on the other. The Court found in favour of Mr. Averay for reasons to do with mistake and misrepresentation
The Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)
The friction between Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor was so tense; the end result was King James I ordered that * where there was a conflict between common law and equity, then equity should prevail *
Central London Property Trusts Ltd - v - High Trees House Ltd (1947)
High Trees House Ltd leased a block of flats in Clapham, London from Central London Property Trust Ltd. The agreement was made in 1937 and specified an annual ground rent of £2,500. The outbreak of World War II in September 1939 led to a downturn in the rental market. High Trees struggled to find tenants for the property and approached Central London Property Trust in January 1940 to request that the rent be lowered. A reduction to £1,250 per year was agreed in writing, though the duration was not specified and no consideration was provided.
By 1945, the building was returning to full occupancy. On 21 September 1945, Central London Property wrote to High Trees to request a return to the full rent of £2,500 and claiming arrears of £7,916 for the period since 1940. They then brought a test action to recover part of the debt for the two quarters which had elapsed since June 1945.
The judge decided that under common law he would have had to have made High Trees pay in full, however as the agreement of the reduction in rate through the war, under equity, they were not liable for the full amout the plaintiff asked for.
D&C Builders -v- Rees (1965)
The Defendant owed the Plaintiff Builders the sum of £482 for building work that had been carried out. Rees known however, that the builders were in financial trouble and so offer them £300 in full settlement of the work. The Builders, desperately needing the case is agreed. However they later sued for the balance on £182. The Defendants raised the Doctrine of Equitable Promissory Estoppel by way of defence. They failed, because the Defendant house to take advantage of the Plaintiff’s financial and had not, therefore, acted properly in past dealings with them. The defendant had not come to equity “with clean hands”
THE JUDICATURE ACTS 1873-1875
The effect of the legislation was was to completely abolish all common law courts (apart from Hol or Hoc) and to create the unified court structure The Supreme Court Judicare.
Mareva Injunction (1980)
An interim (granted before trial) order restraining a Defendant from dealing in any way whatsoever with his assets until after Judgements.
Anton Pillar Order
This order allows a Claimant to enter the Defendant’s premises to search for and seize any documents or papers relevant to the action - to stop the Defendant destroying or otherwise parting with the possession of them.
What is the Great Repeal Bill?
Although the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, the EU legislation continue to bind the UK, with the EU laws being accepted through the Great Repeal Bill
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (March 2017)
This was the notice given by the UK to the European Union to inform them that they were initiating a withdrawal from the EU.
Saif Ali -v- Sydney Mitchell 1978
Barristers in England and Wales may be sued for negligent service in the courtroom. One reason for this was due to the fear that almost anyone who lost a court case would try and sue their barrister.
Arthur J.S. Hall & Co. –v- Simons
This abolishes the immunity of actions for negligence against their solicitor or barrister
