Topic 7 - Equitable defences Flashcards
Saunders v Vautier
Saunders v Vautier” is a landmark case in trust law that established a very important principle. Here’s a simplified explanation:
The Core Principle:
Essentially, the rule states that if all the beneficiaries of a trust:
Are adults (of legal capacity, “sui juris”).
Are of sound mind.
And together, have an absolute, vested interest in the trust property.
Then they can demand that the trustees end the trust and distribute the property to them, even if the trust document says otherwise.
Lord Cawdor v Lewis
Lord Cawdor v Lewis supplies an excellent illustration of what Stevens has in mind.
The claimant landowner sued the defendant for mesne profits and the defendant
successfully counterclaimed for an injunction restraining the bringing of the claimant ’
s action on the basis that the claimant had stood by while the defendant had, to the
claimant ’ s knowledge, made improvements to the land. Th
Patel v Mirza
the Supreme Court opted
for a ‘range of factors ’approach to the illegality doctrine One is that a person
should not be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing. The other, linked,
consideration is that the law should be coherent and not self-defeating condoning illegality by giving with the left hand what it takes with the right
hand. ’ unjust enrichment.
Laosebikan & Ors. v
Olaniyan Awojobi
the court laid down certain elements that must exist for the defence
of laches and acquiescence to avail a party. They are as follows:
1. That the Respondent was in fact mistaken as to his own rights over the land.
2. That he had in reliance of the mistake expended his money on the land
3. That the plaintiff must have known of the existence of his own right which is
inconsistent with the right claimed by the Respondent over the land.
4. That the Plaintiff must have known of the mistaken belief of the Respondent
5. That the Plaintiff must have encouraged the Respondent in his expenditure of money.
Pascoe v Turner
a woman had been promised that she would be
entitled to live in a house for the rest of her life. In reliance on that promise, she
expended a small amount of money on decorating the property. The representor failed
to leave her an interest in the property. The court found that there was no way of
protecting the right of her continued occupation under ordinary land law principles. It
was held that she had acted to her detriment in reliance on the representation. The only
remedy which would protect her reliance on the promise was a transfer of the freehold
interest in the property to her.
Baker v
Baker
the UK Court of Appeal was asked to consider the position of an elderly
man who had been induced to give up his home and to contribute to the purchase price
of a house together with his son and daughter-in-law.
Evidently the elderly man was entitled to an equitable interest in the house because he
had contributed to the purchase price. When the court came to consider how best to
conceive of the elderly man’s rights, it was decided that the man needed sufficient
monetary compensation to buy him sheltered accommodation for the rest of his life,
due to his age and infirmity, rather than a declaration that he owned a given percentage
of the equity in the house. Thus, the court may seek to identify both the claimant’s
detriment and his needs as a result.
Taylor Fashions v Liverpool
Victoria Trustees Co Ltd
Oliver J preferred to focus on the detriment suffered by
the plaintiff as opposed to some ‘formula serving as a universal yardstick for every
form of unconscionable behaviour’
