Lecture notes

Illegality + Presumption Rebuttal

0 purchase

Module
Equity And Trusts

Institution
University Of Sussex (UoS)

This is part of a bundle for Equity and Trusts Term 2. Includes: - Maxims - Implied Trusts - Constructive Trusts - Illegality - Presumption of Advancement

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 5 pages

View example

Uploaded on July 12, 2021
Number of pages 5
Written in 2020/2021
Type Lecture notes
Professor(s) Jeanette
Contains All classes

£9.39

Also available in package deal from £15.49

Add to cart

Add to wishlist

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Also available in package deal (1)

Equity and Trusts Term 2

£ 47.04 £ 15.49 5 items

1. Lecture notes - Equitable maxim recap notes
2. Lecture notes - Implied trusts
3. Lecture notes - Quistclose trusts + presumed resulting trusts
4. Lecture notes - Voluntary transfer + presumption of advancement
5. Lecture notes - Illegality + presumption rebuttal
Show more

Rebutting the Presumption

Maxim alert “He who comes to equity must come with clean hands”

 Consider which presumption (RT / advancement)
may apply & any evidence/circumstances
 Illegality not necessarily a criminal offence, may
be ‘improper’ behaviour
 Illegality doctrine associated with Lord Eldon: cannot rely
on evidence of an illegal purpose Tinker v Tinker

Illegality

Tinsley v Milligan [1993] 3 WLR 126
Stella T & Kathleen M lived together as lovers for 4 years and ran their house as a
lodging house. Joint venture and house paid for by the profits. Registered in T’s
name solely so that M could claim benefits. T&M separated, T sued for possession
of the house as she had the legal estate , M claimed an equitable interest based on
RT.
HELD: Her claim is based on financial contribution which raises the presumption of a
RT, benefits fraud irrelevant & didn’t use that £ to pay for house.
Criticised as condoning fraudulent behaviour

Can we rely on the illegal purpose if it isn’t carried out?
Tribe v Tribe [1996] Ch 107:
Father transferred shares to son gratuitously, to avoid having to pay for repairs on
his business premises. Worked out a deal with landld, so claimed shares back.
Presumption of advancement or presumption of RT?
To rebut P of A father would have to rely on ‘illegal/improper purpose’???
Held: locus poenitentiae , F could bring evidence as had withdrawn!!

Back to Tinsley v Milligan—Lord Browne-Wilkinson set out the applicable
principles:

1. Real and personal property can pass under an illegal,
and thus unenforceable, contract.
2. Claimant can enforce his rights, as long as he does
not need to rely on the contract for any purpose other than as the
basis of his claim to a property right.

, 3. It is irrelevant whether the illegality emerged in
evidence or was pleaded, it is sufficient that the property
was acquired under the illegal contract.

 Reliance principle
Adressed toSC

Law Commission report ‘The Illegality Defence’ but not implemented:
illegality should normally be ignored
Tinsley overruled & a simpler test introduced by Supreme Court Patel
v Mirza [2016] UKSC 1047
P agreed with M, that he, P would pay M £620,000 for ‘insider’ info to
trade on RBS shares. P paid but no info, so P wanted £ back.
Claim based on unjust enrichment &/or Quistclose type trust

First instance: wouldn’t apply Tribe, P hadn’t ‘withdrawn voluntarily’
Appeal CA: P successful. Rimer LJ no distinction with Tribe, RT at
time of transfer & nothing to rebut
SC: decision agreed, though 9 justices & different reasoning.
Overruled Tinsley & reliance principle. Claim here simply of unjust
enrichment under a contract where consideration had failed. No
policy issues as no bets placed. Mr P could reclaim £.

Lord Toulson:
 Essence of illegality doctrine is that it is contrary to public
interest to enforce a claim if harmful to integrity of the legal
system
 Consider all the circumstances including if denying claim
would be disproportionate to on party
 Key: would the ‘unlawful purpose’ undermine the integrity
of the justice system? (rare). More flexible.

Constructive Trusts

• Introduce another type of implied trust: the constructive trust

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller graceochieng950. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £9.39. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling