Equitable remedies Summary notes- Equity and Trusts
4 keer bekeken 0 keer verkocht
Vak
Law of Trusts (LX2083)
Instelling
Brunel University (BU)
Boek
The Principles of Equity & Trusts
These are notes on equitable remedies created in 2019. They follow a structured format which condenses the relevant case law, statutory provisions and academic opinion that are relevant to the topic to aid with exam revision.
Equitable remedies Posner v Scott – Specific performance was allowed as no
great hardship was forced on the defendant
Defintion: Co-operative Insurance Society v Argyll- Defendant
Are orders compelling the defendant to do something or promised to keep supermarket open but then broke the
refrain from doing something lease 19 years early, Claimant wanted specific
performance to enforce the contract. Specific
General information: performance was not awarded as it would be too
burdensome on the claimant to supervise the
Co-operative Insurance Society v Argyll- Equitable enforcement of the contract.
remedies are flexible and adaptable to achieve the ends
of equity Defences to specific performance:
Wilson v Northampton- Purpose of equitable relief is to
do more perfect and complete justice than if the parties Mistake and misrepresentation:
went for remedies at common law Falke v Gray- Unfair result, if the judge forces specific
Equitable remedies will come into play performance it would make an unfair result
To support and enhance the common law and to Lamare v Dixon- Conduct of the claimant, a refusal to
enforce equitable obligations perform a promise
Public policy:
Three types: Tito v Waddell- Hardship
Patel v Ali- Exceptional personal distress if specific
Specific performance performance is granted
Injunctions
Equitable damages Injunctions
General principles:
They are discretionary whilst common law remedies are Definition:
sought as of a right An order to prevent action that would breach a
Only available when common law remedies are duty/contract or to compel an action to rectify such
inadequate breach
Equity acts in personam (affects the individual) and the Statutory basis: s.37(1) Supreme Court Act 1981
conscience of the individual to which it is applied Paton v Trustees- Husband tried to get an injunction to
Equity does not act in vain and always has a purpose prevent his wife from aborting their child but hand no
Haywood v Cope- Whilst it is equitable, there must be right at law or equity to do so
some settled rule on how discretion must be exercised Equity is about the conscience of the defendant in
(now outdated after the juridicature acts) personam
Specific performance: Has the potential to have a wide scope
Unnamed defendants:
Co-operative Insurance v Argyll- Specific performance is Bloomsbury v News Group- Individuals wanted to sell
an exceptional remedy as opposed to common law unreleased Harry Potter manuscripts to newspapers but
damages which is more of a right an injunction was placed to prevent newspapers from
publishing them
Is only allowed where: Venables v News Group- An injunction was created
against the world to prevent anyone from publishing the
The contract already exists- because equity will not
assist a volunteer identities of the killers of Jamie Bulger
Some requirement in the contract is yet to be 3 main types:
performed
Damages are inadequate Prohibitory injunctions- Preventing the defendant from
Property under the agreement is unique acting in a particular way- Doherty v Allman
Sudbrook Trading v Eggleton- For the sale of land, Mandatory injunctions- requiring the defendant to actin
specific performance is a normal remedy unless there a particular way until the trial. Redland Bricks v Morris
are special factors preventing it and Wrotham v Parkside
Verall v Great Yarmouth- Contract was specifically Quia timet injunctions- Translates to he fears, an action
enforceable, as damages were not adequate for either an injunction or damages awarded to the
-For the sale of chattels, specific performance is not plaintiff prior to him/her suffering any actual loss but
generally a remedy unless there is no substitute. harm is threatened
Behnke v Bede- Specific performance was awarded
because the goods in question were unique and could Injunctions are not available in these scenarios:
not be replaced When damages are sufficient
Cohen v Roche- Specific performance was denied as the Acquiescence/delay- in terms of breach
goods weren’t unique, the claimant could buy them No useful purpose served
elsewhere, so damages were awarded Undue hardship
Wheatley v Westminister- Courts will not force Trivial infringement
someone to supervise the completion of a contract- like Public policy
the construction of a railway. Better remedy is to award
damages Equitable damages:
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper BigH. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,65. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
