Land Law Coursework It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines. Lord Denning described estoppel succinctly as ‘a principle of justice and equity. It comes to this: when a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs, he will not be allowed to go back on it when it would be unjust or inequitable for him to do so’ . Proprietary estoppel in turn is an informal method by which proprietary rights can arise. It can provide a defence to an action by a landowner who seeks to enforce his strict rights against someone who has been informally promised some right or liberty over the land. In turn it can be used as a defence or a cause of action. In order to show how the two doctrines are quite similar, a description of the elements of proprie... ... middle of paper ... ...rence Etherton). The evidentiary requirements for the two concepts are different and it can be said that the constructive trust is more difficult to prove. Furthermore, depending on the facts of the case coupled with statutory provisions, either of the doctrine may prove to be more relevant in order to achieve the general aim that was identified at the beginning of the essay, which is the recognition of real property rights informally created . Bibliography Martin Dixon (2012) Modern Land Law. Oxon. Routledge Hilary Delany (2009) – Is there a future for proprietary estoppel as we know it? Dublin University Law Journal Terence Etherton (2008) – Constructive trusts: a new model for equity and unjust enrichment. Cambridge Law Journal Patricia Ferguson (1993) – Constructive trusts – a note of caution. Law Quarterly Review
Robert Nozick argues in his Entitlement Theory that there are three main topics in the justice of holdings: the acquisition of ‘un-held things’, the transfer of holdings, and the rectification of injustice in holdings.1 Nozick’s theory of what makes a transfer of holdings ‘just’ should be rejected for two key reasons and the rectification of injustice of holdings should be rejected for two key reasons.
The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. - Counsel [24] See footnote 22 – but page 61 [25] GEOFFREY, Marshall, Constitutional Theory, Clarendon Law Series, Oxford 1971 Chapter1 – the Law and the constitution, part 3. Dicey’s doctrine and its critics. [26] REGINA v HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, Ex parte SMEDLEY, [COURT OF APPEAL], [1985] Q B 657, 19 December 1984, (c)2001 The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales [27] MITCHELL, JDB, Constitutional Law, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, W Green & SON LTD, 1968, Convention, page 31 [28] See footnote 22 but page 64
H W R Wade ‘The Basis of Legal Sovereignty’ (1995) 172 Cambridge Law Journal 186.
trust responsibilities or the lack thereof in Navajo Nation v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1547 (2009). Nebraska Law Review, 89538.
The law of contract in many legal systems requires that parties should act in good faith. English law refuses to impose such a general doctrine of good faith in the field of contract law. However, despite not recognizing the principle, English contract law is still influenced by notions of good faith. As Lord Bingham affirmed, the law has developed numerous piecemeal solutions in response to problems of unfairness. This essay will seek to examine the current and future state of good faith in English contract law.
The first view is procedural justice, the process by which individuals gain their wealth. Procedural justice is a non-consequentialist argument focusing on the grounds that if individuals of a society attained their wealth fairly, then there is nothing unjust about an uneven distribution of wealth in a ...
Current English land law on the co-ownership of interests of land has developed quite a contentious history pertaining to the relationship between the acquisition of rights and the quantification of the shares. In terms of co-ownership, there are huge variances and legal consequences when legal ownership is in one person’s name compared to two. These differences can be seen in various landmark cases which have created precedent and developed refined principles such as Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset and the Stack v Dowden. For the courts, it has often been relatively complex to distinguish between constructive and resulting trusts and to decide on the procedure to be used for the quantification of equitable entitlement once the decision to impute has been established. The quantification of resulting trusts is carefully considered in both, Midland Bank v Cooke and Stack v Snowden. In many co-ownership cases dealing with the acquisition of rights and the quantification of shares, the outcomes aren’t always proportionate. Reasons can include the ambiguities in the identification and changes of common intention and contributions types. In speaking to this issue, Baroness Hale stated in Stack v Dowden that “each case will turn on its own facts” and furthermore elaborated on the conditions for a common intention construct arising. It is furthermore important to critically discuss the repercussions these cases have for the future of co-ownership law to reconcile existing sources of confusion.
...Although this theory is very rational and scholarly it again asks for a very ideal situation of fairness where the chances of both disputants coming to these terms seems unattainable. Also, it is quite obvious that what one sees as fair, another may not. All the same, the theory by itself provides great principles for negotiation that if followed honestly by both parties would most likely lead to a satisfactory agreement.
Sollars, G. C. 2001. An appraisal of shareholder proportional liability. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(4), 329-345.
The distinction between an unfair prejudice petition and a statutory derivative action has always been in the nature of remedy sought by the claimant. This is arguably the point where a distinction is drawn as to whether a statutory derivative action or an unfair prejudice petition should be pursued. A d...
Currently, directors have no prima facie entitlement to be remunerated for their work (Hutton v West Cork Railway Co 1883), but Article 23 of the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 establishes that it is for directors to decide the lev...
Friend, Celeste. "Social Contract Theory [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hamilton College, 15 Oct. 2004. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. .
...‘Consideration: Practical benefit and the Emperor’s new clothes’ in Beatson and Friedmann (eds). Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 1995);
[7] Cavendish Lawcards Series (2002) Company Law (3rd edn), p.15 [8] [1976] 3 All ER 462, CA. [9] Griffin, S. (1996) Company Law Fundamental Principles (2nd edn), p.19 [10] [1990] Ch 433. [11] Lecture notes [12] Lecture notes [13] [1939] 4 All ER 116.
According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.