Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Lavin v Toppi case study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Lavin v Toppi case study
I FACTUAL BACKGROUND In Lavin v Toppi, the High Court of Australia considered the application of equitable contribution for co-guarantors/co-sureties to a loan where a creditor had covenanted not to sue one of the guarantors. Ms Lavin and Ms Toppi were directors and equal shareholders of the company Luxe Studios Pty Ltd (“Luxe”). In 2005, Luxe purchased a property in Sydney for the purpose of running a photographic studio, funded by a loan from the National Australia Bank (“the Bank”). Further loans were made by the Bank in 2007 and 2008. These were consolidated into one loan for the amount of $7,768,000, which was guaranteed by: • Ms Lavin and her associated company (“the appellants”); • Ms Toppi and her husband (“the respondents”); and …show more content…
In support of this conclusion, the court cited the reasoning of Williams, emphasising the independence of the right of contribution amongst co-sureties from any present rights of a creditor. In further support, the court considered the specific nature of covenants not to sue, noting that they are not intended to discharge liability, so as to not release all co-guarantors, but rather to prevent any enforceability through legal proceedings. The court resultantly concluded that the covenant not to sue did not extinguish, but in fact assumed the continued existence of the appellants’ and respondents’ shared coordinate liabilities, entitling the respondents to recover …show more content…
In this regard, the court approved of comments in Friend v Brooker that: Equity follows the law in the sense that it does not seek to direct the manner of exercise of the rights of the creditor, but equity does make an adjustment between the debtors. Thus equity does not interfere with the action of the creditor but seeks to ensure the sharing of the burden between those subjected to it. In this way, equity and the doctrine of contribution do not inadvertently create unfairness by restricting the rights of a creditor, but instead strive to achieve a fair outcome within the constraints of common law
3. Assuming that she was, a question whether the respective defendants, any, all, or who of them, were proper subjects for the injunction prayed, as holding the bonds without sufficient title, and herein -- and more particularly as respected Hardenberg, and Birch, Murray & Co. -- a question of negotiable paper, and the extent to which holders, asserting themselves holders bona fide and for value, of paper payable "to bearer," held it discharged of precedent equities.
The eighth section is the conclusion of this thesis that summarizes the key ideas and findings of the work, identifying the fair equity value of
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2011, January 15). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
...aw in the US and Australia where the doctrine can be used to found a cause of action to remedy the non-performance of a promise unsupported by consideration. In the UK however, it is a means where contractual rights may be suspended, but not by which new rights can be formed. In the US, where the doctrine can be used as a cause of action and has been used in multiple cases, commentators have claimed that the doctrine is a ‘flexible means of achieving fairness’ and ‘cannot be reduced to a precise formula or series of tests’ .
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.
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.
The pari passu principle is derived from the maxim ‘equality is equity’: ‘The maxim that equality is equity expresses in a general way the object both of law and equity, namely to effect a distribution of property and losses proportionate to the several claims or to the several liabilities of the persons concerned. Equality in this connection does not necessarily mean literal equality, but may mean proportionate equality.’
Equity means giving every individual what he or she merits or, in more conventional terms, giving every individual his or her due. Equity and reasonableness are nearly related terms that are frequently today utilized conversely. There have, be that as it may, additionally been more unmistakable understandings of the two terms. While equity normally has been utilized with reference to a standard of rightness, decency frequently has been utilized as to a capacity to judge without reference to one 's emotions or intrigues; reasonableness has additionally been utilized to allude to the capacity to make judgments that are not excessively general but rather that are concrete and particular to a specific case. Regardless, an idea of desert is significant to both equity and decency. Case in point, are requesting what they think they merit when they are requesting that they be treated with equity and decency. At the point when individuals contrast over what they accept ought to be given, or when choices must be
...lled under our social system. X helped Y out of trouble in the past. Now Y owes a favor back to X. However, if Y denies to help X in the future, usage of the word "owe" cannot make Y help X. Again, the moral values of Y are coming into action. The moral values of Y are not forcing Y to help X. In this situation, even if X claims that Y "owe" the favor to X, it is not making a difference to Y. Again, looking at the case we see that X helped Y in the first place without owing any form of favor to Y. It was because X's moral values forced X helped to Y. Thus we see, that the word "owe" had nothing to do with whether X helps Y or not.
-Equity: seen over by the Chancery Court; designed to give relief from strict decisions made by the common law
...he and other latest cases that some form of flexibility is developing in the kinds of interests or rights that equity is capable of providing.
HILLIARD, J. And O’SULLIVAN, J. (2012) The Law of Contract [Online] 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from - http://books.google.co.uk/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
Part of the grounds for arguing in favor of the common law system over the codified system is its characteristically equitable qualities. Since antecedents are pursued in all cases, everyone gets the same treatment. This same legal procedure is administered to everyone in spite of their position or creed. Therefore, this system of going by antecedents which had hitherto been set usually leads to equity and fairness. This system of law also has the advantage over the codified system by offering protection to persons via the law of tort.
Equity is frequently referred to as a supplement to the common law. Cruzon defines Equity as a system of law developed by the court of chancery in parallel with the common law. It was designed to complement it, providing remedies for situations that were unavailable at Law. Because of this, Equity provided a dimension of flexibility and justice that was often times lacking because of the common law’s rigidity. This rigidity stems from the fact that, while courts sometimes altered their jurisdictions and procedures, the fundamental premises and noticeable forms of the common law went largely unchanged between the 13th and 19th centuries.
One of the main requirements in both forms of sequestration is the requirement ‘advantage to creditors’, which entails that for an application of surrender to be accepted it must be to the advantage of the creditors. This requirement is the main focus with regards to the following discussion, as well as the challenges that have developed due to abuse of the sequestration process-specifically voluntary sequestration- by debtors.