Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd, 1991: where third party receives misapplied trust money, why should she be at fault before she can be required to restore trust fund? Baker has also identified the sheer volume of work that the Chancery was increasingly asked to undertake as a factor that contributed to this process of 'hardening'. As the Chancellors came to be "faced with thousands of petitions, they could not help but develop routine attitudes to commonly recurring cases." [47] Nonetheless, these 'routine attitude', built on an earlier tradition of a procedural 'course' that developed and that over the 16th century came to encompass doctrinal matters. [47] This compromise was successful in preserving a substantial amount of revenue through the late Tudor and early Stuart period. [note 5] [22] Fiscal feudalism would die, however, with the abolition of the Monarchy in the Commonwealth period, when feudal incidents were abolished, a measure that was confirmed during the Restoration in 1660. [23] History of the Use post-Statute of Uses [ edit ] Uses as conveyancing [ edit ] He who seeks equity must do equity: A remedy will only be provided where you have acted equitable in the transaction. This maxim is discretionary in nature and is concerned with the future conduct of the plaintiff.

Instead of one Lord Chancellor, Cromwell and the House of Commons appointed several Commissioners of the Great Seal of England and tasked them with reforming the court. [51] However, when the House of Commons took up law reform in 1650, they proposed no changes in the Chancery. [53] It has been suggested that a possible reason for this was the large and power lobby that was formed by Chancery officeholders. [52] In any event, and after several pamphlets criticising the Court had circulated, reforms were proposed in a bill that would have seen the process become more efficient and direct with the creation of a Chief Clerk to handle most of the procedure and with heavy penalties for refusing to answer or appear in court (a novelty). The bill never became law however, as Parliament delegated its authority on Cromwell in 1654. [54] the settlor. This often occurs where an express trust fails for uncertainty of objects/beneficiaries. Apply detailed knowledge and understanding of the jurisprudence of equity, the interaction between the common law and equity and the words "I do not wish you to act strictly on the foregoing instructions, but lave it entirely to This is the simplest trust and gives all assets to the beneficiary as long as they’re 18 years old or over (inThis maxim developed as common law had no new remedies only monetary damages. Maxim must be treated with caution as today’s laws are made by the Oireachtas. Maxim can be used by the beneficiary of a trust whose rights were not recognised by the common law. Equitable remedies such as injunctions or specific performance may be given. they can ask that the property of the trust be transferred to them wholly. This means that the rights contract at common law and obtain substantial damages. She was privy to the covenant. 3. Benefit of the covenant may be the subject matter of a trust Both types of resulting trust are traditionally regarded as examples of trusts giving effect to the

These scenarios are at the heart of trust law and it’s not unusual for your work to be intertwined with family law or other areas of law. You will need to be versatile and able to react to changing circumstances in a constantly evolving area of law.

be a fit subject for study. It is therefore vital to appreciate that equity is a system of rules in The module will be reassessed by like-for-like reassessment of failed individual component(s) of assessment. Indicative reading

The early modern period and the 17th century in particular, was critical in the shifting from a system based purely on the Chancellor's conscience to one based on predicable (if perhaps sometimes flexible) rules as Equity is today. Indeed, the idea of the Chancellor's conscience being the sole deciding factor provoked the jurist John Selden to make the famous comment above, which is now commonly cited in legal circles as "The Chancellor's foot". [45] [46] The critiscm predated Selden, however. It is evident in the treatise Doctor and Student of the previous century. This intellectual pressure began to, slowly, harden Equity from purely based on the conscience of one man and to start to resemble a system of rules by the start of the 17th century18 The history of equity and trusts concerns the origin of the body of rules known as Equity, Uses, English trust law and their development into the modern body of trust law that spread with the Common law to the Commonwealth and the United States. wished to terminate the accumulation. Similarly, if the trusts are held for X for his life, and then Lord Ellesmere, Lord Chancellor (1596-1617) Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the King's Bench (1613-16) will receive the trust property at the end of the trust term or in what shares the trust property willThese double Uses became commonplace in the first few decades after the Statue of Wills [29] and by the 18th century Baker notes it had become common form to convey thus: [27] It’s common for a settlor to give their partner access to this kind of trust in their lifetime, with any assets

for mutual vigilance. Hence, don't assume that the only cause for difference is in historical origin. Should we be abolishing any reference to equity, and move instead to "event-based" categorisation of private law rights? No! Includes an expanded chapter on constructive trusts with more detailed material on institutional and remedial constructive trusts and the features of fiduciary relationships. Eg. Tort of nuisance is Common Law right of action, but if you want more than Common Law damages, like an equitable remedy of injunction, you must get judgment from Common Law court first and then bring judgment to Court of Chancery to get injunction (can't start off with latter because it has no jurisdiction) The key distinguishing characteristic of equity is its connection with the Chancellor's jurisdiction. Ultimately, it is down to the principle of preventing unconscionable enforcement of Common Law claims/causes of action.

Explore more

The judges look at this contract from the enforceable side and the situation they would be in had the contract been completed These rights were an important source of income for the often, cash-short English monarchs. Henry VII and Henry VIII, who often faced increasingly expensive foreign wars, were determined to protect and increase their revenue from these rights as lord. Some scholars have called this phenomenon, "Fiscal Feudalism". [17] In 1529, Henry VIII proposed a bill that would restore feudal incidents where land had been conveyed to the use of executing the ladnowners will, but only at one third of the levels that the Common Law demanded. The House of Commons rejected the bill in 1531, at which point the King threatened that if they would not accept his proposal he would seek to enforce his feudal rights as far as the Law allowed. Within the circles of the King's legal advisers the view came to prevail that Uses of land were deceitful and thus were actually contrary to conscience to enforce. To this end, in 1532, Thomas Audley was made Lord Keeper of the Great Seal [note 4] and Lord Chancellor the following year. Furthermore, the King's Secretary, Thomas Cromwell, was appointed Master of the Rolls in 1534. But Chancery intervenes because Ts must not abuse terms of trust and assert Common Law rights for their own benefits, as a matter of conscience. of the trust at any time if they’re 18 years old or over (in England and Wales). This means the assets set aside