Equity Flashcards
(13 cards)
historical recount of equity
Maitland, lecture on equity 1909: historically two courts, common law and equity.
common law administered strict law - written system. however, in medieval era, hardly anyone could write, common law cases very formulaic, raise qs of fact, strict rules of evidence. however in an equity case, defendant examined by chancellor, who issues orders under king’s seal and is not bound by writs instead models off of church inquiries, not limited by evidence.
Feature of equity
- epieikeia: Aristotle: idea that humans cannot foresee all situations, when new situations arise, law needs flexibility to address it.
- conscience: clashing between common law and equity courts. Earl of Oxford’s case: justification for equity: chancery needed because human actions so diverse no way for the common law to meet every circumstance.
notion of conscience: person’s ability to know what is right and wrong, chancellor uses this to identify when plaintiffs have done something wrong. John seldom, table talk: equity based off of conscience.
gee v pritchard 1818: equity courts doctrines should be uniform and settled like those of common law, with principles being applied based on circumstances. - appendix to the law: Maitland: not 2 rival systems, as equity is not self-sufficient: if equity abolished we would continue on relatively well. equity just gives a more personal justice based on the specific circumstance.
equity today
trusts: split of ownership
proprietary estoppel
restrictive freehold covenants
other property rights: equitable leases, vendors’ liens, mere equities.
fraud/unconscionable transactions
intellectual property: confidential information.
remedies: specific performance/injunctions(command not to do something)/recission(ability to undo a contract)/ rectification(ability to rewrite a contract)
creation of equitable interests
arise from intention: if you intend to do something, equity will create a right.
consideration(payment): regard purchaser as an equitable owner of something.
common law requires formality for the creation of things, vs equity which has less formalities.
proprietary estoppel
mere enquiries arising from rights to rescind/rectify. Mortgage Express v Lambert
statutory formalities: general formality of writing for equitable interests.
can also arise when there is a need for justice: if equity believes it is just for this right. Walsh v Lonsdale
Mere equities
‘inchoate right binding on specific property requiring claimant to perform legal act such as recision/rectifying to cause claim to crystallise into an equitable interest’: Equity Trust Ltd v Halabi 2022
Content of equitable interests
rights capable of existing at law: equitable lease will have same terms as legal lease: R v Tower Hamlets LBC.
Rights not capable of existing at law: LPA 1925, S.1: sets out certain rights can only be created in equity, e.g. tenancy in common.
destruction of equitable interests
Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green (1981): must purchase the estate, must be buying a freehold, must pay w value, ‘without notice’: done research into the equitable interests and found nothing.
doctrine of notice: ‘bound if you knew/ought to have known’.
Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc: legal estates bind the world, equitable interests only bind the person who brought the the property with notice.
registered land: Land registration act s.29
Wishart v Credit and mercantile plc: a person is not affect by equitable interests if they purchased land w out notice of equitable interest, protects third parties who acquire the legal title.
Overreaching
set out in LPA 1925 s.2(1) trustees may have power to remove beneficiary interests.
s.27: any sale by two trustees removes any equities on the land.
city of London building society v Flegg: trustees can destroy beneficial interest: beneficiaries will have to go to trustee and get money back if they did not want interest sold and trustee sold it.
beneficiary has equitable title and trustee has legal title, legal title supercedes equitable
trusts
Maitland: ‘rights bound to exercise on behalf of another’
Kenton: ‘relationship wherever a person is compelled in equity to hold property for the benefit of some persons’.
trustee owns the property, have a proprietary right, usually the legal title. beneficiaries are seen as equitable owners.
Express trusts
trust one party intended to create, arises from direct intention.
LPA 1925 s.53(1)(b)
resulting trusts
informal, arising in response to law.
purchase money resulting trusts: laskar v laskar: equity presumes you own in proportion to what you payed.
constructive trusts
‘trusts that arise when equity feels like it’ colloquial saying
Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & co: arises in circumstances when it would be unconscionable for property owner to asset his own beneficial interests and deny someone else’s.
proprietary estoppel
where you are stopped from saying the truth bc of your own action.
establishing PE: Thorner v Major: a representation is made, reliance on it by the claimant and detriment due to this reliance.
