Equity Law
FE1 EQUITY & TRUSTS NIGHT BEFORE NOTES
8 Key Topics for Revision • • • • • • • • Maxims Injunctions, particularly Interlocutory Quia Timet Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders Rescission Secret Trusts Charitable Trusts Resulting Trusts Trusteeship Tracing
1. MAXIMS This topic is usually examined as one part of a three part question, where candidates have to attempt two parts. It has always been a straightforward essay style question. In some years, the Examiner asked about their contemporary relevance, thereby catching out students who had rote learned mini essays which were short on modern caselaw. Therefore, you must be able to write about at least four maxims, you must have caselaw which highlights their contemporary relevance, and you will probably have no more than 17.5 minutes to do so. Important Maxims & Caselaw: Equity Regards as Done that Which Ought to be Done • Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (1994) • Davis v Richards and Wallington Industries Ltd (1990) • Shanahan v Redmond (1994) Equity will not Suffer a Wrong to be Without a Remedy • AG v Rathmines & Pembroke Joint Hospital Board (1904) • Re Diplock (1948) • Caselaw concerning all important equitable remedies will illustrate this maxim in action
1 ©Philip Burke, City Colleges
Equity acts ‘‘in personam’’ • Re Diplock(1948) • Agip (Africa) v Jackson) (1990) He Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity • Chappell v Times Newspapers Ltd (1975) • Cheese v Thomas (1994) He Who Comes to Equity Must Come With Clean Hands • Smelter Corporation v O’Driscoll (1977) • Fanning v University College Cork (2002) • Tinsley v Milligan (1994) • Kavanagh v. Caulfield (2002) • Curust Financial Services Ltd. v. Loewe-Lack-Werk Loewe GmbH & Co. KG (1993) • National Irish Bank v RTE (1998) Delay Defeats Equity • JH v. WJH (1979) • McGrath v Stewart (2008)
Equity Follows the Law, But Will Not Permit a Statute to be Used as an Instrument of Fraud • Graf v Hope Building Corporation (1930). • Rochefoucauld v Boustead
8 Key Topics for Revision • • • • • • • • Maxims Injunctions, particularly Interlocutory Quia Timet Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders Rescission Secret Trusts Charitable Trusts Resulting Trusts Trusteeship Tracing
1. MAXIMS This topic is usually examined as one part of a three part question, where candidates have to attempt two parts. It has always been a straightforward essay style question. In some years, the Examiner asked about their contemporary relevance, thereby catching out students who had rote learned mini essays which were short on modern caselaw. Therefore, you must be able to write about at least four maxims, you must have caselaw which highlights their contemporary relevance, and you will probably have no more than 17.5 minutes to do so. Important Maxims & Caselaw: Equity Regards as Done that Which Ought to be Done • Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (1994) • Davis v Richards and Wallington Industries Ltd (1990) • Shanahan v Redmond (1994) Equity will not Suffer a Wrong to be Without a Remedy • AG v Rathmines & Pembroke Joint Hospital Board (1904) • Re Diplock (1948) • Caselaw concerning all important equitable remedies will illustrate this maxim in action
1 ©Philip Burke, City Colleges
Equity acts ‘‘in personam’’ • Re Diplock(1948) • Agip (Africa) v Jackson) (1990) He Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity • Chappell v Times Newspapers Ltd (1975) • Cheese v Thomas (1994) He Who Comes to Equity Must Come With Clean Hands • Smelter Corporation v O’Driscoll (1977) • Fanning v University College Cork (2002) • Tinsley v Milligan (1994) • Kavanagh v. Caulfield (2002) • Curust Financial Services Ltd. v. Loewe-Lack-Werk Loewe GmbH & Co. KG (1993) • National Irish Bank v RTE (1998) Delay Defeats Equity • JH v. WJH (1979) • McGrath v Stewart (2008)
Equity Follows the Law, But Will Not Permit a Statute to be Used as an Instrument of Fraud • Graf v Hope Building Corporation (1930). • Rochefoucauld v Boustead