|
Landmark Cases In The Law Of Restitution
{{italic title ''Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution'' (2006) is a book edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English unjust enrichment law and restitution. Content The cases discussed are, *'' Lampleigh v Brathwait'' (1615) *''Moses v Macferlan'' (1760) *''Taylor v Plumer'' (1815) *'' Planche v Colburn'' (1831) *'' Marsh v Keating'' (1834) *''Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co'' (1878) *''Phillips v Homfray'' (1883) *''Allcard v Skinner'' (1887) *''Sinclair v Brougham'' (1914) *'' Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Coombe Barbour Ltd'' (1942) *''Re Diplock'' (1948) *''Solle v Butcher'' (1950) See also *Landmark case *Restitution in English law *''Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract'' (2008) by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell *'' Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort'' (2010) by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell *''Landmark Cases in Family Law {{italic title ''Landmark Cases in Family Law'' (2011) is a book of chapters con ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Charles Mitchell (academic)
Charles Christopher James Mitchell KC ( Hon) (born 14 May 1965) is a British legal scholar acknowledged as one of the leading common-law experts on the English law of restitution of unjust enrichment and the law of trusts. He is the author of two leading textbooks and one practitioner's book. He is currently Professor of Law at University College London and Senior Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. Career Mitchell completed his PhD PHD or PhD may refer to: * Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), an academic qualification Entertainment * '' PhD: Phantasy Degree'', a Korean comic series * ''Piled Higher and Deeper'', a web comic * Ph.D. (band), a 1980s British group ** Ph.D. (Ph.D. albu ... at University College London and was supervised by Peter Birks. Until 2008 he worked at King's College London, before spending a year as Professor of Property Law at Jesus College, Oxford, Jesus College, Oxford University, Oxford. Mitchell was also previously ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna V Fairbairn Lawson Coombe Barbour Ltd
is a leading House of Lords decision on the doctrine of frustration in English contract law. Facts Fibrosa was a textile company based in Wilno, Poland (today Vilnius, capital of Lithuania). In July 1939, it entered into a contract with Fairbairn, a British firm, to buy industrial machinery for its plant in Gdynia for £4,800. The contract was signed on 12 July 1939 and, the following week, Fibrosa made an advanced payment of £1,000. The machines were expected to arrive within three to four months. On 1 September 1939, Poland was invaded by Nazi Germany. The United Kingdom declared war on Germany on 3 September, entering World War II. The following week, Fibrosa's agents contacted Fairbairn to request that the initial £1,000 payment be refunded as the contract's execution as "it is now quite evident that the delivery of the machines on order for Poland cannot take place". Fairbairn refused. On 1 May 1940, Fibrosa's agents initiated legal proceedings. The lower courts ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Law
English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law, each branch having its own courts and procedures. Principal elements of English law Although the common law has, historically, been the foundation and prime source of English law, the most authoritative law is statutory legislation, which comprises Acts of Parliament, regulations and by-laws. In the absence of any statutory law, the common law with its principle of '' stare decisis'' forms the residual source of law, based on judicial decisions, custom, and usage. Common law is made by sitting judges who apply both statutory law and established principles which are derived from the reasoning from earlier decisions. Equity is the other historic source of judge-made law. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament. Not being a civil law system, it has no comprehensive codification. However, most of its criminal law has been codified from its common la ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Cases In Equity
{{italic title ''Landmark Cases in Equity'' (2012) is a book edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English trusts law and equity. Content The cases discussed are, *'' The Earl of Oxford's Case'' (1615) David Ibbetson *'' Coke v Fountaine'' (1676) Mike Macnair *'' Grey v Grey'' (1677) Jamie Glister *''Penn v Lord Baltimore'' (1750) Paul Mitchell *'' Burgess v Wheate'' (1759) Paul Matthews *'' Morice v Bishop of Durham'' (1805) Joshua Getzler *''Tulk v Moxhay'' (1848) Ben McFarlane *''Prince Albert v Strange'' (1849) Lionel Bently *''Ramsden v Dyson'' (1866) Nick Piska *'' Bishop of Natal v Gladstone'' (1866) Charlotte Smith *'' Earl of Aylesford v Morris'' (1873) Catharine MacMillan *''Re Hallett's Estate'' (1879–80) Graham Virgo *'' North-West Transportation Co Ltd v Beatty'' (1887) Lionel Smith *''Rochefoucauld v Boustead'' (1897) Ying Khai Liew *'' Re Earl of Sefton'' (1898) Chantal Stebbings *''Nocton v Lord Ashburton'' (19 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Cases In Family Law
{{italic title ''Landmark Cases in Family Law'' (2011) is a book of chapters contributed by various authors, which outlines the key cases in English family law. Content The cases discussed are, *'' The Roos case'' (1670): Rebecca Probert, Associate Professor, University of Warwick. *'' J v C and Another'' 970AC 668L: Nigel Lowe, Professor of Law, Cardiff University. *''Corbett v Corbett'' (Orse. Ashley)971P 83: Stephen Gilmore, Senior Lecturer in Law, King's College London. *'' Burns v Burns'' 984Ch 317.: John Mee, University College Cork. *'' Szechter (Orse. Karsov) v Szechter'' 971P 286: Mary Hayes, Emeritus Professor, University of Sheffield. *'' S v S''; '' W v Official Solicitor'' 972AC 24: Andrew Bainham, Fellow of Christ's College, University of Cambridge. *'' Poel v Poel'' 9701 WLR 1469: Rachel Taylor, University of Oxford. *'' Wachtel v Wachtel'' 973Fam 72: Gillian Douglas, Professor of Law, Cardiff University. *'' Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA'' 986AC 112 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Cases In The Law Of Tort
''Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort'' (2010) is a book edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English tort law. Content The cases discussed are, * '' R v Pease'' (1832): Mark Wilde and Charlotte Smith * '' Buron v Denman'' (1848) Charles Mitchell and Leslie Urano * ''George v Skivington'' (1869) David Ibbetson * '' Daniel v Metropolitan Railway Company'' (1871) Michael Lobban * '' Woodley v Metropolitan District Railway Company'' (1877) Steve Banks * '' Cavalier v Pope'' (1906) Richard Baker and Jonathan Garton * ''Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd'' (1963) Paul Mitchell * '' Goldman v Hargrave'' (1967) Mark Lunney * '' Tate & Lyle Food & Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council'' (1983) J. W. Neyers * '' Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd'' (1985) Elspeth Reid * ''Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police'' (1991) Donal Nolan * ''Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd'' (1997) Maria Lee * ''Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Servi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Cases In The Law Of Contract
''Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract'' (2008) is a book by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English contract law. Content The cases discussed are, *''Coggs v Barnard'' (1703) on bailment *'' Pillans v Van Mierop'' (1765) on the doctrine of consideration *''Carter v Boehm'' (1766) on good faith *''Da Costa v Jones'' (1778) *''Hochster v De La Tour'' (1853) on anticipatory breach *'' Smith v Hughes'' (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts *'' Foakes v Beer'' (1884) on part payments of debt (with a notable dissenting opinion by Lord Blackburn) *''The Hong Kong Fir'' (1961) on innominate terms, allowing the court remedial flexibility *'' Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale'' (1966) *''Rearden Smith Lines Ltd v Yngvar Hansen Tangan'' or '' The Diana Prosperity'' (1976) 1 WLR 989 on a contextual approach to contractual interpretation *''Johnson v Agnew'' (197 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Restitution In English Law
The English law of Restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. Its precise scope and underlying principles remain a matter of significant academic and judicial controversy. Broadly speaking, the law of restitution concerns actions in which one person claims an entitlement in respect of a ''gain'' acquired by another, rather than compensation for a ''loss''. Framework Many academic commentators have sought to impose structure upon the law of restitution by searching for a common rationale and constructing taxonomies of the various types of claim. Whether such frameworks can account for the diverse range of restitutionary claims remains a controversial question. The implications of such frameworks for the relationship between law and Equity has often been a significant flashpoint in academic and judicial debate. As the law currently stands, the law of restitution can be usefully divided into (at least) three broad categories: * Restitution for unjust enrichment * Restitution for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Case
Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States. In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a ''leading decision'' when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved. In 1914, Canadian jurist Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy said "a 'leading case' sone that settles the law upon some important point". A leading decision may settle the law in more than one way. It may do so by: * Distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of '' stare decisis''; * Establishing a "test" (that is, a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in futur ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Solle V Butcher
''Solle v Butcher'' 9501 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity. Denning LJ reaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract. Denning LJ said, This would have essentially recognised a wider application of a duty of disclosure in most cases, triggered by actual knowledge of one party that another party was mistaken about terms. The case was doubted by a subsequent Court of Appeal case, ''The Great Peace''. Facts Mr Charles Butcher, the landlord, had leased a flat in Maywood House, Beckenham, to Mr Godfrey Solle, the tenant, at £250 a year, both parties believing that the Rent Acts did not apply to the property. Mr Solle later claimed that he should be repaid money over the regulated rent for the flat. Mr Butcher counterclaimed that their contract should be void because both were mistaken about rent regulation applying. The Increase of Rent and Mortgage I ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Diplock
''Re Diplock'' or ''Ministry of Health v Simpson'' 951AC 251 is an English trusts law and unjust enrichment case, concerning tracing and an action for money had and received. Facts Various charities, including the Royal Sailors Orphans Girls’ School and Home and Dr Barnardo’s Homes had wrongly been paid money by personal representatives under Mr Caleb Diplock’s will, which left £263,000. The representatives mistakenly believed a clause in the will was valid. Some money went to be used to improve and repair other property. But the trust was held to be invalid in a decision of the House of Lords, called '' Chichester Diocesian Fund and Board of Finance Incorporated v Simpson''. The next of kin, including Cornelius Simpson, claimed that the money should be repaid by the recipients. Judgment Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal rejected the claimant’s claim for a charge over newly built buildings. It allowed a claim for equitable tracing in the mixed funds held by the chari ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sinclair V Brougham
''Sinclair v Brougham'' 914AC 398 is an English trusts law case, concerning the right of depositors to recover sums which were deposited (or loaned) to a building society under contracts of deposit which were beyond the powers of (''ultra vires'') the building society. Facts The Birkbeck Permanent Benefit Society was formed under the Building Societies Act 1836, but was never registered under the Building Societies Act 1874. Under rule 35 of the Society’s constitution it was allowed to borrow money. Rule 97 said that losses should be shared among the two classes of shareholders in different proportions. From the start it developed a banking business, the Birkbeck Bank, but this was wound up in 1911. The four groups of creditors were (1) A shareholders who would be repaid on maturity, (2) B shareholders who had permanent shares (3) trade creditors and (4) depositors. The trade creditors and the A shareholders had their claims settled by an agreement. The liquidator brought a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
