-
Roberts v Roberts
[2021] SASCA 81
…That principle has been applied again and again, for over two hundred years. It is applicable in courts of equity as well as courts of law: see e.g., the notes to Roberts v. Roberts (1818) Dan. 143, 150-151, and Ayerst v. Jenkins (1873) L.R. 16 Eq. 275, 283, per Lord Selborne L.C. In 1869 Mellor J. …
-
Groves v Groves
[2013] QSC 277
…There followed a consistent line of authority in which the principle has been applied. The cases include: Curtis v. Perry (1802) 6 Ves. 739; Ex parte Yallop (1808) 15 Ves. 60; Roberts v. Roberts Dan. 143; Groves v. Groves (1828) 3 Y. & J. 163; Childers v. Childers (1857) 3 K. & J. 310; In re Great B…
-
Crichton v Crichton
[1930] HCA 14
…There followed a consistent line of authority in which the principle has been applied. The cases include: Curtis v. Perry (1802) 6 Ves. 739; Ex parte Yallop (1808) 15 Ves. 60; Roberts v. Roberts Dan. 143; Groves v. Groves (1828) 3 Y. & J. 163; Childers v. Childers (1857) 3 K. & J. 310; In re Great B…
-
Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Limited v Wright
[1917] HCA 27
…Q.B.D. 291, which was in fact a case at law. However, the exception was foreshadowed in a number of earlier cases in equity, notably Platamone v. Staple (1815) G. Coop. 250; Cecil v. Butcher (1821) 2 Jac. & W. 565, and Symes v. Hughes (1870) L.R. 9 Eq. Cas. 475; and it has since been applied in, for…
-
[1971] AC 886
[1971] AC 886
…interest that she has already acquired under such a transaction. The nature of a resulting trust was described by Lord Diplock in Gissing v. Gissing [1971] AC 886, 905B as follows:…
-
[1955] AC 431
[1955] AC 431
…distinctly, by evidence properly admissible for the purposes, and not leave it to be inferred from slight circumstances: see Shepherd v. Cartwright [1955] AC 431, 445."…
-
Standing v Bowring
76 ER 684
…A presumption of resulting trust also arises in equity when A transfers personalty or money to B: see Snell's Equity 29th ed. (1990) pp. 183-184; Standing v. Bowring (1885) 31 Ch D 282, 287, per Cotton L.J.; Dewar v. Dewar [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1532, 1537d. Before 1925, there was also a presumption of res…
-
Dering v Earl of Winchelsea
29 ER 1184
…For reasons which I have already given, I have been unable to discover any such development in the law. As I read the authorities, they reveal a consistent application of the principle, subject only to the recognition of a locus poenitentiae for the claimant where the illegal, purpose has not been c…
-
Holman v Johnson
(1775) 1 Cowp 341
…document or whether the illegality of purpose of what would otherwise be a lawful contract emerges during the course of the trial. (Holman v. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341, 343, per Lord Mansfield C.J.; Pearce v. Brooks (1866) L.R. 1 Exch. 213, 217-218, per Pollock C.B.; Alexander v. Rayson [1936] 1 K.B. 169, 182; Bowma…
-
[1892] 2 QB 724
[1892] 2 QB 724
…ion emerges, the court must refuse to enforce the transaction and all claims under it whether pleaded or not: see Scon v. Brown, Doering, McNab & Co. [1892] 2 QB 724. Therefore, it is said, it does not matter whether a plaintiff relies on or gives evidence of the illegality: the court will not enforce the plaintif…
-
Rider v Kidder
32 ER 884
…However, in my view, the law was not so firmly established as at first sight it appears to have been. The law on the effect of illegality was developing throughout the 19th century. In particular, if Lord Eldon's principle were to apply in its full vigour it would apply as much to claims by a guilty…
-
[1960] AC 167
[1960] AC 167
…on numerous occasions. Notable examples are to be found in Taylor v. Chester L.R. 4 Q.B. 309; Alexander v. Rayson [1936] 1 K.B. 169; and Singh v. Ali [1960] AC 167. In Singh v. Ali, the principle was explained by Lord Denning in the following passage, at pp. 176-177:…
-
Muckleston v Brown
(1801) 31 ER 934
…The principle appears first to have been recognised by Lord Hardwicke L.C. in two cases decided before Holman v. Johnson 1 Cowp 341, viz. Cottington v. Fletcher (1740) 2 Atk. 155, and Birch v. Blagrave (1755) 1 Amb. 265. But the case which has for nearly two hundred years been regarded as the author…
-
1 Cowp 341
1 Cowp 341
…The principle appears first to have been recognised by Lord Hardwicke L.C. in two cases decided before Holman v. Johnson 1 Cowp 341, viz. Cottington v. Fletcher (1740) 2 Atk. 155, and Birch v. Blagrave (1755) 1 Amb. 265. But the case which has for nearly two hundred years been regarded as the authoritative so…
-
Scarfe v Morgan
150 ER 1430
…Even so, the mere fact that a transaction is illegal does not have the effect of preventing property, whether general or special, from passing under it. In Scarfe v. Morgan (1838) 4 M. & W. 270, 281, Parke B. said that "if the [illegal] contract is executed, and a property either special or general …
-
[1962] AC 294
[1962] AC 294
…erlying transaction and so will of necessity have to disclose his own illegality. This is what happened in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Arunasalam Chettiar [1962] AC 294, where the property in question had been transferred by the claimant to his son who, having fallen ill, took no part in the hearing and so himself ga…
-
Holman v Johnson
[1775] 98 ER 1120
…I turn then to the established principles; and I wish at once to express my indebtedness to the scholarly argument of Mr. James Munby Q.C., who appeared for the appellant in your Lordships' House. The basic principle was stated long ago by Lord Mansfield C.J. in Holman v. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp. 341,…
-
Cottington v Fletcher
26 ER 498
…The principle appears first to have been recognised by Lord Hardwicke L.C. in two cases decided before Holman v. Johnson 1 Cowp 341, viz. Cottington v. Fletcher (1740) 2 Atk. 155, and Birch v. Blagrave (1755) 1 Amb. 265. But the case which has for nearly two hundred years been regarded as the author…
-
Curtis v Perry
33 ER 677
…There followed a consistent line of authority in which the principle has been applied. The cases include: Curtis v. Perry (1802) 6 Ves. 739; Ex parte Yallop (1808) 15 Ves. 60; Roberts v. Roberts Dan. 143; Groves v. Groves (1828) 3 Y. & J. 163; Childers v. Childers (1857) 3 K. & J. 310; In re Great B…