Seminar 3 equity and trust law - Inwards v Baker, Binion v Evans PDF

Preview

Summary

Seminar 3 equity and trust law - Inwards v Baker, Binion v Evans...

Description

Seminar 3 Essential Reading: The following cases: Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29 Binions v Evans [1972] 2 WLR 729 Lecture notes on an Introduction to Equity.

Recommended Reading: Virgo G, The Principles of Equity and Trusts (3rd edn, OUP 2018) - Chapters 1 and 2. Hudson A, Equity and Trusts (9th edn, Routledge 2016) – Chapter 1.

Topic – Equity in action Part A - Read the case of Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29. Once you have read the case re-read it and answer the following questions. Be prepared to discuss your answers at the Seminar. 1. What were the facts of the case and why was there a dispute?  A father encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his land  The son did and payed for it and built it himself, it was completed in 1931 and he lived there  In 1951 the father died and left all his property to his partener Ms Inwards  In 1963 Ms brought proceedings seeking to remove the son from the property 2. What was decided at first instance?  The son was allowed to remain in the property  His reliance had given rise to an equity ensuring that under proprietary estopple, the partner would be estopped form denying the son’s occupation

 

And injunction was awarded, preventing the trustee from obtaining possession Not an irrevocable licence

3. In the trial judge’s view, what was the difference between this case and Errington v Errington and Woods?  Father in law purchased a house for his son and daughter in law to live  House was in the father name  He paid the deposit as a wedding gift if they paid the mortgage instalments, the father would transfer the house to them.  Father became ill and died mother inherrted the house  the son went to live with his mother but the wife refused to live with the mother and continued to pay the mortgage instalments.  The mother bought an action to remove the wife from the house  It was held o The wife was allowed to remain in the house o The offer the father made the couple was a unilateral offer o The wife was in course of performing the acceptance of the offer by continuing to meet the mortgage payments. Lord Denning held that once performance had commenced the Mother was estopped from revoking the offer since it would be unconscionable for her to do so. o There was also an intention to create a legal relations despite it being a family agreement  There was contractual obligation in this case and not in the first one 4. What would the solution have been at Common Law?  Legal title remained with mr baker snr 5. What do you consider the intentions of Mr Baker senior were?  For the son to have a house a  He had a long time to evict his son but didn’t  The son could have built it somewhere else but wanted him to build it on his land 6. Do you think his intentions should have been enforced?  They have now 7. On what basis were his intentions enforced? Did the judges in this case all use the same approach about the result they wished to achieve?  It was held on a trust



By ms inward

8. Can you discern from this case any underlying principles for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case?  Proprietary estopple o Unconscionable behaviour o Expectation 9. What is your view of Equity after this case?  Legal title is Part B – Read the case of Binions v Evans [1972] 2 WLR 729. Come prepared to answer the following questions: 1. What were the facts of the case and why was there a dispute?  The binions promise the seller to allowed mrs Evans to remain in the cottage for life when they bought it.  Mrs Evans's relationship pre-dated the Binions' interest in the property  the Binions family argued she was a ‘tenant at will’  Lord Denning MR held that Mrs Evans could assert her right to remain in the cottage against the Binions even though she had no legal or equitable property right as such  A contractual licence is itself an equitable interest in land  It was held that Mrs Evans had rather an equitable life interest, more than a contractual licence. 2. What would the solution have been at common law?  They couldn’t get her out as license cannot bind successor in title 3. Were the Binions a bona fide purchaser for value of the legal estate?  Bona fide = In good faith, without fraud  They knew about it and didn’t pay market value 4. What did the court at first instance decide?  The buyers hold the cottage for life

5. What was the interesting point of law raised by Lord Denning?  Nature of mrs evans in the cottage  Not a tenancy at will  Tenancy for life



Lord Denning found there to be a contractual licence, which combined with notice and a lower purchase price, created a constructive trusts capable of binding successors

6. What were the alternative approaches considered by Lord Denning? What did he decide was the correct approach?  7. Did the other judges agree?  2 members of the Court of Appeal found the defendant to be a tenant for life, which could bind successors under the Settled Land Act – not a license / following Baniser and Banser

8. Is there a problem with Lord Denning’s approach?  It would be unncosiable to ask her to leave

9. What is your view of Equity after this case?  Its fair...