Equity And Trust Law Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Equity And Trust Law subsidisation - Essay ExampleIn both sectors Lord Diplock can be seen to challenge the validity of court-ordered technicalities and create a more just legal system with a move away from rude(a) justice in individual determinations to general principles of fairness towards the wider public. Lord Diplocks key contributions to right law of nature occurred in 1) In United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council 19781, Lord Diplock proclaimed that the systems had, quite simply, become coalesced and that no distinction was to be drawn between law and equity. This statement by Lord Diplock was judge unanimously by the judges in the House of Lords and propelled the debate on this issue further. The case concern the timing of the service of notices triggering rent-review clauses. 2) In Gissing v Gissing 19712 on the subject of equitable rights and the interests of the beneficiary in a trust case, Lord Diplock suggested that it did not matter whether the trust was seen as a reconstructive, resulting or other ferment of implied trust. Lord Diplocks judgment in Gissing effectively created what is now referred to as a common intention constructive trust. Essentially Diplock held that where the legal title to a airplane propeller was owned by one person, cohabitees would be held to conduct a beneficial interest in the property even if they had not contributed directly to the purchase equipment casualty (thus falling beyond the protection of the resulting trust) as long as they could provide evidence that both cohabitees had a common intention that the beneficial interest would be shared, and that the legal owner had induced the beneficiary to doing to his own detriment in reliance of this agreement. Crucially, however, he saw no need to properly pay the boundaries of this principle, or to divulge common intention constructive trusts from implied or presumed resulting trusts. Lord Diplocks failure to properly distinguish between resulting and constructive trusts has led to a very dangerous ambiguity and uncertainty in this area of law, which has arguably, ever since threatened to defeat precisely what Lord Diplock set out to achieve the protection of the cohabitee with no legal title. 3) Pettitt v Pettitt 19703 this case established that a person who claims to have contributed to the purchase price of property which stands in the name of him/herself and another can rely on the well known presumption of equity that a person who has contributed a share of the purchase price of property is entitled to a like proportionate beneficial interest in the property by way of implied or resulting trust. This presumption of packaging rule in resulting trusts has been widely criticised as anachronistic. In particular, the gender bias of the rule is no lifelong acceptable in fact it contravenes Article 5 of the Seventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.4 Lord Diplock described it as being based on th e mores of propertied classes of the nineteenth coke with little relevance to modern life. As Lord Diplock put it The emergence of a property-owning, particularly a real-property-mortgaged-to-a-building-society-owning, democracy requires the presumption to be reconsidered.5 4) Hadmor Productions Ltd v Hamilton 19826 in this case Lord Diplock held that the Court of raise was