Tom Henderson reports on a recent Supreme Court decision reformulating the test for when a claim will fail due to illegality ‘The Supreme Court found that, under this new approach, a claimant will not ordinarily be debarred from enforcing a claim for unjust enrichment simply because the money they seek to recover was paid for …
Continue reading "Practice: The long arm of the law"
This post is only available to members.
Gareth Keillor and Rosanna Pinker consider the lack of clarification from the Supreme Court on the illegality defence ‘The mere existence of illegal activity will not be enough to defeat a claim; there must be a sufficiently close connection between that unlawful activity and the claimant’s pleaded case.’ The application of the illegality defence, otherwise …
Continue reading "Illegality And Trusts: Public policy or rule of law?"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2014 #145The claimant Arthur Watts (Arthur) sued his brother James Watts (James) in respect of trust transactions in 1998.
In 1967 Geoffrey Watts, the father of Arthur and James, made a settlement in favour of his children and grandchildren. In 1976 this trust fund was split into separate trust funds for each of Geoffrey’s children. James was one of the trustees of Arthur’s trust fund. The main beneficiaries were Arthur in his lifetime and thereafter his legitimate children. Clause 4 allowed the trustees to pay all the capital to Arthur if they considered it to be to his advantage...
