Conscionability & Equitable Maxims | Equity & Trusts
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ค. 2024
- Subscribe to my personal channel for videos on how to study law effectively & efficiently: / @heygarethevans Conscionability is underlying principle. This has seen something of a revival recently. “Equity operates on the conscience of the owner of the legal interest. In the case of a trust, the conscience of the legal owner requires him to carry out the purposes for which the property was vested in him (express or implied trust) or which the law imposes on him by reason of his unconscionable conduct (constructive trust)” (Per Lord Browne Wilkinson in Westdeustsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] A.C. 669).
If you have any questions drop me a message below 👍🏻
-------------------------------
Hey! If you’re new to the channel… my name is Gareth Evans
I am the owner of Digestible Notes, a website created to make learning fun and easy to understand. Our ultimate goal is to make education accessible to everyone and centralise the internet's vast sea of information.
I want to show you that anyone can achieve their learning goals and live their dream life.
Read from our website: digestiblenotes.com
-------------------------------
SEE MY VIDEO ON THE HISTORY OF EQUITY ➡️
• History of Equity | Eq...
If you liked this video you may like my website post on 'An Introduction to Trusts': digestiblenotes.com/law/trust...
Subscribe to my personal channel for videos on how to study law effectively & efficiently: th-cam.com/channels/wgN8QVt3yIqcoi04EVqEYA.html
"Equity operates on the conscience of the owner of the legal interest". With respect to trusts I find this a confusing statement. I assume this refers to the fiduciary aka the trustee. However I would have said the trustee was the 'holder' of the legal interest not the 'owner'. I have always taken the view;
trustee/holder/legal title
beneficiary/owner/equitable title
The statement seems to imply the trustee (legal interest) in one sense and the beneficiary (owner) in another. Is the distinction in the term 'interest' as opposed to 'title' or did Wilkinson speak imprecisely?
I love the equity! It is in a bit of a revival now definitely. Makes sense to me. Especially perfect timing for the new age of higher conscious. We are more than human. We are moral sentient beings here in light and love.
Equity is concerned with
regulating the conscience of a living man.Wow well said G .
Thank you!
Any information on getting into chancellor’s private chambers and have him acknowledge the trust?
Hello, I just stumbled on your channel. Thank you for this, perhaps the best and most concise treatment of Equity and Trust outside of Alastair Hudsons Texts.
Thank you very much! Glad you are enjoying the content!
Gareth Evans can I ask you.. do you have a background in Law? Specifically Law of Trusts?
Your videos are very concise and informative.
Will you be posting more Estate and Trust Law videos?
@@pvangalder Yes, I have some legal experience and one of my passions is to help make complicated topics easier. I will be posting lots more Trusts videos and other law videos over the coming weeks (probably about one new video every day or so). Thanks :)
So helpful, lemme subscribe
Sooooooo incredibly helpful!
The doctrine of laches can also still apply even in the event that a period of limitation has been prescribed by statute
I just came across your channel and I’ve found it helpful but I wanted to ask which is the most important maxim
There isn't really a 'most important' maxim as they always apply equally 👍🏻
It"'s about good conscience before acting unconscionably just for money...
Equity is equality! A bit too shallow explanation
Thanks for the feedback, how can I improve it for next time? 🙂
@@digestiblelaw4647 I propose the following examples:
In general, the maxim will be applied whenever property is to be distributed between rival
claimants and there is no other basis for division.
For example, husband and wife who operate a joint bank account; each spouse may deposit or
take out money. Upon divorce, the maxim applies. They share 50-50. The authority is that equity
does not want to concern itself with the activities of a husband and wife - to go into the bedroom
and make deep inquiries, hence equal division.
Another example relates to trusts. How do you divide the property? Say there are three
beneficiaries. Then one of the beneficiaries passes away, i.e. one of the shares fails to vest. What
should accrue to the surviving beneficiaries? Redistribute equally, applying the rule “Equity is
equality”.
Equity makes the defendant equal with the judge. Is it not the mission of this court to eliminate controversy where no controversy exists? When the "state" is coming after your "trust" where there is no victim or no damaged party. Doesn't a good judge administer as to what is just and right as opposed to strict rules and statutes?
This is the most nauseating human I’ve taken 2 seconds to listen to. 😂
The video is pretty much unwatchable as there is an ad every minute