The intention of Lord Langdale was to provide a means to ensure that a trust is easy to enforce and control and to prevent it becoming invalid. It also reinforced the general principle of law; that law must be certain. Certainty of Objects The House of Lord’s decision in McPhail v Doulton was regarding the test for certainty of objects. The purpose of a test for certainty of objects is to determine the beneficiaries of a trust; the test will differ depending on whether the trust is a fixed trust, discretionary trust or a power of appointment. McPhail v Doulton concerned a discretionary trust where Mr Baden executed a deed settling a non-charitable trust for the benefit of the staff of Matthew Hall & Co Ltd and their relatives and dependents, an issue arose as to the ‘object clause’ which identified the beneficiaries as ‘relatives’ and ‘dependants’, it was argued that these terms were uncertain and the validity of the trust was challenged.
According to Johnson-Reid (2000) in order for a resume to be classified as confidential the applicant must come from outside of the government, presented a resume willingly and not obliged by any process or school rules. This element is usually content, because normally one is not needed to search and apply for a job. If the following criteria are not met then all resumes are considered as public record. Jim Sears used public information to gather additional information on the candidate. Jim
1) REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION Adverse possession requires at a minimum three basic conditions being adverse possessor : An intention to possess the land - In Powell v McFarlane , the courts have recognised that an adverse possessor must “intend” to posses the land adversely to the exclusion of all others as what is required is evidence that the adverse possessor, for whatever reason, had an intention to possess the land and put it to his own use, whether or not he also knew that some other person had a claim or right to the land. Actual possession of the land - The adverse possessor must physically use the land as a property owner would, in accordance with the type of property, location, and uses. Meaning that the adverse possessor has to show that there was a sufficient degree of physical custody and control of his use over the land . In simple, the actions of the adverse possessor must change the state of the land. With reference to the case of Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co , the United States
as a whole” test laid down by Lindley MR in Allen as inappropriate in the context of competing rights and interests of shareholders.18 The court drew a distinction between two different types of constitutional alterations. For alterations not involving “expropriation of shares or of valuable proprietary rights attaching to shares” it is sufficient if the special resolution is passed regularly, is not ultra vires, not beyond any purpose contemplated by the constitution nor oppressive.19 With respect to alterations that do involve expropriation of shares, or valuable proprietary rights attached to shares, different considerations apply. The majority laid down a twopronged test, holding that amendments to the constitution permitting expropriation are only permissible if: • the power is exercisable for a proper purpose; and • its exercise will not operate oppressively in relation to minority shareholders.20 Ibid at 386. Contra this reasoning see Brett W King, “Use of Supermajority Voting Rules in Corporate America: Majority Rule, Corporate Legitimacy, and Minority Shareholder Protection” (1996) 21 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 895 at 907. 13 Vanessa Mitchell, “Gambotto and the Rights of Minority Shareholders” (1994) 6 Bond Law Review 92 at 102.
(4 Wheaton, U.S., 518, 581.) "Due process of law" contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one's person or property. "Due process of law" is not every act, legislative in form, that is, law. Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of the citizens, is not law.2 Simply put, the government cannot deprive a person of his right to life, liberty and property unless it has subscribe to proper forms and procedure. Nonetheless, the due process clause should not only
Therefore, these are rights that can’t be taken away or unalienable, unalienable rights are rights that are unable to be alienated, given up, or transferred to someone else. They come from God, and no man or government can rightly give them or take them away. Some examples of unalienable rights are life; liberty; self-government; to bear arms; to purchase, develop and dispose of property; make personal choices; free conscience; choice of profession; choice of a mate; to assemble; to petition; and to free speech. Lastly, even with times passing and things changing, we have to remember that we the people are the authority in America. We have to educate ourselves for the sake of progress while still reminding ourselves that our Constitution is
In the case of Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse [1963] ECR 1 however, the ECJ conceived the doctrine of direct effect in relation to Treaty articles. As a result of this case it was possible for an individual to enforce rights provided by the EU law directly, in cases where the Treaty provided for those rights. Nonetheless, Storey and Turner (2011) stated that the ECJ restricted the scope of direct effect to provisions which were adequately precise and unconditional. Because directives are not directly applicable, as well as being directed solely at Member States, despite the direct effect of Treaty articles being fairly well defined there was some doubt as to whether Directives would be subject to direct effect. Moreover, Directives rely upon the Member State giving effect to them,
2) [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1., Millett J.). As a consequence the categories of constructive trusts have not been exhaustively defined. One possible classification requires examining established situations where a trust has been imposed as suggested by J E Penner in Law of trusts, 4th Edi, pp127, 130. So a broad category of trusts may be identified where an individual acquires for the first time an interest in another’s property because of his past dealing or relationship with the legal owner when it is unconscionable to allow the legal owner to deny the beneficial interest to him.
It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth. Various older privileges, such as the old common law privilege to title deeds, may still exist, but be of little relevance today. [1] Etymologically a privilege (privilegium) means a "private law", or rule relating to a specific individual or institution.
“In spite of the modern acceptance of a broadly based test of unconscionable dealing, the approach of the court when faced with estoppel claims tends to be restrictive. The courts treat such claims ‘with a degree of caution’, mindful of the fact that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel ‘may have the drastic effect of conferring on one person a permanent, irrevocable interest in the land of another, even though he has given no consideration for such acquisition, by way of contractual arrangement, and no legally effective gift of it has been made in his favour ‘” Critically analyse and assess this statement with particular regard to recent academic commentary and modern case law. Word Count = 2554 To evaluate this statement we must examine the cases been bought to the judiciary on the concept of proprietary estoppel, how the judiciary made their decision on the basis of proprietary estoppel. Land is defined by the Law of Property Act 1925 at S205 (1) (ix). When we buy property we do not own that land, the crown owns all the land.