Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tracing claims have two key advantages to claimants. Firstly, they are a proprietary remedy (as opposed to a simple personal claim) which means that, if the defendant is insolvent, then the claimant can take title to the goods, rather than just receiving an award of damages which may be of little value against a defendant in bankruptcy.
Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
So, Peter died intestate the property, by statute, would have passed to others. David claimed proprietary estoppel. The Court of Appeal [1] (Lloyd LJ, Ward LJ and Rimer LJ) held David had no proprietary estoppel claim because there was never a clear and unequivocal assurance. John Randall QC held David had a right to Steart Farm.
The fact that the beneficial ownership of the property has passed to the defendant provides no defence; indeed, it is usually the very fact which founds the claim. Conversely, a plaintiff who brings an action like the present must show that the defendant is in receipt of property which belongs beneficially to him or its traceable proceeds, but ...
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55 is a House of Lords case in English land law and relates to proprietary estoppel in the multi-property developer context. . The court of final appeal awarded the project manager £150,000 on a quantum meruit basis for unjust enrichment because Yeoman's Row had received the benefit of his services without paying for t
Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land) and personal property.Property refers to legally protected claims to resources, such as land and personal property, including intellectual property. [1]
The contrary view is that knowing receipt is, or ought to be, part of a broader doctrine of ignorance triggering a claim for unjust enrichment. On this view, anyone who receives property that was given away in breach of trust has a strict duty to repay the value, unless they have committed a wrong, or have changed their position after the receipt.
As the law has extended beyond such claims, unjust enrichment scholars have debated the scope of proprietary relief: that is, whether the court should recognise that (or declare that) the claimant has a beneficial or security interest in property held by the defendant (or a third party, as in the case of subrogation to extinguished rights).