Search Results

The law of property is concerned with certain types of rights between persons with respect to things, those things being either land or goods, and those rights being proprietary rather than personal. This chapter discusses the types of rights which qualify as proprietary, the ways in which such rights can be held, the ways in which they are created and transferred, and, finally, the ways in which they may come to an end. It covers the law of real property (land law), the law of personal property (goods), and the law of trusts.

This chapter discusses the distinction between personal and proprietary rights, and why it is important where third parties are involved or there is an insolvency. It explains the difficulty of drawing the distinction between personal and proprietary rights in certain cases, including leases of goods, licences of land, and charterparties of ships. It considers the various types of proprietary interest—including legal and equitable interests; land, goods and intangibles; and outright and secured transactions. It explains the remedies available to enforce proprietary rights at common law (such as conversion) and in equity (including knowing receipt and dishonest assistance). The importance of the distinctions between personal and proprietary rights, in different types of proprietary interests, and between remedies under common law and equity are discussed.

Once a claimant has established that he or she has a legal or equitable proprietary interest which can be followed or traced into property which had been received by the defendant, the claimant can establish a restitutionary claim to vindicate his or her proprietary rights. This chapter examines the following questions: What is the nature of the claim to this property? What is the appropriate remedy to vindicate this proprietary right? These remedies can take two forms. The first are proprietary remedies where the claimant is able to recover the property itself or acquire a security interest in the property which is in the defendant’s hands. The second are personal remedies where the defendant is only able to recover the value of the property received by the defendant.

All restitutionary claims, regardless of the underlying cause of action, are subject to a defence of illegality. This stems from the fundamental principle of law, known as ex turpi causa non oritur actio, that the courts will generally not assist the claimant to obtain a remedy where his or her action is founded on an illegal transaction. There is, however, another principle which is particularly relevant to restitutionary claims, and this is known as the in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis defence. If the claimant seeks restitution in connection with a transaction which was tainted by illegality, the claim may be defeated by the in pari delicto defence. This chapter discusses the general principles of illegality, illegality at common law, consequences of a transaction being tainted by illegality, methods for avoiding the operation of the in pari delicto defence, vindication of proprietary rights despite illegality, and reform of the law.

This chapter discusses the pari passu sharing principle in insolvencies, including the recent developments in determining the scope of the anti-deprivation principle. The effect of contractual provisions to divest the debtor’s interest in property on insolvency or increase a creditor’s rights are discussed. Exceptions to the pari passu principle are reviewed. It considers the importance of distinguishing between personal rights and proprietary rights in an insolvency. It discusses the limits on proprietary rights in an insolvency.

Enrichment at the expense of another is neutral in itself. This chapter asks only whether the defendant was enriched. A conclusion that the recipient was not enriched puts an end to the inquiry. The defendant may still be liable, but not in unjust enrichment. A person who has received a service but cannot be said to have been enriched may yet be liable to reimburse an uninvited intervener in his affairs. In the great majority of unjust enrichment cases the enrichment in question is passed over unnoticed. This is not because it does not require an answer but because the defendant has usually received money. Since money is the measure of wealth, there is very rarely any contest on the enrichment issue where money has been received. Most of the problems relating to enrichment fall under one or the other of two heads. The first is the subjectivity of the value of non-money benefits. The second problem deals with the relationship of unjust enrichment and property in the last chapter. This chapter also discusses enrichments in kind, extant enrichment and instant disenrichment, retention of pre-existing title, raising of new proprietary rights, and two conceptions of wealth.

For reasons of public policy, most civil actions are subject to a time bar whose effect is that, once a particular period of time has passed, the defendant can no longer be sued on that particular action. There are two distinct legal regimes relating to the barring of restitutionary actions by the passage of time. The first and most important regime is contained in the Limitation Act 1980, which specifies particular limitation periods for different types of actions. The second regime is the equitable defence of laches, which determines whether an equitable action is time barred by reference to the justice of the case having regard to all the surrounding circumstances. This chapter discusses reversal of the defendant's unjust enrichment, qualification of the general limitation period for particular restitutionary claims, restitutionary claims founded on the commission of tort or breach of contract, restitutionary claims founded on equitable wrongs, vindication of proprietary rights, and function of the laches defence.

Where the claimant wishes to obtain restitution from the defendant on the ground of unjust enrichment, it is not enough to show that the defendant has been enriched in circumstances which fall within one of the grounds of restitution. The claimant must also establish that this enrichment was obtained at the claimant's expense. This requires the claimant to establish a connection between the receipt of an enrichment by the defendant and the claimant's loss so as to justify the restitutionary claim against the defendant. One important question is whether the claimant's gain must correspond with the defendant's loss. This chapter discusses the privity principle and exceptions to this principle, including restitutionary claims to vindicate the claimant's proprietary rights, restitutionary claims founded on wrongdoing, agency, and the principle of interceptive subtraction. The issue of whether non-money benefits received by the defendant were received at the claimant's expense is also considered.

Discusses the English House of Lords decision of Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 which was a claim for property division between ex-cohabitants. The case was decided under the common law since England lacks the legislation that Scotland has in the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. Title was in joint names but the claimant sought a division of the property other than 50-50. The House of Lords discusses the underlying principles to deal with such a claim. The commentary also discusses two Scottish claims that are made under the concept of unjustified enrichment