Chancery Division in UK Law

So, too, the Court had power in the administration of trust property to direct that by way of salvage some transaction unauthorised by the trust instrument should be carried out. Nothing is more significant than the repeated assertions by the Court that mere expediency was not enough to found the jurisdiction.

Where relief is to be granted without trial, whether on admissions or by agreement or in default of pleading, and it is necessary to make clear upon what footing the relief is to be granted, the right course, in my opinion, is not to make a declaration but to state that the relief shall be upon such and such a footing without any declaration to the effect that that footing in fact reflects the legal situation.

It has long been the settled practice of the Court that the proper method of impeaching a completed judgment on the ground of fraud is by action in which, as in any other action based on fraud, the particulars of the fraud must be exactly given and the allegation established by the strict proof such a charge requires.

Such statements may be helpful in identifying particular circumstances in which a person would clearly be unfit. to treat the statements as judicial paraphrases of the words of the statute which fall to be construed as a matter of law in lieu of the words of the statute. The result is to obscure that the true question to be tried is a question of fact—what used to be perjoratively described in the Chancery Division as "a jury question".

One would think that the law as to so typical a set of facts would be both simple and clear. Learned judges in the Chancery Division and in the Court of Appeal have had great difficulty in formulating a rule and have been obliged to reach differing conclusions.

We do not include the word "habitual" among the necessary criteria for an extended civil restraint order, but there has to be an element of persistence in the irrational refusal to take "no" for an answer before an order of this type can be made.

The visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks must be assessed by reference to the overall impressions created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components. Furthermore, if the association between the marks causes the public to wrongly believe that the respective goods come from the same or economically linked undertakings, there is a likelihood of confusion.