Mala Fides in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd; Re Westbourne Galleries Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 03 May 1972

    The question is, as always, whether it is equitable to allow one (or two) to make use of his legal rights to the prejudice of his associate(s). And the principles on which he may do so are those worked out by the courts in partnership cases where there has been exclusion from management (see Const v. Harris (1824) Turn & R. 496, 525) even where under the partnership agreement there is a power of expulsion (see Blisset v. Daniel (1853) 10 Hare 493; Lindley on Partnerships 13th Ed.

  • Jones v Challenger
    • Court of Appeal
    • 14 Mar 1960

    But this simple principle cannot prevail where the trust itself or the circumstances in which it was made show that there was a secondary or collateral object besides that of sale. If it be not mala fides, it is at any rate wrong and inequitable for one of the parties to the trust to invoke the letter of the trust in order to defeat one of its purposes, whether that purpose be written or unwritten, and the Court will not permit it.

  • R v DPP ex parte Kebeline
    • House of Lords
    • 28 Oct 1999

    My Lords, I would rule that absent dishonesty or mala fides or an exceptional circumstance, the decision of the DPP to consent to the prosecution of the Respondents is not amenable to judicial review.

  • Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver
    • House of Lords
    • 20 Feb 1942

    As to the duties and liabilities of those occupying such a fiduciary position, a number of cases were cited to us which were not brought to the attention of the trial Judge. In my view the Respondents were in a fiduciary position and their liability to account does not depend upon proof of mala fides.

    The rule of equity which insists on those who by use of a fiduciary position make a profit, being liable to account for that profit, in no way depends on fraud, or absence of bona fides; or upon such questions or considerations as whether the profit would or should otherwise have gone to the Plaintiff, or whether the profiteer was under a duty to obtain the source of the profit for the Plaintiff, or whether he took a risk, or acted as he did for the benefit of the Plaintiff, or whether the Plaintiff has in fact been damaged or benefited by his action.

  • Annissa Webster and Others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
    • Privy Council
    • 09 Mar 2015

    (1) The situations must be comparable, analogous, or broadly similar, but need not be identical. Any differences between them must be material to the difference in treatment.

  • Armitage v Nurse
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 Mar 1997

    I accept the submission made on behalf of Paula that there is an irreducible core of obligations owed by the trustees to the beneficiaries and enforceable by them which is fundamental to the concept of a trust. If the beneficiaries have no rights enforceable against the trustees there are no trusts.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT