Gibbon v Mitchell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1990 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
62 cases
-
Pitt and Another v Holt and Another Futter and Another v Futter and Others
...of the authorities are quite old, and others are debatable. There has been much discussion of the distinction drawn by Millett J in Gibbon v Mitchell [1990] 1 WLR 1304, 1309, between a relevant mistake having to be "as to the effect of the transaction itself and not merely as to its consequ......
-
Sydney Lawie v Anthony Paul Lawie and Others
...An important point was that Lady Butlin did not disclose her reasons for opposing rectification. 21 Mr Collier also referred to Gibbon v Mitchell [1990] 1 WLR 1304. However in that case Millet J explained that he regarded it as an application to set the deed aside for mistake rather than a ......
-
Dent v Dent
...did not create a settlement of the house under the Settled Land Act. If this finding was wrong, the court – following Gibbon v Mitchell [1990] 1 WLR 1304 – would have been prepared to set aside such undertakings as conferred a Settled Land Act Statutory provisions referred to:Law of Propert......
-
Wolff v Wolff
...thing, Mr Brownbill submitted they were different and distinct. 23 The law on the first line of cases was considered by Millett J in Gibbon v Mitchell [1990] 1 WLR 1304. In that case a protected life interest was surrendered by the life tenant, who thereby intended to accelerate the absolut......
Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
-
Guiding You Through Sham Trusts
...to the document. An analogy with cases of unilateral mistake The Royal Court held that cases on mistake (such as Gibbon v Mitchell [1990] 3 All ER 338) are of no assistance in considering a sham trust because the rationale of allowing relief on the grounds of unilateral mistake is that equi......
-
In Re R - The Waking Of Leviathan
...Re A Footnotes [2011] EWCA Civ 197 (2009-10) GLR 239 Ogilvie v Allen (1889)15 TLR 294 [2009] WTLR 1489 [2007] WTLR 1703 [2009] JLR 447 [1990] 1 WLR 1304 [2005] 1 WLR 3811 In re the Lochmore Trust [2010] JRC 068 www.bakerandpartners.com The content of this article is intended to provide a ge......
-
It Was All A Mistake!
...received opinions from English QCs on the English law of mistake which is summarised within Millett J's judgment in Gibbon v Mitchell [1990] 1 WLR 1304: 'wherever there is a voluntary transaction by which one party intends to confer bounty to another, the deed will be set aside if the court......
-
B.C. Supreme Court Rescinds Land Transfers
...as the mistake in question was not related to the purpose of the transaction but only its consequences. In Gibbon v Mitchell ([1990] 1 W.L.R. 1304 (Ch.), a U.K. court held that rescission would be granted for a mistake where "the mistake is as to the effect of the transaction itself and not......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Trust Parties’ Uniquely Easy Access to Rescission: Analysis, Critique and Reform
...“Get Out of JailFree” Card: Mistake in the Law of Trusts’ (2010) 14 Jersey and Guernsey Law Review 1, 21.17 (1897) 13 TLR 399, 400.18 [1990] 1 WLR 1304, 1309; and see Ashdown, n 7 above, 184–185. Writing extra-judicially,Lord Millett opined that to be set aside in equity, a mistake should s......
-
BRIDGING THE GREAT DIVIDE BETWEEN MISTAKES OF LAW AND FACT IN RESTITUTION: IS THE BRIDGE SAFE TO CROSS?
...is also qualified by the equitable jurisdiction of the court to grant relief from the consequences of mistake: see Gibbons v Mitchell[1990] 1 WLR 1304 at 1309 per Millett J; Daniell v Sinclair(1881) 6 App Cas 181 at 190; Cooper v Phipps[1867] LR 2 HL 149; Earl Beauchamp v Winn(1873) LR 6 HL......