Re Emery's Investments Trust.; Emery v Emery

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division
Judgment Date1959
Date1959
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
56 cases
  • Tinker v Tinker
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 3 Diciembre 1969
    ...to him, because he could not be allowed to take advantage of his own dishonesty. That case was applied in ( Re Emery's Investment Trusts 1959 1 Ch. 410); and also in McEvoy V. Belfast Banking, Co. Ltd. (1934 Northern Ireland Law Reports at page 67). We were invited by Mr. Wheatley to overru......
  • Mantis Surgical Ltd v Tregenza
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 29 Junio 2007
    ......In an individual hospital or trust there are three groups which have input into the decisions ......
  • Pitts v Hunt
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 4 Abril 1990
    ...transaction could not be heard to claim that that transaction had given rise to an enforceable trust in his favour. See also Re Emery's Investments Trust [1959] Ch 410. 79 That a defence of illegality can be pleaded to a case founded in tort is, in my judgment, clear, whether or not the def......
  • Jeanette O'Kelly v Kenneth Dylan Davies
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 Diciembre 2014
    ...see, for example, Gascoigne v Gascoigne [1918] 1 KB 223, Tinker v Tinker [1970] P 136, Chettiar v Chettiar [1962] AC 294, Emery's Investment Trusts, Re [1959] Ch 22 A resulting trust was defined by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACTUAL ILLEGALITY AND CONFLICT OF LAWS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1995, December 1995
    • 1 Diciembre 1995
    ...S.L.R. 431. 302 See Patriot Pte. Ltd. v. Lam Hong Commercial Co. [1980] 1 M.L.J. 135. For English cases, see Re Emery’s Investment Trusts[1959] Ch. 410. See also Pye Ltd. v. BG Transport Service Ltd.[1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 300 at 308 and 309. 303 On recognition of foreign countries, it is not......
  • VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — THE INTERACTION OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1998, December 1998
    • 1 Diciembre 1998
    ...Chettiar v PLAR Arunasalam Chettiar[1962] AC 294; Gascoigne v Gascoigne[1918] 1 KB 233; In re Emery’s Investments Trusts, Emery v Emery[1959] 1 Ch 410; McEvoy v Belfast Banking Company Limited[1934] NI 67; affirmed [1935] AC 24; as well as Tinker v Tinker[1970] P 136, all of which were refe......
  • The Pension Trust: Fit For Purpose?
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 82-5, September 2019
    • 1 Septiembre 2019
    ...cited therein.34 Cory vGertcken (1816) 2 Madd 40; 56 ER 250.35 Gascoigne vGascoigne [1918] 1 KB 223; In Re Emery’s Investment Trusts (1959) Ch 410.C2019 The Author. The Modern Law Review C2019 The Modern Law Review Limited.(2019) 82(5) MLR 800–832 The Pension Trust: Fit for Pur pose?provi......
  • Conflict of Laws
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2021, December 2021
    • 1 Diciembre 2021
    ...Lyu Yan [2021] 1 SLR 1091 at [34]. 242 [2010] FSR 4 at [266], cited in Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan v Lyu Yan [2021] 1 SLR 1091 at [26]. 243 [1959] 2 WLR 461 at 468–469. 244 [2005] 1 WLR 247 (“Barros Mattos Jr”) at [41]–[44]. While Barros Mattos Jr has been criticised in Singapore (see Esben Fin......
  • Request a trial to view additional 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