History and Nature of Equity-â
History and Nature of Equity-‐ Aim: Fundamental principles of Equity: Role as a supplement to common law and readdressing wrongs of conscience
Nature of equitable estates and interests Viscount Radcliffe in Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Qld) v Livingstone [1965] “ Equity calls into existence and protects equitable rights and interests in property only where their recognition has been found to be required in order to give effect to its doctrines” -‐ The highest form of equitable proprietary interest is that of a beneficiary under a trust -‐ If one person has both the legal and equitable interest in the relevant property, he or she has no ‘equitable interest’ in that property. This is because he holds a entire and unqualified legal interest and not two separate interests: DKLR holdings v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) -‐ An absolute owner holds only the legal estate, with all the right and incidents that attach to the estate. The rights of a beneficiary in an unadministered estate-‐ Central question: What are the rights of a person who is to inherit the property following the death of another person (through the administration of an estate) Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Livingston [1965] AC 694 Importance: Authority for the rights of a beneficiary in an unadministered estate -‐ After this decision it has been held that a beneficiary’s right is not an equitable interest. The beneficiary has the power to compel the executor to properly administer the estate. -‐ Beneficiary has a chose in action capable of transmission by will. -‐ Right is not proprietary and is only a chose in action Legal question: Did Mrs. Coulson haeve an equitable interest at the date of her death, in relation to her share of Livingston’s unadministered estate? Facts: • 1950-‐ Mrs Coulson died intestate (no will) • At the time of her death, Mrs. Coulson was entitled to 1/3rd in the residue of the deceased estate of Livingston (her first husband) • The Stamp Duties Commissioner in Queensland claimed that at her death, Mrs Coulson owned an equitable interest in real and personal property in Queensland and NSW and therefore a levied succession duty applied. Decision: Privy Council held that at her death Mrs Coulson didn’t have any proprietary interest in the Livingstone’s unadministered estate. Reasoning:
-‐
She was entitled to a chose in action, capable of being invoked for any purpose connected with the proper administration of his (her ex-‐husbands) estate
Nature of equitable estates and interests Viscount Radcliffe in Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Qld) v Livingstone [1965] “ Equity calls into existence and protects equitable rights and interests in property only where their recognition has been found to be required in order to give effect to its doctrines” -‐ The highest form of equitable proprietary interest is that of a beneficiary under a trust -‐ If one person has both the legal and equitable interest in the relevant property, he or she has no ‘equitable interest’ in that property. This is because he holds a entire and unqualified legal interest and not two separate interests: DKLR holdings v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) -‐ An absolute owner holds only the legal estate, with all the right and incidents that attach to the estate. The rights of a beneficiary in an unadministered estate-‐ Central question: What are the rights of a person who is to inherit the property following the death of another person (through the administration of an estate) Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Livingston [1965] AC 694 Importance: Authority for the rights of a beneficiary in an unadministered estate -‐ After this decision it has been held that a beneficiary’s right is not an equitable interest. The beneficiary has the power to compel the executor to properly administer the estate. -‐ Beneficiary has a chose in action capable of transmission by will. -‐ Right is not proprietary and is only a chose in action Legal question: Did Mrs. Coulson haeve an equitable interest at the date of her death, in relation to her share of Livingston’s unadministered estate? Facts: • 1950-‐ Mrs Coulson died intestate (no will) • At the time of her death, Mrs. Coulson was entitled to 1/3rd in the residue of the deceased estate of Livingston (her first husband) • The Stamp Duties Commissioner in Queensland claimed that at her death, Mrs Coulson owned an equitable interest in real and personal property in Queensland and NSW and therefore a levied succession duty applied. Decision: Privy Council held that at her death Mrs Coulson didn’t have any proprietary interest in the Livingstone’s unadministered estate. Reasoning:
-‐
She was entitled to a chose in action, capable of being invoked for any purpose connected with the proper administration of his (her ex-‐husbands) estate
