Interpreting "D.I.Y." documents:severance, release, trusts, certainty, vesting and undue influence

Comments on the Chancery Division decision in Wallbank v Price on whether a home-made ("DIY") document signed by a wife and purporting to revoke her rights as a beneficial joint tenant in the matrimonial home, which was acquired under the right-to-buy scheme, should be set aside for duress or undue influence. Details the court's analysis of the principles supporting a successful claim of undue influence, the nature of the DIY document, its meaning and its effect. Considers possible reasons for the parties' use of the document. Cases Wallbank v Price (2007) EWHC 3001 (Ch); (2008) 2 FLR 501 (Ch D (Birmingham)) : Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No.2) (2001) UKHL 44; (2002) 2 AC 773 (HL) : Paul v Constance (1977) 1 WLR 527 (CA (Civ Div)) Statutes Housing Act 1985

Certainty of subject matter in the law of trusts

This piece argued that the accepted orthodoxy concerning the requirement that each individual piece of property is individually segregated for a valid trust to exist is unsupported by the case law, and that there is nothing wrong in principle or theory with a trust that exists for unsegregated property.

Rescission and substitute property:Bainbridge v Bainbridge [2016] EWHC 898 (Ch)

One of the unresolved issues concerning equity’s jurisdiction to set aside dispositions for mistake is the nature of the proprietary consequences that ensue. The decision in Bainbridge v Bainbridge sheds further light on this important issue, but also illustrates that some important aspects concerning the application of rescission needs further clarification. The key issue concerned the rescission of a trust, where parts of the land had been sold by the trustees who had used the proceeds of sale to buy two new plots of land. Part of the reasoning used by Master Matthews relied upon authorities, developed in the context of fraudulently induced transfers of money, which requires careful consideration of the relationship between the principle in Pitt v Holt and unjust enrichment.