Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale V Islington LBC Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia
1/9/2015
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington
LBC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12
Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington LBC
Court
Full case name Decided
Citation(s)
House of Lords
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington
London Borough Council
22 May 1996
[1996] UKHL 12
(http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1996/12.html),
[1996] AC 669
Court membership
Judge(s) Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord BrowneWilkinson, sitting Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Woolf and Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Keywords
Compound interest, resulting trust, unjust enrichment
(http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1996/12.html) is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House of Lords, presumed intention to reflect what is conscionable underlies all resulting and constructive trusts.
Contents
1 Facts
2 Judgment
3 Significance
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links
Facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westdeutsche_Landesbank_Girozentrale_v_Islington_LBC 1/17
1/9/2015
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale sued Islington LBC to get back £1,145,525, which included compound interest for money that it had paid under an interest rate swap agreement with the council.
Interest rate swap agreements had been declared by the House of Lords, a few years earlier in Hazell v
Hammersmith and Fulham LBC, to be ultra vires and void because they exceeded councils' borrowing powers under the Local Government Act 1972. The council accepted that it should repay the money it had received under the void contract, but that it should only repay simple
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington
LBC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12
Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington LBC
Court
Full case name Decided
Citation(s)
House of Lords
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington
London Borough Council
22 May 1996
[1996] UKHL 12
(http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1996/12.html),
[1996] AC 669
Court membership
Judge(s) Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord BrowneWilkinson, sitting Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Woolf and Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Keywords
Compound interest, resulting trust, unjust enrichment
(http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1996/12.html) is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House of Lords, presumed intention to reflect what is conscionable underlies all resulting and constructive trusts.
Contents
1 Facts
2 Judgment
3 Significance
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links
Facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westdeutsche_Landesbank_Girozentrale_v_Islington_LBC 1/17
1/9/2015
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale sued Islington LBC to get back £1,145,525, which included compound interest for money that it had paid under an interest rate swap agreement with the council.
Interest rate swap agreements had been declared by the House of Lords, a few years earlier in Hazell v
Hammersmith and Fulham LBC, to be ultra vires and void because they exceeded councils' borrowing powers under the Local Government Act 1972. The council accepted that it should repay the money it had received under the void contract, but that it should only repay simple
References: Peter Birks (1999). "Equity, conscience, and unjust enrichment" (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/1999/1.html). Melbourne University Law Review