Abstract
In Patel v Mirza, the UK Supreme Court attempted to resolve the problems in the law of illegality by overruling the reliance principle in Tinsley v Milligan. However, the Court was divided 6: 3 on the approach to be taken. Whereas the majority favoured a discretionary approach, the minority adopted a restitutionary approach. Which approach is preferable? This article assesses the strengths of both approaches by examining whether they can resolve the problems of the reliance principle; whether they are normatively sound; and their capacity to resolve a contemporary problem: illegality and small houses in Hong Kong.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 880-901 |
| Journal | Trusts & Trustees |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| Online published | 27 Jul 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2017 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of ''He who comes to Equity need not do so with clean hands?' illegality and resulting trusts after Patel v Mirza, what should the approach be?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver