'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?
Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews › RGC 21 - Publication in refereed journal › peer-review
Author(s)
Related Research Unit(s)
Detail(s)
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 880-901 |
Journal / Publication | Trusts & Trustees |
Volume | 23 |
Issue number | 8 |
Online published | 27 Jul 2017 |
Publication status | Published - Oct 2017 |
Link(s)
DOI | DOI |
---|---|
Permanent Link | https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en/publications/publication(a93f1e3a-c7d9-45a4-9026-df1a87ed965e).html |
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.
Citation Format(s)
'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? / Law, Mark; Ong, Rebecca.
In: Trusts & Trustees, Vol. 23, No. 8, 10.2017, p. 880-901.
In: Trusts & Trustees, Vol. 23, No. 8, 10.2017, p. 880-901.
Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews › RGC 21 - Publication in refereed journal › peer-review