Charles,

This may be going off on a real tangent (can you have a real tangent?) but

what is about Vandervell (no 2) that makes no sense? I confess I'm rather

ambivalent about it, but I'd hesitate to say it made no sense at all.

Duncan  

Dr Duncan Sheehan

Senior Lecturer in Law

Director of Research

Norwich Law School

University of East Anglia

Norwich NR4 7TJ

United Kingdom

Phone:44(0)1603 593255

Papers at http://ssrn.com/author=648495

 

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Mitchell, Charles [mailto:charles.mitchell@kcl.ac.uk]

>Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:04 PM

>To: 'Robert Stevens'; Andrew Burrows

>Cc: Jason Neyers; Hedley, Steve; obligations@uwo.ca

>Subject: RE: Denning

>

>Can a trusts lawyer butt in? The great man's record here was

>very mixed: Re Gulbenkian was rightly overruled by the HL;

>Vandervell v IRC (No 2) makes no sense at all; Re Weston's ST

>is dubious though indisputably patriotic; the new model

>constructive trust in Binions v Evans, Hussey v Palmer, and

>Eves v Eves is now very out of fashion in England but may

>strike Australian and Canadian lawyers more favourably; the

>squashing of Appleton in Pettitt now looks less definitive in

>the light of Stack v Dowden; Re Tuck's was quite sensible; and

>while the others in the CA and the HL disagreed with him in

>Chapman v Chapman he won the argument when Parliament enacted

>the Variation of Trusts Act 1958. But most of the Chancery

>lawyers I've ever spoken to think he was a loose cannon. CM

>

>

>Professor Charles Mitchell

>School of Law

>King's College London

>Strand

>London WC2R 2LS

>

>tel: 020 7848 2290

>fax: 020 7848 2465

>

>