HOBHOUSE STUART‐SMITH and PILL LJJ
On 6th February, 1987, Goldman Sachs (the plaintiffs in the action from which this appeal arose and the respondents to the appeal hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs…
Abstract
On 6th February, 1987, Goldman Sachs (the plaintiffs in the action from which this appeal arose and the respondents to the appeal hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs) purchased US$10m face value worth of Exxon bonds for which they paid US$2.26m. They sold them on and a month later it transpired that the bonds were forgeries. The London brokers from whom the Plaintiffs bought the bonds revealed, following police enquiries, that they acted on the instructions of a Mr Philip Lyons (the Defendant). Mr Lyons was a Chartered Accountant, and had delivered the bonds to the clearing house when the sale was concluded and he also controlled the Liechtenstein Anstalt (a form of nominee trust) to which the purchase price had been paid. In April 1987 Mr Lyons was arrested and charged with forgery and deception.
In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still…
Abstract
In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether title to land is secure in England and Wales when registered under the Land Registration Act 2002, in particular when a title is…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether title to land is secure in England and Wales when registered under the Land Registration Act 2002, in particular when a title is registered without the proprietor being able to establish good title under pre‐registration rules of property law.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper analyses reported judgments, with particular emphasis on the decision in Walker v. Burton [2012].
Findings
The paper identifies an uncertainty at the heart of the registration system: the uncertainty as to the extent to which a registered title may be rectified to remove the proprietor. This is acute when it appears that the registered proprietor has no claim to the land other than by reason of his registration. There may be a difference in this regard between intangible property titles and tangible titles.
Originality/value
The Land Registration Act 2002 is meant to replace registration of title with title by registration. The real force of this is only now being realised and there are few reported judgements, and less consistency, working out what this means in practice.