The Secondary-Rights Approach to the ‘Common Intention Constructive Trust’

Unlike ‘primary rights’ constructive trust doctrines, the CICT affords courts a wide discretion in determining the appropriate remedy in a particular case. This paper suggests that the CICT can take a step towards conceptual and analytical coherence if approached as a device for courts to award remedies that give effect to A’s secondary rights. When B breaches his primary duty to ensure A does not suffer harm from the unreliability of his induced assumptions, and when this causes A to suffer detrimental reliance, A obtains an unliquidated secondary right to be compensated for any harm, and a judge has discretion to determine the appropriate content of the remedy to compensate A for harm suffered. Since this approach is highly similar to proprietary estoppel, assimilating the CICT within proprietary estoppel can further benefit our understanding and practice of resolving disputes in the family homes context

Reanalysing Institutional and Remedial Constructive Trusts

It is often said that English law does not impose “remedial” constructive trusts because it is manifestly inappropriate and fundamentally unjustified to impose trusts through the exercise of judicial discretion and with retrospective effect. This paper observes the definitional deficiencies in this understanding, and reanalyses constructive trusts in terms of the rights which they give effect to. This understanding reveals that English law sets its face against the exercise of discretion in relation only to some “remedial” constructive trusts and not others, and that the perceived difficulties with remedial constructive trusts are often exaggerated. It ends by noting some crucial implications of the re-analysis for the future development of the law

The ambit of the mutual wills doctrine

Analyses the operation of the mutual wills doctrine, whereby a constructive trust binds the survivor to the terms of the testators' agreement, including: (1) the minimum requirements of this agreement; (2) the parties' latitude to define its terms; (3) the challenges of establishing the agreement; (4) whether the doctrine requires a "contract at law"; (5) the need to show that either party relied on the agreement; and (6) the causative events

Explaining the Mutual Wills Doctrine

Although English courts have applied the mutual wills doctrine since the 18th century, it remains difficult precisely to define its operation, the legal principles involved, and its underlying rationale(s). These difficulties have caused many to doubt the usefulness and coherence of the doctrine. Recently, the Law Commission announced its plan to review the law concerning wills in late 2015, with one of the four key areas to be reviewed being mutual wills. The review is said to ‘aim to reduce the likelihood of wills being challenged after death, and the incidence of litigation. Such litigation is expensive, can divide families and is a cause of great stress for the bereaved.’ This is reminiscent of Mummery LJ’s comments in Olins v Walters, that the doctrine ‘continues to be a source of contention for the families of those who have invoked it. The likelihood is that in future even fewer people will opt for such an arrangement and even more will be warned against the risks involved.’ These statements suggest that there is a real possibility that a suggestion might be made to abolish the mutual wills doctrine completely. This chapter proposes a new way of understanding the mutual wills doctrine which is consistent with orthodox principles. It distinguishes between what will be labelled ‘qualified interest’ and ‘absolute interest’ situations, each applying to a different type of mutual wills agreement. From this renewed understanding, it will be seen that the doctrine is underpinned by two distinct rationales, which also form the basis of Equity’s intervention in other areas. This indicates that the best way to understand the mutual wills doctrine is not to treat it in isolation, but to pay proper regard to its commonalities with other doctrines which give rise to constructive trusts such as the doctrine in Rochefoucauld v Boustead, secret trusts, and proprietary estoppel

The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton: Conduct, Intention, and Justifiability

The decision in OPO v MLA [2014] EWCA Civ 1277 causes confusion to the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. A strong line of authorities indicates that the defendant must either have an actual intention to cause physical injury or be reckless as to the causing of such harm, the latter being determined by the likelihood of harm being caused by the defendant's act. ‘Imputed intention’ does not form a separate category of mental state. There was also a missed opportunity to develop a ‘justifiability’ criterion, by which policy considerations can be taken into account to preclude an application of the tort. This criterion ought to be developed in a principled manner, in line with the existing jurisprudence concerning human rights and with the policy limitations as developed in the context of other torts

Use of Phage Display to Isolate Specifi c Human Monoclonal Antibody Fragments Against a Potential Target for Multiple Myeloma

Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM), a malignancy of plasma cells, accounts for 10% of all haematological malignancies and is currently incurable. Although it can be treated, the disease tends to relapse after several years and becomes increasingly resistant to conventional therapy. Investigations into using humoral therapy for MM are now underway with a view that novel therapeutic agents may provide a more targeted therapy for MM. Materials and Methods: Here, phage display, a faster and more efficient method compared to classical hybridoma fusion technology, was used as a proof-of-concept to isolate several single-chain Fragment variables (scFv) against Ku86. Results: Anti-Ku86 polyclonal scFvs biopanning was successful where third round scFvs (A450~1.1) showed a 1/3 increase in binding as compared to the first round scFvs (A450~0.4) with 100ug/mL of antigen (purified human Ku86). Subsequent selection and verifi cation of monoclonal antibodies using third round biopanning revealed 4 good affi nity binding clones ranging from A450~0.1 to A450~0.15 on 12.5ug/mL of antigen as compared to low binders (A450~0.07) and these antibodies bind to Ku86 in a specifi c and dose-dependent manner. Comparative studies were also performed with commercially available murine antibodies and results suggest that 2 of the clones may bind close to the following epitopes aa506-541 and aa1- 374. Conclusions: These studies using phage display provide an alternative and viable method to screen for antibodies quickly and results show that good affinity antibodies against Ku86 have been successfully isolated and they can be used for further studies on MM and form the basis for further development as anti-cancer therapeutic agents

A randomized double blind control trial comparing filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in cyclophosphamide peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell mobilization

There are few randomized trials comparing filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in peripheral blood stem cell mobilization (PBSCM). None of the trials studied the effects of the timing of pegfilgrastim administration on the outcomes of mobilization. We conducted a randomized triple blind control trial comparing the outcomes of filgrastim 5 microg/kg daily from day 3 onwards, 'early' pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 3 and 'delayed' pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 7 in cyclophosphamide PBSCM in patients with no previous history of mobilization. Peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ cell count was checked on day 8 and day 11 onward. Apheresis was started when PB CD34+ >/= 10/microl from day 11 onward. The primary outcome was the successful mobilization rate, defined as cumulative collection of >/=2 x 10(6)/kg CD34+ cells in three or less apheresis. The secondary outcomes were the day of neutrophil and platelet engraftment post transplantation. There were 156 patients randomized and 134 patients' data analyzed. Pegfilgrastim 6 mg day 7 produced highest percentage of successful mobilization, 34 out of 48 (70.8%) analyzed patients, followed by daily filgrastim, 28 out of 44 (63.6%) and day 3 pegfilgrastim, 20 out of 42 (47.6%) (p = 0.075). Pegfilgrastim day 7 and daily filgrastim reported 1.48 (p = 0.014) and 1.49 (p = 0.013) times higher successful mobilization rate respectively as compared to pegfilgrastim day 3 after adjusting for disease, gender and exposure to myelotoxic agent. Multiple myeloma patients were three times more likely to achieve successful mobilization as compared to acute leukemia or lymphoma patients. Pegfilgrastim avoided the overshoot of white cells compared to filgrastim. There was no difference in the duration of both white cells and platelet recovery post transplantation between the three interventional arms

Air pollution and the microvasculature: A cross-sectional assessment of in vivo retinal images in the population-based multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA)

10.1371/journal.pmed.1000372PLoS Medicine711