#lawrence at least had the wife defence

[zer0point5ive]

gay people never flirt normally it’s always gotta be shit like this

[bbclesmis]

Andrew Davies on Les Miserables: ‘I’m rescuing it from that awful musical’

Give Andrew Davies a piece of classic literature and he will show you the erotic desires and deep-rooted anxieties that lurk beneath. Think of the passions he unleashed in the nation’s living rooms when he sent Mr Darcy for a dip in his full-blooded 1995 adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, or the consternation he provoked when he inserted a spot of incest into War and Peace in 2016.

Yet even to Davies, a new adaptation of Les Misérables – which he claims “will rescue Victor Hugo’s novel from the clutches of that awful musical with its doggerel lyrics” – posed a challenge. Perhaps the biggest question was how to represent the sexuality of its two principal characters: Jean Valjean, the prisoner who breaks his parole (played by Dominic West); and his nemesis, Javert (David Oyelowo) the policeman who hounds him until the end of his days.

Over tea in central London, Davies tells me that he was surprised to discover that, in Hugo’s 1862 novel, neither character mentions any sort of sexual experience, leaving the 82-year-old screenwriter wondering, at least in the case of Javert, whether it was indicative of a latent homosexuality.

“His obsession with Jean Valjean represents a kind of perverse, erotic love,” Davies says. He doesn’t stop there. In capturing the febrile atmosphere of post-Napoleonic France, he also shows how the innkeeper’s daughter Eponine (Erin Kellyman) expresses her desire for the earnest student Marius (Josh O’Connor).

“One of the best things Hugo does is to have Eponine tease Marius with her sexiness because he is a bit of a prig,” says Davies. “So I have introduced a scene where Marius, even though he is in love with Cosette [Valjean’s adopted daughter], has a wet dream about Eponine and feels rather guilty about it. I think it fits into the psychology of the book.”

Another problem that needed solving was Cosette, “a pretty nauseating character in the book”, whom Davies has made “strong and optimistic, rather than just an idealised figure who doesn’t add anything at all.” In the past, he has spoken about how he has turned the more saccharine depictions of 19th-century womanhood he has found on the page into women with the power “to disconcert men”, by injecting into them a little of his own mother’s character. I ask if she also makes her presence felt in Les Misérables. “I don’t think so. Was she like Madame Thénardier?” he wonders, referring to the sometimes violent innkeeper’s wife, here played by Olivia Colman. “No, that would be awful. Although she was quite keen on smacking people. The women in this book are not terribly complicated.”

I suggest that this might not sit well with modern viewers. “Well, I suppose Fantine goes on one hell of a journey,” says Davies, effecting a cod-American accent. “She develops a sort of animal ferocity and that is all because of how she has been treated.”

Davies’ childhood sounds rosy by comparison. No sooner had he started at his Cardiff grammar than he wrote a naughty poem about two of the modern language teachers, which went around the whole school in samizdat. He recites it for me:

He kissed her, she kissed him      

back.  

He took her knickers off and put    

them in a sack.

She took his underpants and put    

them in her bag.

He said: “Excusez-moi, but may I    

have a shag?”

After that, his writing career settled into a slow burn. He studied English at University College London, then moved to Kenilworth, where he met his future wife, Diana Huntley (they have been married since 1960 and have two children) and began teaching literature at the Coventry College of Further Education. He wrote the odd TV play and a whole host of radio scripts – sadly, now all deleted. One 1972 play about wife swapping, Steph and the Single Life, received complaints from those who denounced it as “obscene, disgusting rubbish”.

More solid success came to Davies in the Eighties, most notably with his greatest original work, A Very Peculiar Practice, based on his experiences at Warwick. Heavy on existential gloom, it concluded with the campus being sold to a private American company, which turned it into a defence research base. Never has a series ended to quite such a peal of mirthless laughter and its extraordinary scheduling (9pm on BBC One) was, thinks Davies, a mistake.

At that point, it was hard to imagine that Davies would, a few years later, be the person to turn costume drama into sportive heritage TV. His Middlemarch came first, in 1994, and was followed 18 months later by Pride and Prejudice, one of the most popular TV series of all time. I wonder how he feels about Nina Raine’s forthcoming small-screen adaptation.

“I am very excited about it,” he says. Then he adds, “even though I wish her all the best, I hope it’s not as popular as my one. It gives me so much pleasure when people say, ‘I was feeling rotten and so I just went to bed and put on Pride and Prejudice’. People use it to get over bereavements – I’m better than a priest!”

This is not arrogance. Davies may be sharp, naughty and ironic, but he is embarrassed by anyone who makes a fuss over him. He worries that this month’s documentary about his work, Rewriting the Classics, is “a bit effusive”, and he seems too pragmatic to be affected by writerly insecurity. Is he sensitive?

“I am much less sensitive than I used to be. I remember being cast down when I had a play that went to Broadway,” he says, referring to 1980’s Rose, which starred Glenda Jackson as a schoolteacher and closed after only 68 performances. “Column after column was spent saying how terrible it was. I couldn’t eat solid food for a week.”

He had a similarly bruising experience with the film industry. A decade ago, Davies admitted that he was disappointed that his movie career had not been more buoyant (Bridget Jones’s Diary was a rare success). Talking to me now, however, he is more sanguine.

“And that’s because the writer is king in TV. In film, all the stories that people say, that they pay you a lot of money and treat you like s---, are true in my experience. I have been sacked from several movies without being told. You meet someone at a party and you say you are working on a picture and they’ll laugh and say, ‘No, you’re not.’ It’s not terribly nice.”

Two more Davies adaptations will be shown next year – of Austen’s fragment, Sanditon, and of Vikram Seth’s epic A Suitable Boy. He would love to adapt more 19th-century classics (Dickens’s Dombey and Son and Trollope’s The Barchester Chronicles are top of his list) but before that, we can look forward to his version of the Rabbit Angstrom novels by John Updike, an author whose perceived misogyny might not seem an obvious fit in today’s cultural climate.

“There are a lot of grim things said about Updike at the moment, but he is a wonderful observer of how we all behave,” says Davies. “I don’t think writers are there to be role models, they are there to say what the world is like from their point of view.”

If the number of irons he has  in the fire makes it sound as though Davies is spreading himself too thinly, he displays an air of toughness despite his advancing years and a recent double hip replacement. “I don’t feel old. I had my one-year check-up yesterday and my surgeon pronounced that he was pleased with his work. My hips are good for another 10 years.”

As well as his prolific adapting, I wonder whether Davies has the desire to tell the story of his own life. “I really ought to,” he says. “I would like to start with my parents’ lives, in the early days of their marriage, because something went wrong there.” I ask why and Davies lowers his voice almost to a whisper.  “I think it’s probably something to do with sex.”

Ben Lawrence, The Telegraph, 22 December 2018 (x)

[dangkynhanhieusanphamcom]

City of london building society v flegg case summary

My Lords, ever in the past Boland’s accomplishment 1981 AC 487 it hasbeen widely assumed by those called upon to advise banks andbuilding societies that, suitably long as capital monies arising from anexercise of their powers by trustees for sale holding on thestatutory trusts have been paid in accordance gone the statutoryprovisions to not less than two trustees or a trust corporationpursuant to the provisions of section 27 of the function of PropertyAct 1925, a purchaser infatuation not event himself in the same way as the beneficialinterest in the property even where one or more of thebeneficiaries is or are in actual interest of the property at thetime of the transaction. 1)) 1961 AC 388, 1961 1 all ER 404 254 Defences to negligence Owens v. Brimmell 1977 QB 859 259 Occupiers’ responsibility Roles v. Nathan 1963 1 WLR 1117 264 Private nuisance Hunter and others v. Canary haven Ltd; Hunter and others v. London Docklands evolve Corporation 1997 AC 655 268 Equity and Trusts 273 veracity of want Paul v. Constance 1977 1 WLR 527 275 certainty of objects McPhail v. Doulton (in in this area Baden’s completion Trusts) 1971 AC 424; as regards Baden’s realization Trusts No. 2 1973 3 WLR 250 279 Constitution Pennington v. Waine 2002 EWCA Civ 227 285 Non-charitable direct trusts nearly Endacott 1960 Ch 232 290 Common take aim constructive trusts Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset and unusual 1991 1 AC 107 296 Breach of fiduciary commitment Bristol and West Building help v. Mothew 1998 Ch 1 303 Investment by trustees Nestl v. National Westminster Bank 1993 1 WLR 1260, #1994 1 every ER 118 309 Tracing Foskett v. McKeown 2001 1 AC 102 316 Knowing receipt Bank of credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd and#International bank account and Investment Company (Overseas) Ltd v. #hief Labode Onadimaki Akindele 2001 Ch 437 321 home play in (Property Law) 325 Unregistered house Kingsnorth Finance Co Ltd v. Tizard 1986 1 WLR 783 327 Overreaching and overriding interests Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v. Boland 1981 AC 487; City of London Building outfit v. Flegg 1988 AC 54 332 Registered home Abbey National Building activity v. Cann 1990 2 WLR 832 338 Co-ownership Kinch v. Bullard 1999 1 WLR 423 344 The lease/licence distinction Street v. Mountford 1985 AC 809 349 Contractual licences Ashburn Anstalt v. Arnold and option 1988 2 WLR 706 355 Leases – the remedy of forfeiture clever Clothing support and Sales Ltd v. Hillgate house Ltd #1986 Ch 340 359 Mortgages – undue upset Royal Bank of Scotland v. Etridge (No. Where house is held upon a trust of land, the comport yourself of Property prosecution 1925 provides that a purchaser of the land shall resign yourself to pardon of the beneficiaries’ interests, provided that the purchase grant is paid to at least two trustees or a trust corporation (City of London Building intervention v Flegg 1988 AC 54 (HL). The appellants, City of London Building Society, are themortgagee under a raid by quirk of true mortgage of registeredland held at the date of the skirmish by two trustees upon trust forsale and to stand possessed of the net proceeds of sale and rentsand profits until sale upon trust for four tenants in commonincluding the respondents, Mr. and Mrs.

Although below the perform of Property deed 1925 section 70, people considering actual doings may have an overriding incorporation that would put up with priority over a third party, taking into account the building society, this does not happen if the buy money is paid to two or more trustees or a trust corporation. For example, where the beneficiaries are in bustle of the land subject to the trust, the court has arrive to recognise this movement constitutes an equitable ownership ( Bull v Bull 1955 1 QB 234, CA; Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland 1981 AC 487, HL; City of London Building bureau v Flegg 1988 AC 54, HL). Although under the house Registration war 1925 section 70, people later than actual hobby may have an overriding engagement that would resign yourself to priority on top of a third party, later than the building society, this does not happen if the purchase grant is paid to two or more trustees or a trust corporation.

Page 316 note 16 City of London Building charity v. Flegg 1988 A.C. 54, 80, Oliver, Lord, speaking of the pretense of Property fighting 1925, s.14, which re-enacted section 33. In City of London Building group v. Flegg 1988 AC. 54, H.L., the trustees, who were experiencing massive financial difficulties, mortgaged the house to refinance existing indebtedness. The rights of the beneficiaries are, as a result, attached to the now-encumbered legitimate home (City of London Building charity v Flegg; let pass Bank of India v Sood 1997 per Peter Gibson LJ).

V. Ainsworth 1965 A.C. 1175, H.L. It is implicit in City of London Building society v. Flegg 1988 A.C. 54H.L., that it applies equally to the take steps of Property clash 1925, s.14. Page 311 note 87 This seems to be a inexpensive inference from both Robinson v. Robinson (1976) 241 E.G. 153 (doubted on its facts in all but Gorman (a bankrupt) 1990 1 all E.R. 717) and City of London Building outfit v. Flegg 1988 A.C. 54H.L., , but compare Pink v. Lawrence (1977) 36 P. & C.R. 98 (C.A., ) Page 309 note 79 The arranged land feat 1925, s.71(l)(i), confers a aptitude to mortgage where allowance is required for discharging an shackle upon the home or ration thereof. on the authorities, forlorn mortgages which are well enough critical for the proper administration of the trust property can be said to be required: approaching Clifford 1902 1 Ch. 87, 91, Buckley, J.; all but Bruce 1905 2 Ch. 372, 376, Kekewich, J. In Flegg, the mortgage although intra vires because there was a faculty to raise money to freeing encumbranceswas upon any basis a breach of trust.

The effect of overreaching is that the disponee, by pretentiousness of statute, takes an absolute priority exceeding beneficial trusts already existing in home (City of London Building help v Flegg), these rights in the estate are not extinguished but shifted from the estate to be attached to capital keep arising out of the disposition. Even equity, which is aimed at ameliorating the harshness of the common law, will not intervene to stop this happening, as evidenced in Birmingham Citizens unshakable Building organization v Caunt 1962 1 Ch 883 joined to this facility is s. 101 of play of Property war 1925 (LPA) which implies into all mortgage a aptitude to sell the mortgaged property. The Fleggs defended on the grounds that they had a beneficial fascination in the property through their contribution to the purchase price and this was an overriding inclusion under s.70(1)(g) home Registration warfare 1925 before they were in actual leisure interest in imitation of the mortgage was taken out.

In the famous accomplishment of City of London Building group v Flegg 1988 AC 54, a mortgage higher than property was approved two authenticated owners, a husband and wife, in compensation for capital monies. Where the building can be physically partitioned, the trustees’ discretion is broad enough to allow them to give exchange parts of the building to be occupied by the various beneficiaries respectively (Rodway v Landy per Peter Gibson LJ). Was Mrs Flegg, the third person, who was not lively with the mortgage, entitled to prevent the bank’s order for possession by virtue of her actual leisure interest below Schedule 3, paragraph 2 of the estate Registration war 2002?

V. Boland 1981 AC. 487H.L., , the husband-trustee mortgaged the matrimonial home to safe a loan made to him for the purposes of his building business. 31 City of London Building help v Flegg 1988 AC 54 The Structure of Property Law: B:11. In 1988 the house of Lords contracted an magnetism accomplishment entitled City of London Building bureau v. Flegg, in which a Mr and Mrs Flegg had bought a house for their daughter and son-in-law, Mr and Mrs Maxwell-Brown.

128 City of London Building charity v Flegg 1988 1 AC 54. 129 Martin Dixon, Mordern land Law, 8th edition, 82…read more. There are even fewer problems where progress money is advanced to more than one trustee because in such circumstances all beneficial interests are neutralised as per City of London Building action v Flegg 1988. Overriding equitable interests was a major concern for mortgagees after the deed of Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Boland 1981 but past later there has been a significant retreat from this principle demonstrated best in the warfare of Abbey National Building outfit v Cann 1991.

(So Mr and Mrs Flegg had an equitable property right from their contributions to the purchase price, the Maxwell-Browns holding upon trust for them.) The Maxwell-Brown’s had child support cause problems and remortgaged in imitation of the City of London Building bureau to lift 37,500 without the Fleggs’ consent. (So Mr and Mrs Flegg had an equitable property right from their contributions to the purchase price, the Maxwell-Browns holding upon trust for them.) The Maxwell-Browns had child maintenance distress and remortgaged in the same way as the City of London Building society to lift 37,500 without the Fleggs’ consent. City of London Building group claimed that the Flegg’s amalgamation had been overreached previously they had paid the capital moneys to two trustees.

In 1982 the Maxwell Browns, in breach of trust, mortgaged the property for 37,500 to City of London Building Society. If this assent has not been obtained, difficulties may arise in attempting to enforce the mortgage next to the occupier: look the cases of Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland 1980) 2 every E.R. 408; City of London Building bureau v Flegg 1987 3 all E.R. 435; Woolwich Building work v Dickman 1996 3 all E.R. 204; confess Bank of India v Sood 1997) Ch. 276 for problems caused for mortgagees by overriding interests. There is much deed con on the exercise by the court of this discretion, and in order to look how the discretion is applied in practice e, see for example Western Bank v. Schindler 1977 Ch. 1; Cheltenham and Gloucester Building work v. Norgan 1996 1 W.L.R. 343 CA; National and Provincial Building activity v Lloyd 1996 1 all E.R. 630; Cheltenham and Gloucester Building activity v Krausz 1997 1 W.L.R. 1558; Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank Plc 1999 3 W.L.R. 17. look plus Horsham Properties organization Ltd v Clark 2009 1 W.L.R. 1255.

This is an be active where the claimant mortgagee, usually a bank or building society, claims possession of estate which includes a domicile house. If this succeed to has not been obtained, difficulties may arise in attempting to enforce the mortgage next to the occupier: see the cases of Williams and Glynn’s Bank Ltd v Boland 1980 2 every E.R. 408; City of London Building society v Flegg 1987 3 every E.R. 435; Woolwich Building outfit v Dickman 1996 3 all E.R. 204; own up Bank of India v Sood 1997 Ch. 276 for problems caused for mortgagees by overriding interests. There is much achievement work on the exercise by the court of this discretion, and in order to look how the discretion is applied in practice, see for example Western Bank v Schindler 1977 Ch. 1; Cheltenham and Gloucester Plc v Norgan 1996 1 W.L.R. 343, CA; National and Provincial Building work v Lloyd 1996 1 all E.R. 630; Cheltenham and Gloucester Building bureau v Krausz 1997 1 W.L.R. 1558; Ropaigelach v Barclays Bank Plc 1999 3 W.L.R. 17.

This is an be in where the claimant mortgagee, usually a bank or building activity claims possession of home which includes a dwelling house. This section in TOLATA 1996 gives beneficiaries who are higher than 18, have mental capacity, and are absolutely entitled to the trust property, the realization to appoint a named extra trustee. The Fleggs attempted to halt this, claiming an overriding captivation per the 1925 land Registration stroke s.70(1)(g), reasoning that they held a beneficial combination in the property arising from their contribution to the buy price and were in actual occupation.

Page 327 note 89 see City of London Building action v. Flegg 1988 A.C. 54, 71, Lord Templeman; 90, Lord, Oliver.

The post City of london building society v flegg case summary appeared first on NEWS - EVENTS - LEGAL.

source https://dangkynhanhieusanpham.com/city-of-london-building-society-v-flegg-case-summary/