1) Money which Robert Maxwell embezzled and then gave to his mistress to spend on herself was recovered through constructive trust.

2) Family law principles now allow family home owners to miss repayment so long as they can pay off the mortgage over a reasonable period, and it was recently found that this could be the entire remaining length of the mortgage.

3) Mortgage repossession can be blocked by those with an over-riding interest in the property (e.g., material contribution to purchase price).

4) Withholding of injunction for copyright infringement where freedom of speech affected.

5) Constructive trust of property for benefit of owner where owner duped into transferring it for little/no payment to charlatan who then sells it.

6) Broad interpretation of undue influence and duress in formation of contract.

7) Statutory third party contract rights where contract intended to benefit from contract.

8) Despite elimination of equitable jurisdiction in common mistake (which I entirely agree with) courts still unwilling to adopt standard of mistake only as to existence of subject matter being grounds for rescission. May still grant rescission where only mistake as to quality of subject matter.

9) Promises to perform what are already contractual duties can be valid consideration.

etc. etc. etc. If anything, English law is drowning in excessive discretion being given to judges, especially in property law through the influence of family 'law'.

It seems very reasonable to rule that the husband should ask his wife's opinion before giving away so much money, but why should the mistress need to prove a legitimate reason to ask for money from the husband? If the husband gave away what was not his to give, then surely the wife's first recourse should be to recover the money from him.

The judge ruled that the case was about "improper acquisition" - the use of an active verb describing the mistress's alleged actions could be seen as a bias against her. Did the mistress 'acquire' the money, or did she 'receive' it? Why didn't the judge rule that the case was about "improper distribution"? This would put the responsibility on the husband's actions.

Instead the judge ruled that the husband's actions were "null and void." Perhaps I should try this next time I buy something I don't like - "Sorry, but I paid without my partner's authorisation. My actions must be considered null and void. So here is the item, and give me back all our money, thank you."

As the case is ruling that the main actor - the husband - has no responsibilities, then I'm not sure how this can be considered equitable. The husband and the mistress acted together, yet only one of them suffers for it.

The major lessons to learn here are for mistresses in China:
(1) Make sure that all money given to you by your lover can not be recovered by a court.
(2) Make the split from your lover as amicable as possible, so that he has less reason to want to sue you later.
(3) If you aren't already a mistress, but thinking about it, just don't. It'll be nice for the ride, but the landing will be very very rough.