Definitions and Statutory Basis
Bills of Exchange Act 1882, s 20 (2) (inchoate instrument).
Averment of Non Est Factum
AVERMENT. In pleading . A positive statement of facts, in opposition to argument or inference. In old pleading. An offer to prove a plea, or pleading. The concluding part of a plea, replication, or other pleading, containing new affirmative matter, by which the party offers or declares himself “ready to verify.”
Estate, Distress, and Replevin Principles
The Ecclesiastical Celtic Theatre Group can receive on behalf of the rate payers, owners and occupiers people of ‘Real Burden’ of land as the “Proprietor in the Estate in Fee Simple, being under a debt of ‘Distress’. Their assets through the ‘Right of Entry’, can be detained under a “Replevin Bond”, to be certified under a ‘Consideration of a higher intrinsic value of a ‘Certiorai Bill’, that is capable to invoke the power of the Chancery.
When a Local Government authority purports to exercise powers under a section of a legislative act, but where Ultra Vires can be determined, the act will continue to threaten and intend unless it be restrained by an Office with the laws of Extent.
A Declaration is required, as to where the Corporate council is not entitled to carry on business where it being Ultra Vires, to extend or derive any further rate fund from rates. An Injunction is then in turn required to ‘restrain council’ to carry on business from using funds of rate payers. The Corporate defence to an injunction that acts complained off, is one that were authorised by statute, but where a statute authorising a special user of common law for clearly defined purpose will not cover a user outside such purpose: Trespass applies! A mere lapse of time alone will not prevent the courts from granting an injunction in aid of a legal right, which has been established, and which is not itself barred by lapse of time.
A ‘right of action of ‘Replevin’ lies, where goods (rates) have been unlawfully taken out of possession of the owner under a “Distress”, by an instrument upon giving a fraud (fiat) security. A judgement in ‘Replevin’ is a bar to a subsequent action for trespass to goods that become an ‘Injury to credit and reputation’, by the purpose to establish the “Distress”. A corporation have in respect of their property the same (statute) legal right as individuals, but not in respect to their reputation. They can hardly be said to have any reputation apart from their “receipt of” property or trade. An action will in general lie against a corporation for a wrong which it causes to be committed; e.g. for ‘Injury to credit and reputation’, a trespass to the person, or to land, or goods, or a conversion or “detention of goods”, or for an arbitrary malicious prosecution.
Operation of Non Est Factum
The Averment of Non est factum is not available to anyone who signs a document without taking the trouble to find out at least its general effect, not is it available to a person who is really a mistake as to the legal effect of the document. In order that the Averment should succeed, there must be a radical or fundamental difference between what the person signed and what he thought he was signing or when the transaction which the document purports to effect is essentially different in substance or in kind from the transaction intended. Non est factum applies where one denies that he signed the document purporting to be a Bills of Exchange referred to in the Statement of Claim or that he accepted or indorsed the said Bills of Exchange as therein alleged, or at all; or by the alternative he did so in reliance upon the false and fraudulent representation made to him by – Local Government Corporation – that it was a guarantee to enable the –Local Government Corporation- to obtain an advance of money from ‘foreign’ bankers and in the belief that it was such a guarantee and not otherwise, without knowing that it was a Bill of Exchange and without any negligence on his own part.
n order to avoid an executed agreement, fraud (or mutual mistake) must be alleged and proved “and it [the agreement] is invalid, not merely on the ground of fraud, where fraud exists, but in the ground that the mind of the signer did not accompany the signature”- Ultra Vires.
The transition of a non est factum can within a Statement of Claim that one denies or at all repudiation of the said contract or of the Corporation acts and conduct alleged in the amounted repudiation by him of the said contract as therein alleged. If not denied, the Corporation acts and of the repudiation of the actors of the said act, did not within reasonable time at all accept such repudiation but on the contrary elected to treat the said contract as still binding and operative, and is accordingly not entitled herein to rely upon such repudiation.
Wilson and Meeson v. Pickering [1946] 1 K.B. 422 at 427, where Lord Greene M.R. said: “the rule that a person who signs an instrument in blank cannot be heard, as against a person who has changed his position on the face of it, assert that the instrument as filled in is a forgery, or that it was filled in excess of the agent’s authority, is confined to the case of negotiable instruments”.
For the purpose of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, s 20 (2) (inchoate instrument), a bill or note is not negotiable unless it is transferred by one holder to another (Herdman V. Wheeler [1902] 1 K.B. 361, distinguished in Lloyds Bank v. Cooke [1907] 1 K.B. 794, where the maker was estopped from denying the validity of his note;
Recovery, Remedies, and Mistakes
Under the Statute of Frauds, one can enforce by recover of merely on (Ecclesiastical Celtic Theatre Group) account. Any money paid by reason of ignorance or mistake of fact, or through excusable forgetfulness of a fact, may be recovered back as money received to the use of the plaintiff. The tendency is to adopt the equitable rule and relieve against mistake of law as well as mistake of fact. Their assets through the ‘Right of Entry’, can be detained under a “Replevin Bond”, to be certified under a ‘Consideration of a higher intrinsic value of a ‘Certiorai Bill’, that is capable to invoke the power of the Chancery.
Locus poenitentise. a place for repentance; an opportunity for changing one’s mind; a chance to withdraw from a contemplated bargain or contract before it results in a definite contractual liability. Also used of a “chance” afforded to a person, by the circumstances, of relinquishing the intention which he has formed to commit a crime, before the perpetration there of.
Where money has been paid by one under duress to his person or his goods the money may be recovered back, where the money was paid to recover title deeds wrongfully retained; so also where a mortgagor has paid money to a mortgagee beyond what is justly due to prevent a threatened sale, or to obtain a transfer or assignment of the mortgage; so also money may be recovered which has been exacted by other kinds of oppression or extortion, or by abuse of legal process. A full Statement of Claim (Treaty of Innocence) will sometimes be necessary, but it will often be sufficient to set forth the circumstances relied upon the pleading. Remedies depend upon the ‘substance of the right’, not on whether they can be fitted in a particular framework.
Reversions and Property Actions
A person who is entitled to an “estate in reversion”, by an extension of its meaning, one who is entitled to any future estate or any property in expectancy can bring an action for an injury of a permanent character done to land or buildings, although the damage may be remedied before the reversion came into possession. Many instances may be given of cases in which a reversioner is entitled to claim damages during the continuance of the term or prior interests, e.g. obstructing a Right of Way – Right to Light caveat!.
Supreme Court Rules and Pleadings
By the revision of the Rules of Supreme Court 1965 provided the opportunity to codify and consolidate procedures of the Supreme Court being decanted into one Order, R.S.C., Order 18, preserves substantially intact the system of pleadings prevailing since the Judicature Acts 1873- 1875.
Ord 21, r.3. In action for a debt or liquidation demand in money “a defence in denial must deny such matters of fact, from which the liability of the defendant is alleged to arise, as are disputed, e.g. in action for goods bargained and sold or sold and delivered, the defence must deny the order or contract, the delivery or the amount claimed; in an action for money had and received, it must deny the receipt of the money or the existence of those facts which are alleged to make such receipt by the defendant a receipt is used on the plaintiff.
REPLICATION. In pleading. A reply made by the plaintiff in an action to the defendant’s plea, or in a suit in chancery to the defendant’s answer.
General and special. In equity practice, a general replication is a general denial of the truth of defendant’s plea or answer, and of the sufficiency of the matter alleged in it to bar the plaintiff’s suit, and an assertion of the truth and sufficiency of the bill. A special replication is occasioned by the defendant’s introducing new matter into his plea or answer, which makes it necessary for the plaintiff to put in issue some additional fact on his part in avoidance of such new matter.
Probate, High Court, Admiralty, and Commercial Actions
In Probate Action the plaintiff (Ecclesiastical Celtic Theatre Group) must serve a Statement of Claim (Treaty of Innocence) on every defendant who enters an appearance in the action, must do so before the expiration of six weeks after entry of appearance of an affidavit of testamentary scripts. If the defendant alleges, he has a claim or entitled to any relief or remedy which is subject to the action, then he can suit a counter-claim in respect of that matter. If the plaintiff disputes the interests of a defendant, he must alleged in his Statement of Claim (Treaty of Innocence) that he denies the interest of that defendant, and indeed the party who disputes the interest by virtue of which another party claims to be entitled to a grant of letters of administration, must show in his own pleading that if the allegations made therein are proved he himself would be entitled to an interest in the estate. Any party who pleads that at the time when a ‘Will’, the subject of an action, was alleged to have been executed the testator did not know and approve of its content must specify the nature of the case on which he intends support any allegation which would be relevant in support of any other ground of defence such as, that the ‘Will’ was not duly executed, or that at the time of its execution the testator was not of sound mind, memory and understanding (Non est factor),or that its execution was obtained by undue influence or fraud. A Probate court may order the action to be tried on affidavit of evidence.
Pleading in actions in the High Court of Justice is mainly regulated which has force and effect of a statute and which ordinarily apply to all actions begun by a writ in the Queen’s Bench Division, including the Admiralty Court and the Commercial Court and in the Chancery Division.
In Admiralty actions, the general practice is that the pleadings should set out the facts in the fullest detail, where preliminary acts to be opened, it could order actions to be tried without pleadings like a trial of an Admiralty action as short cause by provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894-1965 which limit the amount of liability in connection with a ship or other property
In Commercial action pleadings must be in the form of a claim or reply and must be a brief as possible. No particulars shall be applied but for the necessity to enable the party applying to be informed of the case he has to meet, or to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of any question at issue in the action.
In Chancery action pleading is ordinary less laconic and more informative that pleading a common law action. In actions referred for trial an Official referee’s business s 36 it is common practice for pleadings or particulars of pleadings to be ordered to be served in the form of a “Scott Schedule” which is divided into separate columns setting out the full description of each item in dispute between parties, so as to give full particulars of their respective cases in respect of each item in the issue.
The Doctrine of Non Est Factum: A Doctrinal Summary and Analysis in the Context of Ecclesiastical and Municipal Equity
An averment of non est factum—meaning “it is not my deed”—is a specific legal defence that allows a signer to avoid liability on a written contract or negotiable instrument. Within the context of the document, the Ecclesiastical Celtic Theatre Group invokes this principle—alongside related mechanisms like replevin bonds and challenges under the Bills of Exchange Act—to act on behalf of landowners and ratepayers facing local government “distress.” The doctrine is utilised to argue that corporate and municipal actions are ultra vires, allowing the group to repudiate unauthorised financial instruments, protect assets from unlawful seizure, and restrain councils from misusing ratepayer funds through Chancery powers.
To successfully invoke this defence, the signer must demonstrate a radical, fundamental difference between what they believed they were signing and the actual document they executed, provided there was no negligence on their part. In the context of inchoate instruments, this principle addresses situations where an instrument is signed in blank or filled out in a manner that exceeds authority or distorts the original agreement.
This doctrine serves as a vital equitable shield against fraud, ensuring that a signature cannot be arbitrarily bound to an obligation the signer never mentally or consciously consented to undertake. It draws a strict line between ordinary carelessness (where a signer fails to read a document and must bear the consequence) and true imposition, such as when someone is tricked into signing a financial instrument under the false pretence that it is an entirely different kind of document. By focusing on whether the mind of the signer genuinely accompanied the signature, the defence protects the integrity of commerce while preventing bad-faith actors from enforcing fraudulently altered or unauthorised negotiable instruments against unwitting parties.
