Certain businesses and property were held on trusts for the benefit of the Claimant’s creditors, with the Defendant the trustee. The estate was re-conveyed to the Plaintiff and the re-conveyance contained a recital that the Plaintiff’s debts had been paid. At that stage a detailed account was not required and not long afterwards the trustee destroyed all the books of account. The Plaintiff then alleged that the trustee had acted fraudulently and brought a claim for fraud and an account on the basis of wilful default. Those elements of the claim were not pursued and the Plaintiff now sought only an order for a common account.
Held: A court had a discretion under Order 55 rule 10, to decline to make an order for an account and although Cozens-Hardy J felt ‘unable to acquit the defendant of some misconduct’ declined to make an order to direct a common account from 1887 – 1896 as to do so ‘ . . would be to enable the plaintiff to blackmail the defendant.’
Judges:
Cozens-Hardy J
Citations:
[1900] 1 Ch 225
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Henchley and Others v Thompson ChD 16-Feb-2017
The Claimants sought an order directing the Defendant to provide a full account of his dealings with the assets of the two trusts as a trustee or as a de facto trustee.
Held: The court has a discretion whether or not to make an order for an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.608335