The first defendant solicitor misappropriated money from an estate he was administering. The beneficiaries later commenced proceedings against his wife, alleging knowing assistance. She said that that claim was out of time. The claimant responded said that any limitation period was disapplied as ‘any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was party’.
Held: The defendant was only a trustee by construction, and the section applied only to those expressly trustees. However, the running of time only began when a beneficiary’s interest in a trust ceased to be a future interst, and also only at a time when the beneficiary might with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud. On that background, the claim was not barred.
Richard Sheldon, QC
Times 23-Jan-2007, [2006] EWHC 3130 (Ch), [2007] 2 All ER 1086, [2007] Ch 353
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 21(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Cattley and Another v Pollard ChD 6-Jul-2007
The estate had been defrauded by theis solicitor. The proceeds had been used toward the purchase of a property. The defendant had first been the solicitor’s secretary and had become his wife, and transferee of the property. She denied that she had . .
Cited – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 8-Apr-2011
The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He brought a claim against the bank, saying that they knew or ought to have known of the fraudster’s activities, and were liable. The Bank denied that the UK courts had . .
Cited – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria SC 19-Feb-2014
Bank not liable for fraud of customer
The appellant sought to make the bank liable for a fraud committed by the Bank’s customer, the appellant saying that the Bank knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The court was asked whether a party liable only as a dishonest assistant was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts, Limitation, Torts – Other, Equity
Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.248263