swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Equity - From: 1993 To: 1993
This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
National Westminster Bank plc v Skelton (Note); 1993 - [1993] 1 WLR 72
Famous Army Stores v Meehan [1993] 1 EGLR 73
1993
Steyn J
Landlord and Tenant, Equity
1 Citers
El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Plc and Another Times, 03 January 1993; [1993] 3 All ER 717
3 Jan 1993
ChD
Millett J
Company, Equity
A non active director may still be company's 'directing mind'. The doctrine of attributing the actions of individuals to a company is that "Their minds are its mind; their intention its intention; their knowledge its knowledge."
Tracing was no longer available at common law because funds received had become mixed with others, but the remedy remained available in equity.
1 Citers
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council; Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Sandwell Borough Council; ChD 23-Feb-1993 - Independent, 25 February 1993; Times, 23 February 1993; [1994] 4 All ER 890
Baker v Baker and Another; CA 23-Feb-1993 - Gazette, 07 April 1993; Independent, 06 April 1993; Times, 23 February 1993
in Re Pavlou (A Bankrupt); ChD 17-Mar-1993 - Gazette, 17 March 1993; [1993] 1 WLR 1046; [1993] 3 All ER 955
Tinsley v Milligan; HL 28-Jun-1993 - Independent, 06 July 1993; Times, 28 June 1993; [1994] 1 AC 340; [1993] UKHL 3; [1993] 3 WLR 126; [1993] 3 All ER 65
Cheese v Thomas Independent, 30 August 1993; Times, 24 August 1993; [1994] 1 WLR 129
24 Aug 1993
CA
Lord Nicholls Vice Chancellor
Undue Influence, Equity
A transaction entered into was manifestly disadvantageous to him. After a finding of undue influence, losses on the sale of a property are to be shared by both parties, so as to restore the parties to their original positions as near as might be.
1 Citers
Connaught Restaurants Ltd v Indoor Leisure Ltd; CA 17-Sep-1993 - Gazette, 16 February 1994; Independent, 17 September 1993; Times, 27 July 1993; [1994] 1 WLR 501
Re Dorman (Dec) Smith v NCH and Orphanage Reg'd and Others Gazette, 23 February 1994; Times, 11 November 1993
11 Nov 1993
ChD
Equity
Trust fund traced to new account opened by agent and still subject to legacy.
Trust fund traced to new account and still subject to legacy.
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns and Another Independent, 03 December 1993; Times, 24 November 1993; [1994] 1 WLR 1089
24 Nov 1993
CA
Peter Gibson LJ
Legal Professions, Trusts, Equity
Solicitors were liable to mortgagees for mortgage monies which had been out by them paid in advance of the completion of the purchase which would allow the mortgagee's loan to be charged. The basic liability of a trustee in breach of trust was not to pay damages, but to restore to the trust fund that which had been lost to it or to pay compensation to the beneficiary for what he had lost. If a trustee wrongly paid away trust monies to a stranger, there was an immediate loss to the trust fund and the trustee came under an immediate duty to restore the monies to the trust fund. The remedies of equity were sufficiently flexible to require the finance company to give credit for monies received on the subsequent realisation of its security, but otherwise the solicitors' liability was to pay the whole of the monies wrongly paid away.
Peter Gibson LJ said: "The remedy afforded to the beneficiary by equity is compensation in the form of restitution of that which has been lost to the trust estate, not damages. "
Ralph Gibson LJ (dissenting) held that it was necessary for the court to examine the nature of the relationship between the parties out of which the solicitors' equitable duty arose. If, having regard to the relationship and its purpose, the obligations of the parties, its purpose and the obligations of the parties within it, it appeared just to regard the breaches as having caused no loss, because the loss would have happened if there had been no breach, the court should so hold.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid and Others Gazette, 26 January 1994; Independent, 24 November 1993; Times, 12 November 1993; [1994] 1 AC 324; [1993] UKPC 2
24 Nov 1993
PC
Lord Templeman
Equity, Trusts, Commonwealth
Bribes were taken by an employee, a crown prosecutor in Hong Kong, in a fraud on his employer. He then invested the proceeds in the purchase of property in New Zealand. The property had increased in value. The employer sought repayment of the bribes received from the properties purchased. Held: The employer had a proprietary interest both in the bribe and in the asset substituted for it. Thus the property belonged in equity to the employer. The first stage in the analysis was the decision that the bribe itself was trust property. The second stage in the analysis was simply the application of the process of tracing the value of the bribe into the asset that had been substituted for it. A fiduciary office holder who accepted a bribe holds both the original sum, and any increase in its value, on a constructive trust for the person to whom he owed that fiduciary duty. Bribery is an evil practice which threatens the foundations of any civilised society. It corrupts not only the recipient but the giver of the bribe. "property acquired by a trustee innocently but in breach of trust and the property from time to time representing the same belong in equity to the cestui que trust and not to the trustee personally":
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Ltd Times, 03 January 1994; [1994] 2 All ER 685; [1993] EWCA Civ 4; [1994] BCC 143; [1994] 1 BCLC 464
2 Dec 1993
CA
Nourse, Rose, Hoffmann LJJ
Company, Equity, Torts - Other, Trusts
The court was asked whether, for the purposes of establishing a company's liability under the knowing receipt head of constructive trust, the knowledge of one of its directors can be treated as having been the knowledge of the company. Held: The company was fixed with the knowledge of its part-time chairman and a non-executive director, because he had acted as its directing mind and will for the particular purpose of arranging its receipt of the tainted funds. It was sufficient that the director had management and control so far as the receipt of the fraud was concerned, having made arrangements for the receipt and disposal of the money, even though he had no general managerial responsibility in the company.
Hoffmann LJ set out the ingredients of knowing receipt: "For this purpose the plaintiff must show, first a disposal of his assets in breach of fiduciary duty; secondly, the beneficial receipt by the defendant of assets which are traceable as representing the assets of the plaintiff; and thirdly, knowledge on the part of the defendant that the assets are traceable to a breach of fiduciary duty."
When asking who was the controlling mind of a company, the relevant test is to find the person who had management and control in relation to the act or omission in point. The formal position or status as a director is relevant but not decisive. A "pragmatic" approach is necessary: "Decided cases show that, in regard to the requisite status and authority, the formal position, as regulated by the company's articles of association, service contracts and so forth, though highly relevant, may not be decisive. Here Millett J adopted a pragmatic approach. In my view he was right to do so, although it has led me, with diffidence, to a conclusion different from his own" and " . . different persons may for different purposes satisfy the requirements of being the company's directing mind and will. " The court considered the ingredients of the tort of 'knowing receipt': "For this purpose the plaintiff must show, first, a disposal of his assets in breach of fiduciary duty; secondly, the beneficial receipt by the defendant of assets which are traceable as representing the assets of the plaintiff; and thirdly, knowledge on the part of the defendant that the assets he received are traceable to a breach of fiduciary duty." (Hoffmann LJ)
Nourse LJ said: "The doctrine attributes to the company the mind and will of the natural person or persons who manage and control its actions. At that point, in the words of Millett J ([1993] 3 ALL ER 717 at 740): "Their minds are its mind; their intention its intention; their knowledge its knowledge." It is important to emphasise that management and control is not something to be considered generally or in the round. It is necessary to identify the natural person or persons having management and control in relation to the act or omission in point. This was well put by Eveleigh J in . . R v Andrews Weatherfoil Ltd . .
Decided cases show that, in regard to the requisite status and authority, the formal position, as regulated by the company's articles of association, service contracts and so forth, though highly relevant, may not be decisive. Here Millett J adopted a pragmatic approach. In my view he was right to do so, although it has led me, with diffidence, to a conclusion different from his own."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council; CA 30-Dec-1993 - Gazette, 23 February 1994; Independent, 05 January 1994; Times, 30 December 1993; [1994] 4 All ER 890; [1994] 1 WLR 938
