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.
Trusts - From: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Coulthard v Disco Mix Club Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 707
2000
CA
Trusts
The expression "constructive trustee" creates a trap.This "type of trust is merely the creation by the court . . to meet the wrongdoing alleged: there is no real trust and usually no chance of a proprietary remedy."
1 Citers
Breadner v Granville-Grossman [2000] 4 All ER 705; [2000] EWHC Ch 224
2000
ChD
Park J
Trusts
"it cannot be right, whenever trustees do something which they later regret and think they ought not to have done, they can say they never did it in the first place"
It was not correct to suggest that whenever trustees do something which they later regret and think that they ought not to have done, then they can say that they never did it in the first place. However: "the main ways at present open to the court to control the application of the principle are: (a) to insist on a stringent application of the tests as they have been laid down, (b) to take a reasonable and not over-exigent view of what it is that the trustees ought to have taken into account, and (c) to adopt a critical approach to contentions that the trustees would have acted differently if they had realised the true position."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby [2000] 2 BCLC 734; [2000] EWHC 1560 (Ch); [2000] 2 BCLC 734
2000
ChD
Rimer J
Company, Trusts, Torts - Other
The plaintiff made a large number of claims against a former director, Mr Dalby, for misappropriating its funds. These included a claim for an account of a secret profit which Mr Dalby was said to have been procured to be paid by a third party, Balfour Beatty, to a BVI company under his control called Burnstead. Held: Mr Dalby was accountable for the money received by Burnstead, on the ground that the latter was "in substance little other than Mr Dalby's offshore bank account held in a nominee name", and "simply . . the alter ego through which Mr Dalby enjoyed the profit which he earned in breach of his fiduciary duty to ACP." An account was ordered against both Mr Dalby and Burnstead.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman; CA 21-Jan-2000 - Times, 26 January 2000; Gazette, 03 February 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 5
Houghton and Others v Fayers and Another Times, 09 February 2000
9 Feb 2000
CA
Trusts
A party could be held liable as a constructive trustee in respect of moneys received in breach of trust, even if there was no finding of actual dishonesty against him. The requirements were to show the payment in breach of a fiduciary duty, the traceability of the funds, and the knowledge of the recipient that the funds were paid to him in breach of a fiduciary duty.
Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another Gazette, 10 February 2000; Times, 17 February 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 18; [2002] 2 All ER 117; [2000] EWCA Civ 3016; [2000] 2 WLR 772; [2000] Ch 372
10 Feb 2000
CA
Chadwick LJ
Trusts, Equity, Company
Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture. Held: Although there was no formal agreement, the first company had allowed its position to be worsened relying upon the expectation which the second party had allowed to arise, and had not informed the claimant before the purchase of its intention not to honour the agreement. At the date of exchange: "It is clear, therefore, that, to Banner's knowledge, exchange of contracts was to occur, and did occur, before the parties were signed up to any formal written agreement. It is equally clear that Luff had given Banner to understand that it was content to exchange contracts without requiring any form of separate guarantee committing Banner to contribute one half of the costs of the net site and that the reason for this was that the mutual rights and obligations of the parties would be set out in the shareholder agreement. It is also clear that both sides intended to enter into the shareholder agreement as soon as possible, the only reason for the delay being Mr. Vass's absence on holiday. At no stage was any indication given that reasons existed why the agreement should not be entered into. Specifically nothing was said on either side to indicate that any difference of principle existed which would prevent the parties from agreeing terms."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire and Another Gazette, 16 March 2000; Times, 21 March 2000; [2000] 1 FLR 973; [2001] Ch 743; [2000] EWHC Ch 452
25 Feb 2000
ChD
Neuberger J
Land, Banking, Trusts
The claimant had an equitable charge over the property, and sought a possession order after failures to keep up repayments. The order was sought under the Act, and the claimants asserted that the conditions for the grant of possession were unchanged. Held: Parliament had clearly intended a change. The interests of a chargee ranked alongside those of, for example, children living in the house. This might act to the detriment of banks, and the old authorities, whilst not entirely irrelevant, should be viewed with caution. Where the parties have reached a consensus on the beneficial interests in the property, the court will give effect to it, unless there is very good reason for not doing so, such as a subsequent renegotiation.
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14 15 - Law of Property Act 1925 30
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Federal Bank of the Middle East v Hadkinson and Others; CA 16-Mar-2000 - Times, 16 March 2000; Gazette, 23 March 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1695
Adam and Company International Trustees Ltd and Others v Theodore Goddard (A firm) Times, 17 March 2000; Gazette, 30 March 2000
17 Mar 2000
ChD
Trusts
It was not possible for two trustees to retire, and be replaced by and leaving only one trustee, not being a trust corporation. The two trustees were not therefore discharged from the trust, and the solicitors who had advised them in the exercise had been negligent. A discharge of the second trustee could only be obtained via section 39.
Trustee Act 1925 36 39
X v A, B, C [2000] EWHC Ch 121
29 Mar 2000
ChD
Land, Nuisance, Environment, Trusts
Trustees sought guidance from the court as to investment in land which might become a liability because of clean up costs associated with the Act when it came into force. Would the trustees have a lien over other property of the deceased to pay the costs? Held: A trustee has a lien over the trust fund for his proper costs and expenses extending to an indemnity against all future liabilities of the trustee as such. The wide powers of investment did not displace the duty to act with prudence and fairly as between the beneficiaries. Whilst the trustees may not be obliged to act under the direction of the beneficiaries it remained proper to require the trustees to consult with them on such decisions.
Environmental Protection Act 1990
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Wight and another v Olswang Times, 18 April 2000; Gazette, 05 May 2000
18 Apr 2000
ChD
Trusts, Financial Services
When assessing the actions of a trustee in making investment decisions, the presence of breaches of trust did not require any higher standard of decision making, and no claim by disappointed beneficiaries could succeed without showing that the decision was one which no reasonable man of ordinary prudence in that trustees circumstances of knowledge and background could have made.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Foskett v McKeown and Others; HL 18-May-2000 - Times, 24 May 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000; [2000] UKHL 29; [2000] 3 All ER 97; [2000] Lloyd's Rep IR 627; [2001] 1 AC 102; [2000] WTLR 667; (1999-2000) 2 ITELR 711; [2000] 2 WLR 1299
Attorney General of the Caymen Islands and others v Even Wahr-Hansen; PC 26-Jun-2000 - Times, 27 July 2000; [2000] UKPC 26; [2001] 1 AC 75; [2000] 3 All ER 642
Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd v McDougall and Others Times, 03 August 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000
27 Jun 2000
ChD
Rimer J
Trusts
The deceased had created a trust with constructive trusts for his four children for life, and protective trusts for remoter issue. The last child had now died, and the initial trust period had expired. The trust provided that at this point the fund was held on trust for the grandchildren and remoter issue who had attained 21 equally and per stirpes. A grandchild was 21 at the date of the settlement but died without issue before the trust period expired. The court was asked whether his interest had vested and was to take a share. Held: Once a deed created an apparent vested interest, clear words would be required to convert the same gift into a contingent one. A gift to grandchildren who had attained the age of 21 years, created vested interests. It did not create an interest contingent on them surviving the trust period. No sufficient words had been used in the trust to create a double contingency, and the requirement was to either survive the trust period or to attain the age of 21, but did not require both.
1 Cites
Melville and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners; ChD 27-Jun-2000 - Times, 27 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000
Walker and others v Stones and others Times, 26 September 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 864
19 Jul 2000
CA
Sir Christopher Slade
Company, Legal Professions, Trusts, Equity, Vicarious Liability
Beneficiaries under a trust sought damages from a solicitor trustee, and the firm of which he was a partner. Held: Where a trustee acted in breach of trust in a claimed belief that he was acting in the interests of the beneficiaries, but no reasonable trustee in his place could have that belief, then an allegation against him of dishonesty should proceed. A trusteeship is not part of the normal duties of a partner of a firm, and the firm is not vicariously liable for the acts of a partner in such trusts. The court rejected the 'Robin Hood' test of dishonesty (a person is only regarded as dishonest if he transgresses his own standard of honesty, even if that standard is contrary to that of reasonable and honest people) saying: "A person may in some cases act dishonestly, according to the ordinary use of language, even though he genuinely believes that his action is morally justified. The penniless thief, for example, who picks the pocket of the multi-millionaire is dishonest even though he genuinely considers that theft is morally justified as a fair redistribution of wealth and that he is not therefore being dishonest."
"a claimant is entitled to recover damages where:
(a) the claimant can establish that the defendant's conduct has constituted a breach of some legal duty owed to him personally (whether under the law of contract, torts, trusts or any other branch of the law) AND
(b) on its assessment of the facts, the Court is satisfied that such breach of duty has caused him personal loss, separate and distinct from any loss that may have been occasioned to any corporate body in which he may be financially interested.
I further conclude that, if these two conditions are satisfied, the mere fact that the defendant's conduct may also have given rise to a cause of action at the suit of a company in which the claimant is financially interested (whether directly as a shareholder or indirectly as, for example, a beneficiary under a trust) will not deprive the plaintiff of his cause of action; in such a case, a plea of double jeopardy will not avail the defendant."
1 Citers
Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman; HL 20-Jul-2000 - Times, 21 July 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2000] UKHL 39; [2000] 3 All ER 961; [2000] 3 WLR 529; [2002] 1 AC 408; [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 99; [2000] Pens LR 249; [2000] OPLR 101
D'Abo v Paget and Others (No 2) Gazette, 05 October 2000; Times, 10 August 2000
10 Aug 2000
ChD
Trusts, Wills and Probate, Costs
Where a beneficiary having brought successful action against the trust fund, the rule in In re Buckton should still apply, but where the trustees could have brought the same action themselves, and had been ready and willing to do so, the beneficiary should not be awarded costs out of the trust fund. Under the new procedure, the court should take a more robust attitude to such claims. In effect the sole reason for the claimant's participation was to make a claim for costs if the trustees failed.
Bath and Wells Diocesan Board of Finance and Another v Jenkinson and Others; ChD 6-Sep-2000 - Times, 06 September 2000; Gazette, 05 October 2000
Lohia and Another v Lohia; ChD 7-Sep-2000 - Gazette, 07 September 2000
T Choithram International S A and Others v Lalibai Thakurdas Pagarani and Others Times, 30 November 2000; [2000] UKPC 46; (Appeal No 53 of 1998)
29 Nov 2000
PC
Trusts, Charity
(British Virgin Islands) A gift in trust, once vested in one trustee was complete even though it might later be required to vest the property in other trustees also. Unless there were other factors to suggest that he not had intended an immediate gift, the gift was completed once vested in any one of the trustees. A donor made gifts of substantial shareholdings to a foundation, but died before other trustees were registered as shareholders. There were was nothing in the donor's behaviour to suggest that the gift was in any way revocable. If it was intended to be immediate and unconditional, a need for later acts to effect the transfer into further trustees names did not mean that the gift had not been completed.
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
Wight and Wight v Olswang [2000] EWCA Civ 310
7 Dec 2000
CA
Trusts
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]