Rae v Meek: HL 1889

The beneficiaries under a trust created by a marriage contract sued a trustee for having lost trust money which had been lent on the security of unfinished houses in a building speculation. The trustee was held liable to restore the trust fund. The beneficiaries also sued the trustees’ solicitor, who had advised the trustee that there was no objection to the investment. Lord Herschell dealt with the liability of the solicitor, by re-stating the rule that in the exceptional case of a failure by trustees to act, ‘the beneficiaries might compel them to do so, or even enforce the right themselves.’ He went on to say that no such question (that is, of a failure by trustees to act) was raised by the averments in relation to the claim in that case by the beneficiaries against the solicitor, who (in any event) was not liable because he had not been retained by the trustees to advise on the sufficiency of the security.
Lord Herschell
(1889) 14 App Cas 558
Cited by:
CitedRoberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 May 2021; Ref: scu.415973