An executrix ran a business which had been left to her and her sister.
Held: She was accountable in principle for profit, though the claim failed for other reasons: ‘What, then, is the proper method of assessing the accountability? Counsel for the defendant submits that one must look to see what is pleaded and what has been proved at the trial. One must then take those assets of the estate, or the benefits which have been so pleaded and proved at the hearing to have flowed to the defendant by reason of her position as a trustee of the estate, and value those benefits. Counsel for the plaintiff says, on the other hand, that that would be an impossible inquiry and that one must make the defendant accountable for the whole business and its profits, making allowances for the time, energy and skill that the defendant has expended, the assets she has brought in, the testator’s debts that she has paid, and, of course, her mother’s annuity.’ there was no general rule, save that a trustee may not make a profit out of his trust. It all depended on the facts. On the facts, he held that the executrix had reincarnated the testator’s own business, and hence the second method of framing the account was the correct one.
Judges:
Upjohn J
Citations:
[1958] 1 WLR 815, [1958] 2 All ER 336
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230344
