The court considered appeals from from criminal convictions including theft in the course of which it was necessary to consider whether the defendants were trustees of monies passed to their company for the purpose of investment in a particular fund.
Held: Watkins LJ stated that ‘the fact that a transaction contemplates the mingling of funds is . . not necessarily fatal to a trust’, he accepted that the effect of the authorities is that ‘a requirement to keep monies separate is normally an indicator that they are impressed with a trust and . . the absence of such a requirement, if there are no other indicators of a trust, normally negatives it’. He drew attention to the ‘unwillingness by the courts to construe a relationship of trust in commercial transactions, and, second that it is unusual for there to be a trust of funds where the transaction in question does not require segregation of such funds.’
To ascertain whether there had been a dishonest intention, the defendant is to be judged according to whether the defendant was acting dishonestly by the standards of ordinary and decent people (the objective element) and if so whether he himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest (the subjective element).
Judges:
Watkins LJ
Citations:
[1994] 2 All ER 316
Citing:
See Also – Regina v Clowes CCC 1992
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 24-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted involvement by the defendant bank in a fraud perpetrated against him. Jurisdiction had already been admitted for one trust , and now the claimant sought to add two further claims.
Held: ‘None of the gateways to English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Trusts
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.537033
