Tag: Trusts

Lissimore v Downing: ChD 31 Mar 2003

The claimant asserted an estoppel in land registered in the name of the defendant.
Held: Unspecific statements made by the defendant that ‘she would never want for anything’, or that ‘he would take care of her’, or that ‘he had looked after his other girlfriends and she would not be different’ did not found a proprietary estoppel: ‘Such statements do not on their face relate to any specific property, they plainly do not amount to a representation which binds the whole of Mr Downing’s property, and they are not expressed in terms which enable any objective assessment to be made of what is being promised. In this last respect they are to be contrasted with statements made to unpaid or underpaid workers or business partners, encouraged to work on because they would be ‘treated right’, and for whom a commensurate reward could be objectively assessed.’

Judges:

Norris QC J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC B1 (Ch), [2003] 2 FLR 308, [2003] Fam Law 566

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Downing v Lissimore CA 6-Nov-2002
Application for order to reflect interest of cohabiting partner in house. . .

Cited by:

Cited – James v Thomas CA 23-Nov-2007
The claimant sought an interest in the property registered in the sole name of the respondent. The respondent had inherited a share in the property, and then bought out the interests of his siblings with support of a loan. The claimant had made no . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Estoppel

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.263204

Dhanji and Another v Najar and Others: ChD 18 Jan 2017

Claims are for sums due under investment and loan agreements together with necessary accounts and enquiries in respect of sums found to be held on trust and any breach of trust involved and compensation for such breach of trust. Applications for orders debarring certain defendants and for relief from sanctions.

Judges:

Matthews M

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 193 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575341

Dobson v Griffey: ChD 10 May 2018

Claim for a share in the proceeds of sale of a property, based in substance upon the doctrines of constructive trust and/or proprietary estoppel, said to arise out of the conduct of the parties in an intimate personal relationship formerly subsisting between them.

Judges:

HHJ Paul Matthews

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1117 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.616139

RBC Trustees (Ci) Ltd and Others v Stubbs and Others: ChD 7 Feb 2017

Application for rectification or rescission brought by the trustees of a settlement created by the First Defendant Mrs Janatha Stubbs, as to two deeds of revocation and appointment. Each Deed effected a revocation and reappointment of the trusts on which certain shares of a trust fund were held under a settlement. It was said that the Deeds were wrong because they effect a revocation and reappointment of the trusts relating to two of the settlor’s children, whereas they were only intended to effect a rather more limited revocation of certain interests, that is the successive life interests of their then spouses.
Held: The requirements for rectification were met.

Judges:

Rose J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 180 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts, Equity

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573912

Celestial Church of Christ, Edward Street Parish (A Charity) v Lawson: ChD 27 Jan 2017

The church sought inter alia orders to restrain the defendant, its former pastor, from using its name and premises.

Judges:

Hodge QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 97 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 55

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts, Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573840

Khosrowpour v Mackay: SCS 1 Jul 2016

Extra Division, Inner House – ‘Hamid Khosrowpour (the pursuer) seeks damages from the estate of his late mother-in-law (the deceased) on the basis that she failed to honour an agreement that she would leave her house to him in her will. The pursuer offers to prove that in 1989 she agreed to do this in return for payment of andpound;8,000, which allowed her to exercise her right to purchase the house then tenanted by her from the local authority; andpound;800 being referable to legal costs, etc. ‘

Lord Malcolm
[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 50
Bailii

Scotland, Land, Trusts

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566806

Mclaverty v Cassidy: LRA 21 Mar 2016

LRA Application for a Restriction – claim to a beneficial interest in Equity – extent of direct and indirect contributions to justify the claim – HELD – Sufficient evidence of direct contributions to substantiate such a claim – Sufficient evidence of common intention – Land Registry ordered to allow the application for restrictions

[2016] EWLandRA 2015 – 0420
Bailii

Registered Land, Trusts

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564465

Davis (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Jackson) v Jackson and Another: ChD 7 Apr 2017

W and H were at all times estranged. W bought a house, but later, in order to get a mortgage, it was put in their joint names. They later expressly declared equal interests. At no time did H either contribute to or live in the house. On H’s insolvency the claimant receiver sought a share of the house. W argued that this would amount to an unjust enrichment.
Held: ‘the effect of the express declaration of trust in the Trust Deed and the TR1 form was to vest a beneficial interest in property in Mr. Jackson. It is inherent in the nature of a proprietary interest in land that the owner of the interest can sit back and do nothing and yet still be entitled to benefit from any appreciation in the capital value of the property. Accordingly, it cannot be said that, without more, a beneficial co-owner of land who shares in the increased value of the land has thereby been unjustly enriched. The retention of such benefit would not be unjust, because it is what the owner of an interest in property is entitled to.’ and ‘the correct apportionment of the proceeds of sale of the Property would be first to split the net proceeds equally between the Trustee and Mrs. Jackson, and then to give Mrs. Jackson additional credit for one half of all the payments she has made under the mortgage(s) from the date the Property was purchased to the date upon which the Property is sold. There should be no credits in respect of other payments which Mrs. Jackson has made, and no debits in respect of her occupation of the Property.’

Snowden J
[2017] EWHC 698 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 264
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Land, Trusts

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.581730

Crociani and Others v Crociani and Others: PC 26 Nov 2014

(Court of Appeal of the Bailiwick of Jersey ) ‘The principal issue on this appeal is whether proceedings (‘the Proceedings’) brought in the Royal Court of Jersey by Cristiana Crociani (‘Cristiana’) and others (‘the respondents’) against her mother Edoarda Crociani (‘Mme Crociani’) and others (‘the appellants’) should be stayed on the ground that they were brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in clause 12 of a Trust Deed made on 24 December 1987 (‘the 1987 Deed’). The determination of this issue involves resolving the following disputes, namely (i) (a) whether clause 12 of the 1987 Deed (‘clause 12′) is an exclusive jurisdiction clause, and (b) if so, in the events which have happened, whether it confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of Mauritius in respect of the claims made in the Proceedings, and (ii) if so, whether the Proceedings should be stayed. The appellants contend that the answer to these questions is yes, and the respondents argue that it is no.’

Lord Neuberger,Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKPC 41
Bailii, Baiii Summary
England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Trusts

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.539286

Cooke v Head: CA 1972

Lording Denning said: ‘whenever two parties by their joint efforts acquire property to be used for their joint benefit, the courts may impose or impute a constructive or resulting trust. The legal owner is bound to hold the proper on trust for them both. This trust does not need any writing. It can be enforced by an order for sale, but in a proper case the sale can be postponed indefinitely. It applies to husband and wife, to engaged couples, and to man and mistress, and maybe to other relationships too.’

Lord Denning MR
[1972] 2 All ER 38, [1972] 1 WLR 518
England and Wales

Trusts

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.188814

William Morison, of Preston Grange, Esq; v Sir William Scott of Thirlestayn, William Nisbet of Dirleton, and John Scott of Harden, A Minor, By His Guardian: HL 19 Feb 1720

Husband and Wife – A bond, with a clause of annualrent is granted blank in the creditor’s name, but delivered to a wife, during the subsistence of her marriage: the husband entails his real estate on the grantor of the bond, and also conveys to him all his personal estate, but was not privy to said bond; in a competition between the executor of the husband, and the executor of the wife, the husband’s executor is preferred to said bond: and the wife’s executor is ordered to refund what had been paid to her, in her widowhood.
General Disposition – A general disposition of a man’s personal estate, made in favour of one who had, without the husband’s knowledge, granted a bond to the wife did not release this bond.

[1720] UKHL Robertson – 269, (1720) Robertson 269
Bailii
Scotland

Family, Trusts

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553641

Bagum v Hafiz and Another: CA 22 Jul 2015

The land owner appealed from an order of the court as to land held under a co-ownership arrangement between three people. The order was for the sale of the property with the first option being given for the purchase of the property. It was said that the court had no jurisdiction to make such an order under the 1996 Act.
Held: The judge had been correct to make the order and it was within the wide discretion given by the Act.

Lord Dyson MR, Briggs, Bean LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 801, [2015] WLR(D) 329, [2015] 3 WLR 1495, [2016] Ch 241, [2015] Fam Law 1192, [2015] CP Rep 44, [2015] WTLR 1303
Bailii, WLRD
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
England and Wales

Trusts, Land

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550492

Ong and Others v Ping: ChD 17 Jun 2015

The parties disputed the beneficial interests in the proceeds of sale of a substantial property. Litigation had now continued for over twenty years.

Morgan J
[2015] EWHC 1742 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ong and Others v Ping CA 12-Dec-2017
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Land

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550033

Kinch and Another v Bullard and Others: ChD 16 Sep 1998

A notice of severance of a joint tenancy applied to sever the tenancy even though it had not actually been received. It was sufficient that it had been posted and received at the house though intercepted.

Times 16-Sep-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 423
Law of Property Act 1925 36(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Trusts

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.82781

Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co Ltd v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd: CA 1983

The court considered the way that the duty of a director to his company arose: ‘The directors indeed stand in a fiduciary relationship to the company, as they are appointed to manage the affairs of the company and they owe fiduciary duties to the company though not to the creditors, present or future, or to individual shareholders.’ The sole shareholder or the whole body of shareholders may approve a foolish or negligent decision in the ordinary course of business, at least where the company is solvent.

Dillon LJ
[1983] Ch 258
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 . .
Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Trusts

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.230278

In re Douglas: 1928

(New South Wales) The court considered the application of the rule against self dealing as it applied to trustees’ wives: ‘the Court of Equity would presume that the contract was for the benefit of the trustee, and evidence would be required to displace this presumption.’

[1928] 29 SR (NSW) 48
Citing:
Cited – Burrell v Burrell’s Trustees SCS 1915
The Court of Session considered the applicability of the rule against self dealing as it applied to the wives of trustees. The wives in question were wealthy members of the Burrell shipping family who in each case were ‘capable business women . .

Cited by:
Cited – Newgate Stud Company, Newgate Stud Farm Llc v Penfold, Penfold Bloodstock Limited ChD 21-Dec-2004
The claimants sought damages from the defendant. He had been employed to manage their horse-racing activities, and it was alleged that he had made secret profits. The defendant denied any dishonesty, saying all matters were known to the deceased . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Trusts

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.220736

Richards v Dove: ChD 1974

[1974] 1 All ER 888
Cited by:
Applied – Burns v Burns CA 1984
Long Relationship Not Enough for Interest in Home
The parties lived together for 17 years but were not married. The woman took the man’s name, but beyond taking on usual household duties, she made no direct financial contribution to the house. She brought up their two children over 17 years. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Trusts

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.198162

Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed: CA 5 Mar 1992

The land-owner had given his mother power of attorney over his home. Her signature was forged on a transfer, and the transferee executed a charge in favour of the appellant. Transfer and charge were registered. A first line of cases restored the defendant to the title, but the original transfer had been found voidable, and the charge left in effect.

Purchas, Butler-Sloss, Scott LJJ
[1992] EWCA Civ 5, [1993] Ch 116
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Argyle Building Society v Hammond CA 1984
The registered freehold proprietor (S) of a property lived abroad, his mother having power of attorney. His sister and her husband, Mr and Mrs Hammond, had the register altered to show themselves as the freehold proprietors. The primary case was . .

Cited by:
Cited – Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Trusts

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.262622

Harries and Others v Church Commissioners for England and Another: ChD 25 Oct 1991

Trustees Investing using Wider Considerations

The applicant sought a declaration that the Commissioners were obliged to have regard to the object of promoting the Christian faith and not to act in a manner which would be incompatible with that object when managing the assets of which they were trustees. The plaintiffs said that the commissioners, in making investment decisions, attached overriding importance to financial considerations, and that they were only prepared to take non-financial considerations into account to the extent that they did not significantly jeopardise or interfere with accepted investment principles.
Held: The declarations sought were refused. The Church Commissioners were entitled to take ethical considerations into account in forming an investment policy provided there was no risk of detriment to the Trust funds. Ethical investments putting financial return at risk were not open to trustees. Investments should aim for the best return, and be chosen only not to conflict with any express aims of the charity, and should not be used to make moral statements. Trustees must find balance neither bringing their charity into disrepute, nor failing to act with prudence. Such considerations could be allowed provided they did not adversely affect the return.
When property was held by trustees for the purpose of generating money, then prima facie, the purposes of the trust were best served by the trustees seeking to obtain the best return which was consistent with commercial prudence and in most cases, the best interests of the charity required that the trustees’ choice of investments be made solely on the basis of well-established investment criteria. The circumstances in which charity trustees were bound or entitled to make financially disadvantageous investment decisions for ethical considerations were extremely limited and there was no evidence that such circumstances existed in the case before the court. The declaration was refused.
Donald Nicholls VC said: ‘the law is not so cynical as to require trustees to behave in a fashion which would bring them or their charity into disrepute . . on the other hand, trustees must act prudently. They must not use property held by them for investment purposes as a means for making moral statements at the expense of the charity of which they are trustees.’

Sir Donald Nicholls VC
Gazette 11-Nov-1991, [1992] 1 WLR 1241, [1992] 2 All ER 300, [1991] 135 SJLB 180, Times 30-Oct-1991, Independent 29-Oct-1991
England and Wales

Trusts, Equity, Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.81250

Vadim Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Limited: PC 27 Mar 2003

PC (Isle of Man) The petitioner sought disclosure of trust documents, as a beneficiary. Disclosure had been refused as he had not been a named beneficiary.
Held: Times had moved on, and trust documents had taken more and more indirect ways of conferring benefits. The settlements were badly drafted, but that should not be used to excuse a court fulfilling its duties. The right to seek disclosure did not depend upon a fixed and transmissible beneficial interest. The object of a discretion may have similar rights, and the right was not dependant upon establishing a proprietary interest, but the remedy would be in equity and subject to the court’s discretion. A beneficiary of a discretionary trust has a non-assignable and non-transmissible interest in the trust, and has no entitlement as of right to any trust documents or other information relating to the trust in the possession or control of the trustees.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Times 29-Mar-2003, [2003] UKPC 26, Gazette 05-Jun-2003, [2003] 2 AC 709, (2002-03) 5 ITELR 715, [2003] 3 All ER 76, [2003] 2 WLR 1442, [2003] Pens LR 145, [2003] WTLR 565
PC, Bailii, PC
Citing:
Cited – McPhail v Doulton (on appeal from In re Baden’s Deed Trusts) HL 6-May-1970
The settlor asked whether the test for validity, in point of certainty of objects, is the same for trusts and powers, or whether the test for trusts is more demanding.
Held: The test is the same. The context was a provision, held to be a . .
Cited – In re Manisty’s Settlement ChD 1974
The court contrasted the exercise by trustees of an intermediate power with the exercise of a wide special power.
Held: A wide power, whether special or intermediate, does not negative or prohibit a sensible approach by trustees to the . .
Cited – O’Rourke v Darbishire HL 1920
Sir Joseph Whitworth had died in 1887. In 1884 he had made a will appointing three executors and leaving his residuary estate to charity. By a codicil made in 1885 he altered his will to leave his ultimate residue to his executors for their own . .
Cited – In re Londonderry’s Settlement; Peat v Lady Walsh CA 3-Nov-1964
The Court considered limitations on the right to disclosure of trust documents, and in particuar the need to protect confidentiality in communications between trustees as to the exercise of their dispositive discretions, and in communications made . .

Cited by:
Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Cited – Breakspear and others v Ackland and Another ChD 19-Feb-2008
Beneficiaries sought disclosure of a wishes letter provided by the settlor to the trustees in a family discretionary trust.
Held: The confidentiality in the letter was, in the absence of some express term by the settlor, in the trustees, and . .
Cited – Dawson-Damer and Others v Taylor Wessing Llp and Others ChD 6-Aug-2015
The clamants sought orders under the 1998 Act for disclosure of documents about them by the defendant solicitors and others. The defendants said that the request would require the consideration of a very large number of documents, considering in . .
Cited – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Cited – Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Trusts, Equity

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.180352

Ketteringham and Another v Hardy: ChD 3 Feb 2011

Two partners had together bought several properties for development, and now disputed the interests in one of them. One partneer had dies, and the refusal of development permission and the fall in property values left the land in negative equity. The court was asked to find that a partnership existed and that the estate was liable to contribute to the losses.
Held: No partnership existed. The matter was to be resolved according to the principles of equitable accounting. The real question to be determined is whether it was the common intention of the parties that Nick Ketteringham would contribute to the liability under the mortgage in the event that the net proceeds of sale were less than the sum outstanding under the mortgage. No such common contention had been expressed, and therefore the estate could not be held liable to contribute.

Behrens J
[2011] EWHC 162 (Ch), [2011] WTLR 1367
Bailii
Partnership Act 1890 24
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Clarke v Harlowe ChD 12-Aug-2005
A house was bought in the joint names of the parties. It was in bad condition. An express declaration of trust said they held as beneficial joint tenants. One tenants was earning much more than the other. He paid all the mortgage instalments. Very . .
Cited – Wilcox v Tait CA 13-Dec-2006
The court considered the principles of equitable accounting as between co-owners of land.
Held: The question of whether there is a liability to account depends on the intention of the parties. Jonathan Parker LJ said: ‘Moreover, it is in any . .
Cited – French v Styring 8-May-1857
A and B were joint owners of a race horse, and had agreed that A should keep and train and have the general management of the horse, conveying him to and entering him for the different races ; that 35s. per week should be allowed for his keep ; and . .
Cited – Jaenicke v Schulz 1924
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Equity

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.428427

In re Whiteley: 1886

Lindley LJ considered the duties of a trustee in exercising his powers of investment and said: ‘The principle applicable to cases of this description was stated . . to be that a trustee ought to conduct the business of the trust in the same manner that an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own, and that beyond that there is no liability or obligation on the trustee. I accept this principle; but in applying it care must be taken not to lose sight of the fact that the business of the trustee, and the business which the ordinary prudent man is supposed to be conducting for himself, is the business of investing money for the benefit of persons who are to enjoy it at some future time, and not for the sole benefit of the person entitled to the present income. The duty of a trustee is not to take such care only as a prudent man would take if he had only himself to consider; the duty rather is to take such care as an ordinary prudent man would take if he were minded to make an investment for the benefit of other people for whom he felt morally bound to provide.’

Lindley LJ
(1886) 33 ChD 347
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cowan v Scargill and Others ChD 13-Apr-1984
Trustee’s duties in relation to investments
Within the National Coal Board Pension scheme, the trustees appointed by the NCB were concerned at the activities of the trustees of the miners, and sought directions from the court. The defendants refused to allow any funds to be invested abroad. . .
Cited – Nestle v National Westminster Bank CA 6-May-1992
The claimant said that the defendant bank as trustee of her late father’s estate had been negligent in its investment of trust assets.
Held: The claimant had failed to establish either a breach of trust or any loss flowing from it, though . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.222827

Williams v Lawrence and Another: ChD 28 Jul 2011

The claimant, as trustee for the deceased’s insolvent estate, sought a declaration that a transfer of the deceased’s share in property made by the executors was void as being at an undervalue. The property was subject to a right of occupation in favour of one of the purchaser, one of the defendants, and therefore reduced in value.
Held: The effect of Regulation 12 was to allow such an application to go back much further than could happen in a normal insolvency, but in this case, at the time of the transfer, the parties knew of the estate’s debts. On the facts, no common intention to create a binding right was established, and therefore the sale was at a gross undervalue, and was to be set aside.

David Cooke J
[2011] EWHC 2001 (Ch)
Bailii
Administration of Insolvent Estates of Deceased Persons Order 1986 (SI 1986/1999)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990
The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . .
Cited – Pascoe v Turner CA 1-Dec-1978
The defendant had been assured by the plaintiff that ‘the house is yours and everything in it.’ In reliance on that assurance she carried out improvements to the house. Although the improvements were modest, their cost represented a large part of . .
Cited – Kernott v Jones CA 26-May-2010
The unmarried couple bought a property together. Mr K appealed against an award of 90% of the property to his former partner. The court was asked, whether, following Stack v Dowden, it was open to the court to find that the parties had agreed that . .
Cited – James v Thomas CA 23-Nov-2007
The claimant sought an interest in the property registered in the sole name of the respondent. The respondent had inherited a share in the property, and then bought out the interests of his siblings with support of a loan. The claimant had made no . .
Cited – Stack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
Cited – Oxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: The shares were to be assessed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Insolvency, Trusts

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.442271

Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another: ChD 28 Jul 2016

Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate

The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of the documents sought, including accounts of capital and lists of investments, and the trustee’s fees insofar as they impacted on capital. They were not generally entitled to matters relating to income. They were allowed to see the documents underlying the trust and to be informed as to the history of the identities of the trustees and the status of life interest holders.
As to costs, the trustees had failed to engage properly at all with what were proper requests, and the claimant charities should be entitled to their costs. The claimants also sought an order disallowing the trustees an indemnity from the estate, and ‘In my judgment, notwithstanding the lack of participation or explanation on behalf of the Defendants, it is clear that the Second Defendant in failing to account to the Claimants over so many years acted for a benefit other than that of the estate, and in failing to take part in these proceedings at all acted unreasonably. I have no hesitation in saying that any costs incurred by the Second Defendant in the context of these proceedings, including the costs which I have ordered him to pay to the Claimants, were not ‘properly incurred’ within s 31(1) and CPR rule PD46 para 1.1, and hence he is not entitled to be reimbursed out of the trust fund in respect of them.’
Master Matthews said: ‘Every beneficiary is entitled to see the trust accounts, whether his interest is in possession or not’, but ‘There is some danger of misunderstanding here. When the books and cases talk about beneficiaries ‘entitlements to accounts’ or to trustees being ‘ready with their accounts’ they are not generally referring to annual financial statements such as limited companies and others carrying on business (and indeed some large trusts) commonly produced in the form of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts, usually through accountants, and – in the case of limited companies – filed at Companies House. Instead they are referring to the very notion of accounting itself. Trustees must be ready to account to their beneficiaries for what they have done with the trust assets. This may be done with formal financial statements, or with less formal documents, or indeed none at all. It is no answer for trustees to say that formal financial statements have not yet been produced by the trustees’ accountants.’

Master Matthews
[2016] EWHC 1948 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re Cowin 1886
. .
Cited – In re Tillott ChD 1892
The plaintiff was entitled under a will trust to a one twelfth share in the capital of the residue, contingently on the death of his mother, who was a life tenant. The residue included Bank of England Consols. He had already obtained from the court . .
Cited – In re Dartnall CA 1895
. .
Cited – Nestle v National Westminster Bank ChD 1988
The plaintiff was the remainder beneficiary under the will trust of her grandfather, who died in 1922. The trust fund was then worth about andpound;50,000. The last outstanding life interest under the trust was that of her father John, who died in . .
Cited – D v United Kingdom ECHR 1997
In the circumstances of the case, where the applicant was in the advanced stage of a terminal illness (AIDS), to implement a decision by the respondent to remove the appellant to St Kitts in the West Indies would be a violation of his rights under . .
Cited – Armitage v Nurse; etc CA 19-Mar-1997
A clause in a trust deed may validly excuse trustees from personal liability for even gross negligence. The trustee was exempted from liability for loss or damage ‘unless such loss or damage shall be caused by his own actual fraud’.
Held: The . .
Cited – Vadim Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Limited PC 27-Mar-2003
PC (Isle of Man) The petitioner sought disclosure of trust documents, as a beneficiary. Disclosure had been refused as he had not been a named beneficiary.
Held: Times had moved on, and trust documents had . .
Cited – O’Rourke v Darbishire HL 1920
Sir Joseph Whitworth had died in 1887. In 1884 he had made a will appointing three executors and leaving his residuary estate to charity. By a codicil made in 1885 he altered his will to leave his ultimate residue to his executors for their own . .
Cited – Burrows v Walls 10-Mar-1855
A testator, by his will, gave the residue of his property to three trustees, whom he appointed executors, upon trust to sell and invest the same and to pay the income thereof to his widow for life, and after her decease, to his children, who were . .
Cited – O’Rourke v Darbishire HL 1920
Sir Joseph Whitworth had died in 1887. In 1884 he had made a will appointing three executors and leaving his residuary estate to charity. By a codicil made in 1885 he altered his will to leave his ultimate residue to his executors for their own . .
Cited – Murphy v Murphy ChD 2-May-1998
Where a plaintiff could show that he might have some potential interest under a discretionary trust, the settlor could be obliged by the court to disclose the names and addresses of the settlement trustees. . .
Cited – Brittlebank v Goodwin 1868
A trustee is bound to inform a beneficiary, who, on attaining majority is entitled to share in a trust fund, of that interest . .
Cited – Heugh v Scard CA 1875
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘In certain cases of mere neglect or refusal to furnish accounts, when the neglect is very gross or the refusal wholly indefensible, I reserve to myself the right of making the executor or trustee pay the costs of . .
Cited – In Re Skinner ChD 1904
A beneficiary of a will trust brought an action for an account, having had little or no accounting from the executors and trustees (one a professional solicitor, entitled to charge) since the testator died more than two years before the action was . .
Cited – Blades v Isaac and Another ChD 21-Mar-2016
Claim by beneficiary under discretionary trust.
Held: A trustee’s wrongful failure to provide information does not necessarily justify an adverse costs order. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Henchley and Others v Thompson ChD 16-Feb-2017
The Claimants sought an order directing the Defendant to provide a full account of his dealings with the assets of the two trusts as a trustee or as a de facto trustee.
Held: The court has a discretion whether or not to make an order for an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Costs

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.567848

Phipps v Boardman: HL 3 Nov 1966

A trustee has a duty to exploit any available opportunity for the trust. ‘Rules of equity have to be applied to such a great diversity of circumstances that they can be stated only in the most general terms and applied with particular attention to the exact circumstances of each case. The relevant rule for the decision of this case is the fundamental rule of equity that a person in a fiduciary capacity must not make a profit out of his trust, which is part of the wider rule that a trustee must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict.’
‘The whole of the law is laid down in the fundamental principle exemplified in Lord Cranworth’s statement [in Aberdeen Railway Co v. Blaikie]. But it is applicable, like so many equitable principles which may affect a conscience, however innocent, to such a diversity of different cases that the observations of judges and even in your Lordships’ House in cases where this great principle is being applied must be regarded as applicable only to the particular facts of the particular case in question and not regarded as a new and slightly different formulation of the legal principle so well settled.’ and ‘The phrase ‘possibly may conflict’ requires consideration. In my view it means that the reasonable man looking at the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case would think that there was a real sensible possibility of conflict; not that you could imagine some situation arising which might, in some conceivable possibility in events not contemplated as real sensible possibilities by any reasonable person, result in conflict.’
The court considered the circumstances under which information has been acquired which impose a duty of confidence: ‘The true test is to determine in what circumstances the information has been acquired. If it has been acquired in such circumstances that it would be a breach of confidence to disclose it to another then courts of equity will restrain the recipient from communicating it to another. In such cases such confidential information is often and for many years has been described as the property of the donor, the books of authority are full of such references: knowledge of secret processes, ‘know-how’, confidential information as to the prospects of a company or of someone’s intention or the expected results of some horse race based on stable or other confidential information. But in the end the real truth is that it is not property in any normal sense but equity will restrain its transmission to another if in breach of some confidential relationship.’
Lord Upjohn said: ‘In general, information is not property at all. It is normally open to all who have eyes to read and ears to hear. The true test is to determine in what circumstances the information has been acquired. If it has been acquired in such circumstances that it would be a breach of confidence to disclose it to another, then courts of equity will restrain the recipient from communicating it to another. In such cases such confidential information is often and for many years has been described as the property of the donor, the books of authority are full of such references; knowledge of secret processes, ‘know-how’, confidential information as to the prospects of a company or of someone’s intention or the expected results of some horse race based on stable or other confidential information. But in the end the real truth is that it is not property in any normal sense, but equity will restrain its transmission to another if in breach of some confidential relationship’.

Lord Upjohn, Lord Hodson
[1966] 3 All ER 721, [1967] 2 AC 46, [1966] UKHL 2
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bray v Ford HL 1896
An appellate court’s power to order a new trial is conditional on ‘some substantial wrong or miscarriage’ being established.
Lord Hershell said: ‘It is an inflexible rule of the court of equity that a person in a fiduciary position, such as . .
Appeal from – Phipps v Boardman CA 1965
Affirmed . .
At first instance – Phipps v Boardman ChD 1964
Agents of certain trustees had purchased shares, in circumstances where they only had that opportunity because they were agents.
Held: The shares were held beneficially for the trust. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bhullar and others v Bhullar and Another CA 31-Mar-2003
The claimants were 50% shareholders in a property investment company and sought relief alleging prejudicial conduct of the company’s affairs. After a falling out, two directors purchased property adjacent to a company property but in their own . .
Cited – New Zealand Netherlands Society ‘Oranje’ Inc v Laurentuis Cornelis Kuys PC 1963
(New Zealand) The scope of a fiduciary duty may be modified by a course of dealing by the person to whom the duty is owed. ‘The obligation not to profit from a position of trust, or, as it sometimes relevant to put it, not to allow a conflict to . .
Cited – Crown Dilmun, Dilmun Investments Limited v Nicholas Sutton, Fulham River Projects Limited ChD 23-Jan-2004
There was a contract for the sale of Craven Cottage football stadium, conditional upon the grant of non-onerous planning permissions. It was claimed that the contract had been obtained by the defendant employee in breach of his fiduciary duties to . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
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 . .
Cited – Ratiu, Karmel, Regent House Properties Ltd v Conway CA 22-Nov-2005
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The defendant through their company had accused him acting in such a way as to allow a conflict of interest to arise. They said that he had been invited to act on a proposed purchase but had used the . .
Cited – Imageview Management Ltd v Jack CA 13-Feb-2009
The appellant company acted for the respondent footballer in placing him with a football club. The respondent said that he had also taken a payment from the club, nominally for arranging a work permit. The respondent said this was improper. The . .
Cited – O’Donnell v Shanahan and Another CA 22-Jul-2009
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her petition for an order for the defendants to purchase her shares at a fair value, saying that they had acted unfairly toward her. Her co-directors had acquired, for another company of which they were . .
Cited – Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; Coogan v Same ChD 25-Feb-2011
The claimants said that agents of the defendant had unlawfully accessed their mobile phone systems. The court was now asked whether the agent (M) could rely on the privilege against self incrimination, and otherwise as to the progress of the case. . .
Cited – Phillips v Mulcaire SC 24-May-2012
The claimant worked as personal assistant to a well known public relations company. She alleged that the defendant had intercepted telephone message given by and left for her. The court was asked first as to whether the information amounted to . .
Cited – Halton International Inc (Holding) and Another v Guernroy Ltd ChD 9-Sep-2005
Parties had entered into a shareholders’ agreement as to voting arrengemets within a company. Thay disputed whether votes had been used in reach of that agreement, particularly as to the issue of new shares and their allotment, but the court now . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Trusts, Information

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.180410

Leahy v Attorney-General of New South Wales: PC 20 Apr 1959

leahy_agnswPC1959-4

A gift to an unincorporated association simpliciter, i.e. where neither the circumstances of the gift nor the directions given nor the object expressed impose on the donee the character of a trustee, is nothing else than a gift to its members at the date of the gift as joint tenants or tenants in common.
Where a trust is for a non-charitable purpose and does not have a beneficiary, it fails ‘for a purpose or object cannot sue . . to enforce it’
Viscount Simonds said: ‘But, though their Lordships are of opinion that the section may operate where there is a composite expression covering charitable and non-charitable purposes, and does so in the present case, it is clear that not every expression which might possibly justify a charitable application is brought within it. For instance, in In re Hollole there was a gift to a trustee ‘to be disposed of by him as he may deem best’. The trustee might presumably have deemed it best to dispose of it for a charitable purpose, and, if he had done so, could not be said to have exceeded his powers. Yet O’Bryan J held that the gift was not saved by the section, and his decision has been rightly approved in the High Court. This was a clear case because the testator did not designate any purpose at all but in effect delegated his testamentary power in a manner that the law does not permit. Greater difficulty will arise where the permissible objects of choice are described in a composite expression which, though not so vague and general as to amount to a delegation of testamentary power, does not very clearly indicate a charitable intention on the part of the testator. ‘In the present case,’ say the Chief Justice and McTiernan J, ‘there is reference to a distributable class which, while not exclusively charitable, is predominantly charitable in character’. The same concept appears in a different form in the judgment of Williams J and Webb J. ‘One can also agree with him’ (ie., Myers J) they say ‘that in order to satisfy the section the application of the whole fund to charity must be one way of completely satisfying the intention of the testator. But, if the trust either directs or allows this to be done, the testator’s intention will be completely satisfied if the trust funds are so applied….’ Thus whether the gift be to Orders of Nuns, an object so predominantly charitable that a charitable intention on the part of the testator can fairly be assumed, or for (say) benevolent purposes, which connotes charitable as well as non-charitable purposes, the section will apply. Inevitably there will be marginal cases, where an expression is used which does not significantly indicate a charitable intention, and their Lordships do not propose to catalogue the expressions which will or will not attract the section. It may be sufficient to say that in the chequered history of this branch of the law the misuse of the words ‘benevolent’ and ‘philanthropic’ has more than any other disappointed the charitable intention of benevolent testators and that the section is clearly designed to save such gifts.’

Viscount Simonds
[1959] AC 457, [1959] UKPC 1, [1959] UKPC 9
Bailii, Bailii
Cited by:
Cited – Re Lipinski’s Will Trusts ChD 1976
Harry Lipinski bequeathed his residuary estate on trust as to half for the Hull Judeans (Maccabi) Association to be used solely to construct and improve the new buildings for the association. The executors sought a determination whether the bequest . .
Cited – Hunt and Another v McLaren and others ChD 4-Oct-2006
Land had been given to a football club under a trust for its exclusive use as such. That land was sold and a new ground acquired and a stadium built, but the land was subject to restrictive covenenats limiting its use to sports, which considerably . .
Cited – Neville Estates Ltd v Madden ChD 1962
A charitable trust was created for the benefit of the members of Catford Synagogue.
Held: The court considered three categories of valid non-charitable purpose gifts: (1) an absolute gift to members of an association at the date of the gift, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Commonwealth

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.245263

Chettiar v Chettiar: PC 14 Feb 1962

(Malaya) A father, in registering shares in the names of his children, had transferred the beneficial interest in those shares to them. Many years later the father had treated the shares as his own. The question arose as to whether this fact displaced the presumption of advancement.
Held: The presumption of advancement in a gift between father and son is not lightly to be displaced by evidence: ‘in the present case the plaintiff had of necessity to disclose his own illegality to the court and for this reason: He had not only to get over the fact that the transfer stated that the son paid $7000 for the land. He had also to get over the presumption of advancement, for whenever a father transfers property to his son, there is a presumption that he intended it as a gift to his son; and if he wishes to rebut that presumption and to say that he took as trustee for him, he must prove the trust clearly and distinctly, by evidence properly admissible for the purpose, and not leave it to be inferred from slight circumstances. see Shepherd v. Cartwright [1955] AC 431. The fact that the father received the income does not suffice . . The father had also to get over this pertinent question: If he intended the son to take as a trustee, why did he not insert on the memorandum of transfer the words ‘as trustee’ and register the trust as he could have done under section 160 of the Land Code?
‘In these circumstances it was essential for the father to put forward a convincing explanation why the transfer took the form it did, and the explanation he gave disclosed that he made the transfer for a fraudulent purpose, namely, to deceive the public administration . . Once this disclosure was made by the father, the courts were bound to take notice of it, even though the son had not pleaded it . .in the present case the father has of necessity to put forward,, and indeed, assert, his own fraudulent purpose, which he has fully achieved. He is met therefore by the principle stated long ago by Lord Mansfield ‘No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act,’ see Holman v. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp. 341, 343).”

Lord Denning, Viscount Simonds
[1962] AC 294, [1962] UKPC 1, [1962] UKPC 4, [1962] 2 WLR 548, [1962] 2 All ER 238
Bailii, Bailii
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Holman v Johnson 5-Jul-1775
ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Mansfield LCJ set out the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio: ‘The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, . .
See Also – Palaniappa Chettiar v Arunasalam Chettiar PC 31-Jan-1962
Malaya . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lavelle v Lavelle and others CA 11-Feb-2004
Property had been purchased in the name of of the appellant by her father. She appealed a finding that the presumption of advancement had been rebutted.
Held: The appeal failed. The presumption against advancement had been rebutted on the . .
Approved – Tinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
Cited – Collier v Collier CA 30-Jul-2002
Fraudulent Intent Negated Trust
The daughter claimant sought possession of business premises from her father who held them under leases. He claimed an order that the property was held in trust for him. The judge that at the time the properties were conveyed, the father had been . .
See Also – Palaniappa Chettiar v Arunasalam Chettiar PC 31-Jan-1962
Malaya . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Commonwealth

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.194812

Zeital and Another v Kaye and Others: CA 5 Mar 2010

The deceased had held an apartment through beneficial interests in shares in a limited company. He died intestate. The parties disputed the ownership of the two shares. The company had been put into a members’ liquidation, and the company liquidator sought the court’s direction. The widow and deceased had lived seperately for over 20 years, and his more recent partner said that he had informally given the shares to her. The widow and children appealed a finding in favour of the gift in respect of one share, and against the costs order.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The steps taken by the deceased to transfer the share fell short of what was required. He had not been himself registered as owner, and could not execute a share transfer. The company was in liquidation, and no share certificate was handed over. The deceased had not done all he could to transfer the share.

Dyson, Maurice Kay, Rimer LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 159
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Mentioned – In re Re Rose, Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Company Limited v Rose ChD 1949
The testator handed a transfer of the relevant shares to the donee, Mr Hook, together with the relevant certificates. The transfer had not been registered by the date of his death.
Held: Equity will not compel an imperfect gift to be . .
Mentioned – In re Rose, Rose v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1952
The deceased had executed instruments of transfer and delivered them with the relevant certificates to the transferees.
Held: The transfers were transferred the whole of the deceased’s title both legal and equitable in the shares and all . .
Cited – Pennington and Another v Waine, Crampton and others CA 4-Mar-2002
The deceased had made a gift of shares. She had executed a transfer, and acting upon the promise, the donee had agreed to become a director which he could only do if he also became a shareholder. The transfer was delivered to the deceased’s agent, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Trusts, Company

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.402536

Pitt and Another v Holt and Others: ChD 18 Jan 2010

The deceased had created a settlement in favour of his wife. He suffered serious injury and placed the damages in trust, but in a form which created an unnecessary liability to Inheritance Tax on his death. The wife’s mental health act receiver now sought the unravelling of the trust based on either Hastings Bass or mistake.
Held: The rule in Hastings-Bass could be used by others than only trustees. Robert Englehart QC said: ‘A mere failure by someone to take a material consideration into account in the conduct of his own affairs will not justify setting aside for mistake. It was said in argument before me that the law allows you to be as foolish as you like with your own property. On the other hand, there certainly is jurisdiction, irrespective of any trust or fiduciary element, to set aside a voluntary transaction where there has been an operative mistake. Nevertheless, for the rule in Hastings-Bass to apply there is no need to identify a mistake as such, as opposed to a failure to take a relevant consideration into account.’ though there was no real mistake, only a failure to address the effect of the arrangement fully, the rule in Hastings-Bass could be applied and the trust varied.

Robert Englehart, QC
[2010] EWHC 236 (Ch)
Bailii, Times
Mental Health Act 1983
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sieff v Fox ChD 23-Jun-2005
The advisers to trustees wrongly advised the trustees about the tax consequences of exercising a power of appointment in a certain way. As a result a large unforeseen Capital Gains Tax liability arose. The trustees sought to set aside the . .
Cited – Re Hastings-Bass; Hastings v Inland Revenue CA 14-Mar-1974
Trustees of a settlement had exercised their power of advancement under the section, in order to save estate duty by transferring investments to be held on the trusts of a later settlement. However the actual effect of the advancement was that the . .
Cited – Mettoy Pension Trustees v Evans ChD 1990
Where a trustee acts under a discretion given to him by the terms of the trust the court will interfere with his action if it is clear that he would not have so acted as he did had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to . .
Cited – Byng v London Life Association CA 1990
The venue selected for a meeting of the members of a company was too small to accommodate all the members who attended, and so the chairman adjourned the meeting to an alternative venue.
Held: The decision by the chairman was set aside on the . .
Cited – Gibbon v Mitchell ChD 1990
G executed a deed surrendering his life interest in a trust fund in order to vest the property in his two children: the deed did not have that effect because of two errors (one of which was ignoring the fact that his life interest was subject to . .
Cited – Hunter v Senate Support Services Ltd and others ChD 2005
The court set aside a forfeiture of shares for non-payment of a call. The decisions of the directors to forfeit the shares and to transfer the forfeited shares to the group holding company were flawed, though not improperly motivated, because the . .
Cited – Edge and others v Pensions Ombudsman and Another CA 29-Jul-1999
The Pensions Ombudsman was wrong to set aside the decision of pensions trustees where that decision was properly made within the scope of a discretion given to the Trustees. He should not carry out an investigation where no particular benefit could . .
Cited – Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman HL 20-Jul-2000
The directors of the Society had calculated the final bonuses to be allocated to policyholders in a manner which was found to be contrary to the terms of the policy. The language of the article conferring the power to declare such bonuses contained . .
Cited – Anker-Petersen v Christensen ChD 2002
Where a mistake is made as to the effect of an appointment under a trust it may be possible to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to rescind the appointment. Davis J considered Millett J’s distinction between ‘effect’ and ‘consequences’: ‘An example in . .
Cited – Ogden and Another v Trustees of the RHS Griffiths 2003 Settlement and others; In Re Griffiths deceased ChD 25-Jan-2008
A life-time transfer which had been made under a mistake as to the donor’s chances of surviving long enough for the transfer to be exempt from Inheritance Tax was set aside. Unbeknown to the donor, he had lung cancer at the time.
Held: Lewison . .
Cited – Wolff v Wolff ChD 6-Sep-2004
The court considered its ability to redraw a document where its legal effect was misunderstood. . .
Cited – Abacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Colyb Limited v Barr, Barr, and Barr ChD 6-Feb-2003
The court considered the Rule in Hastings-Bass, and specifically (1) whether the trustee’s decision is open to challenge when the failure to take a consideration into account is not attributable to a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the . .
Cited – Ogilvie v Littleboy CA 1897
Lindley LJ discussed the variation of a gift for mistake: ‘Gifts cannot be revoked, nor can deeds be set aside, simply because the donors wish they had not made them and would like to have back the property given. Where there is no fraud, no undue . .
Cited – Burrell and Sharman v Burrell, Shore, Tyrrell, etc ChD 23-Feb-2005
burrell_burrellChD05
Shares were appointed by trustees in the mistaken belief that they attracted business property relief from Inheritance tax. They sought to set aside the appointment.
Held: Mann J applied the rule in Stannard v Fisons Pensions Trust and . .

Cited by:
Cited – Futter and Another v Futter and Others ChD 11-Mar-2010
Various family settlements had been created. The trustees wished to use the rule in Hastings-Bass to re-open decisions they had made after receiving incorrect advice.
Held: The deeds were set aside as void. The Rule in Hastings-Bass derives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Wills and Probate, Inheritance Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396742

Re Hastings-Bass; Hastings v Inland Revenue: CA 14 Mar 1974

Trustees of a settlement had exercised their power of advancement under the section, in order to save estate duty by transferring investments to be held on the trusts of a later settlement. However the actual effect of the advancement was that the trusts in remainder were void for perpetuity.
Held: A trustee when exercising a power (for example) of appointment or of advancement shall take into account all relevant considerations and refrain from taking into account any irrelevant consideration, and opens his decision to challenge if he fails to do as so required. The court should not interfere with the exercise in good faith of a trustee’s discretion, notwithstanding that it does not have the full effect which the trustee intended, unless the trustee exceeded the authority given by the trust or it is clear that he would not have acted as he did (a) had he not taken into account considerations which he should not have taken into account, or (b) had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to have taken into account.
Buckley LJ said: ‘where by the terms of a trust (as under section 32) a trustee is given a discretion as to some matter under which he acts in good faith, the court should not interfere with his action notwithstanding that it does not have the full effect which he intended, unless (1) what he has achieved is unauthorised by the power conferred upon him, or (2) it is clear that he would not have acted as he did (a) had he not taken into account considerations which he should have taken into account, or (b) had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to have taken into account.’

Buckley LJ, Megaw LJ, Roskill LJ
[1975] Ch 25, [1974] EWCA Civ 13, [1974] 2 All ER 193
Bailii
Trustee Act 1925 32
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re Pilkington’s Will Trusts; Pilkington v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 8-Oct-1962
The trustees proposed establishing a new trust in respect of the share of an estate to which an infant beneficiary had a contingent entitlement. A portion of the trust fund would be allocated to the new trust.
Held: This was a lawful exercise . .
Cited – In Re Pilkington’s Will Trusts; Pilkington v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 1959
Whether Trust was void for perpetuity . .
Cited – in Re: Abrahams’ Will Trust ChD 1969
The trustees of a 1948 settlement had advanced funds in 1957 by way of a new settlement, the terms of which did not comply with the rule against perpetuities. Not all the terms of the 1957 settlement would infringe the rule against perpetuities, but . .
Cited – Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No.1) CA 29-May-1963
Property had been placed in trust for the daughter of the family, fearing that she might fritter it away. The trust was managed by the bank. The judge had found that, having misunderstood the powers of advancement given, the bank was liable to repay . .

Cited by:
Cited – Abacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Ltd and Another v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children ChD 17-Jul-2001
abacus_nspccChD01
The claimants were beneficiaries, trustee and protector of a trust fund. In order to mitigate Capital Gains Tax liability they sought advice, and, following that advice, entered into a deed of gift in favour of the respondent charity. The deed . .
Cited – Abacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Colyb Limited v Barr, Barr, and Barr ChD 6-Feb-2003
The court considered the Rule in Hastings-Bass, and specifically (1) whether the trustee’s decision is open to challenge when the failure to take a consideration into account is not attributable to a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the . .
Cited – Mettoy Pension Trustees v Evans ChD 1990
Where a trustee acts under a discretion given to him by the terms of the trust the court will interfere with his action if it is clear that he would not have so acted as he did had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to . .
Cited – Gibbon v Mitchell ChD 1990
G executed a deed surrendering his life interest in a trust fund in order to vest the property in his two children: the deed did not have that effect because of two errors (one of which was ignoring the fact that his life interest was subject to . .
Cited – Stannard v Fisons Pension Trust Limited CA 1991
Fisons had sold their fertiliser division to Norsk Hydro. Acting on advice of actuaries and thinking that the fund was in deficit, the trustees made a transfer to a new fund to provide for pensions of transferring employees in accordance with a . .
Cited – AMP (UK) Plc and Another v Barker and Others ChD 8-Dec-2000
The claimants were interested under a pension scheme. Alterations had been made, which the said had been in error, and they sought rectification to remove a link between early leaver benefits and incapacity benefits. The defendant trustees agreed . .
Cited – Burrell and Sharman v Burrell, Shore, Tyrrell, etc ChD 23-Feb-2005
burrell_burrellChD05
Shares were appointed by trustees in the mistaken belief that they attracted business property relief from Inheritance tax. They sought to set aside the appointment.
Held: Mann J applied the rule in Stannard v Fisons Pensions Trust and . .
Cited – In Re Duxbury’s Settlement Trusts CA 21-Nov-1994
The Public trustee appealed against an order which had recognised his appointment under the 1959 trust, but had held that because of the explicit prohibition in the trust instrument against a trustee acting alone, he could not act.
Held: . .
Cited – Public Trustee v Cooper 2001
The court looked at the circumstances required when a court was asked to approve a proposed exercise by trustees of a discretion vested in them. The second category of circumstances was (quoting Robert Walker J): ‘Where the issue was whether the . .
Cited – Jones and others v Firkin-Flood ChD 17-Oct-2008
The trustees had contracted to sell shares in a private company held within the estate. A family member now claimed that they were held in trust after a settlement of a possible challenge to the will based in lack of testamentary capacity and undue . .
Cited – Sieff v Fox ChD 23-Jun-2005
The advisers to trustees wrongly advised the trustees about the tax consequences of exercising a power of appointment in a certain way. As a result a large unforeseen Capital Gains Tax liability arose. The trustees sought to set aside the . .
Cited – Pitt and Another v Holt and Others ChD 18-Jan-2010
The deceased had created a settlement in favour of his wife. He suffered serious injury and placed the damages in trust, but in a form which created an unnecessary liability to Inheritance Tax on his death. The wife’s mental health act receiver now . .
Cited – Pitt and Another v Holt and Another ChD 18-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to unravel a settlement she had made as receiver for her late husband, saying that it had been made without consideration of its Inheritance Tax implications. The Revenue said that there was no operative mistake so as to allow . .
Cited – Futter and Another v Futter and Others ChD 11-Mar-2010
Various family settlements had been created. The trustees wished to use the rule in Hastings-Bass to re-open decisions they had made after receiving incorrect advice.
Held: The deeds were set aside as void. The Rule in Hastings-Bass derives . .
Cited – Futter and Another v Revenue and Customs; Pitt v Same SC 9-May-2013
Application of Hastings-Bass Rule
F had created two settlements. Distributions were made, but overlooking the effect of section 2(4) of the 2002 Act, creating a large tax liability. P had taken advice on the investment of the proceeds of a damages claim and created a discretionary . .
Cited – Glaxo Group Limited, the Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Dowelhurst Limited ChD 6-Feb-2003
Challenge to appointment of trustee . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.181634

Attorney-General v Pearson: 1817

No Alteration to Charty’s Objects

A protestant dissenters’ meeting house in Wolverhampton which was declared by a trust deed to be held for ‘the worship and service of God’ was the subject of a dispute between the schismatic congregation. The issue was the nature of the worship denoted by those words and the occasion was the ejection of a minister.
Held: Referring to Craigdallie, Lord Eldon said: ‘if any persons seeking the benefit of a trust for charitable purposes should incline to the adoption of a different system from that which was intended by the original donors and founders; and if others of those who are interested think proper to adhere to the original system, the leaning of the Court must be to support those adhering to the original system, and not to sacrifice the original system to any change of sentiment in the persons seeking alteration, however commendable that proposed alteration may be.’

Lord Eldon
(1817) 3 Mer 353, [1817] EngR 645, (1817) 3 Mer 353, (1817) 36 ER 135
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Craigdallie v Aikman PC 14-Jun-2013
A chapel was acquired with the subscriptions of a congregation which seceded from the Church of Scotland in 1737 and subsequently split over whether a magistrate might suppress heresy. Each of the rival groups claimed that the chapel belonged to . .

Cited by:
Not followed – Varsani and others v Jesani, Patel and Her Majesty’s Attorney-General CA 3-Apr-1998
A Hindu religious sect, constituted as a charity, had split into two factions.
Held: The court had jurisdiction to order that the assets of the sect should be divided under the powers in the Act, and held upon separate trusts for the two . .
Cited – Khaira and Others v Shergill and Others CA 17-Jul-2012
The parties disputed the trusteeship and governance of two Gurdwaras (Sikh temples). The defendants now applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the differences were as to Sikh doctrines and practice and as such were unjusticiable. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Trusts

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.187518

Letterstedt v Broers: PC 22 Mar 1884

(Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope) Lack of harmony may be of itself a good reason for a trustee to resign or be dismissed. Lord Blackburn approved a passage in Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, s 1289: ‘But in cases of positive misconduct, courts of equity have no difficulty in interposing to remove trustees who have abused their trust; it is not indeed every mistake or neglect of duty, or inaccuracy of conduct of trustees, which will induce courts of equity to adopt such a course. But the acts or omissions must be such as to endanger the trust property or to shew a want of honesty, or a want of proper capacity to execute the duties, or a want of reasonable fidelity.’
. . and ‘It seems to their Lordships that the jurisdiction which a court of equity has no difficulty in exercising under the circumstances indicated by Story is merely ancillary to its principal duty, to see that the trusts are properly executed. This duty is constantly being performed by the substitution of new trustees in the place of original trustees for a variety of reasons in non-contentious cases. And therefore, though it should appear that the charges of misconduct were either not made out, or were greatly exaggerated, so that the trustee was justified in resisting them, and the court might consider that in awarding costs, yet if satisfied that the continuance of the trustee would prevent the trusts being properly executed, the trustee might be removed. It must always be borne in mind that trustees exist for the benefit of those to whom the creator of the trust has given the trust estate.’
The court set out the principles underlying a decision to remove a trustee. Lord Blackburn said: ‘The whole of the matters which have been complained of, and the whole that, if this judgment stands, may yet have to be done by the Board, are matters which they had to do, as having accepted the burthen of carrying out the trusts which on the true construction of the will were imposed upon them, and so become trustees. What they had to do as executors merely, such as paying debts, collecting assets, andc., have long ago been over, and by the terms of the compromise the plaintiff cannot now say they have not been done properly. There may be some peculiarity in the Dutch Colonial law, which made it proper to make the prayer in the way in which it was done to remove them from the office of executor; if so, it has not been brought to their Lordships’ notice; the whole case has been argued here, and, as far as their Lordships can perceive, in the Court below, as depending on the principles which should guide an English Court of Equity when called upon to remove old trustees and substitute new ones. It is not disputed that there is a jurisdiction ‘in cases requiring such a remedy,’ as is said in Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, s. 1287, but there is very little to be found to guide us in saying what are the cases requiring such a remedy; so little that their Lordships are compelled to have recourse to general principles.
Story says, s. 1289, ‘But in cases of positive misconduct, Courts of Equity have no difficulty in interposing to remove trustees who have abused their trust; it is not indeed every mistake or neglect of duty, or inaccuracy of conduct of trustees, which will induce Courts of Equity to adopt such a course. But the acts or omissions must be such as to endanger the trust property or to shew a want of honesty, or a want of proper capacity to execute the duties, or a want of reasonable fidelity’
It seems to their Lordships that the jurisdiction which a Court of Equity has no difficulty in exercising under the circumstances indicated by Story is merely ancillary to its principal duty, to see that the trusts are properly executed. This duty is constantly being performed by the substitution of new trustees in the place of original trustees for a variety of reasons in non-contentious cases. And therefore, though it should appear that the charges of misconduct were either not made out, or were greatly exaggerated, so that the trustee was justified in resisting them, and the Court might consider that in awarding costs, yet if satisfied that the continuance of the trustee would prevent the trusts being properly executed, the trustee might be removed. It must always be borne in mind that trustees exist for the benefit of those to whom the creator of the trust has given the trust estate. The reason why there is so little to be found in the books on this subject is probably that suggested by Mr. Davey in his argument. As soon as all questions of character are as far settled as the nature of the case admits, if it appears clear that the continuance of the trustee would be detrimental to the execution of the trusts, even if for no other reason than that human infirmity would prevent those beneficially interested, or those who act for them, from working in harmony with the trustee, and if there is no reason to the contrary from the intentions of the framer of the trust to give this trustee a benefit or otherwise, the trustee is always advised by his own counsel to resign, and does so. If, without any reasonable ground, he refused to do so, it seems to their Lordships that the Court might think it proper to remove him; but cases involving the necessity of deciding this, if they ever arise, do so without getting reported. It is to be lamented that the case was not considered in this light by the parties in the Court below, for, as far as their Lordships can see, the Board would have little or no profit from continuing to be trustees, and as such coming into continual conflict with the appellant and her legal advisers, and would probably have been glad to resign, and get out of an onerous and disagreeable position. But the case was not so treated.
In exercising so delicate a jurisdiction as that of removing trustees, their Lordships do not venture to lay down any general rule beyond the very broad principle above enunciated, that their main guide must be the welfare of the beneficiaries.’ He referred to cases in which there was a conflict between trustee and beneficiary and continued: ‘As soon as all questions of character are as far settled as the nature of the case admits, if it appears clear that the continuance of the trustee would be detrimental to the execution of the trusts, even if for no other reason than that human infirmity would prevent those beneficially interested, or those who act for them, from working in harmony with the trustee, and if there is no reason to the contrary from the intentions of the framer of the trust to give this trustee a benefit or otherwise, the trustee is always advised by his own counsel to resign, and does so. If, without any reasonable ground, he refused to do so, it seems to their Lordships that the Court might think it proper to remove him; but cases involving the necessity of deciding this, if they ever arise, do so without getting reported.’
However: ‘It is quite true that friction or hostility between trustees and the immediate possessor of the trust estate is not of itself a reason for the removal of the trustees. But where the hostility is grounded on the mode in which the trust has been administered, where it has been caused wholly or partially by substantial overcharges against the trust estate, it is certainly not to be disregarded.’
Lord Blackburn
[1884] UKPC 1, (1884) 9 App Cas 371, [1884] UKPC 18, [1884] UKLawRpAC 12
Bailii, Bailii, Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Charman v Charman CA 20-Dec-2005
The court considered orders to third parties abroad to produce docments for use in ancillary relief proceedings. The husband had built up considerable assets within an offshore discretionary trust. The court was asked whether these were family . .
Cited – The Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation v Carvel and Another ChD 11-Jun-2007
The husband and wife had made mutual wills in the US with an express agreement not to make later alterations or dispositions without the agreement of the other or at all after the first death. The wife survived, but having lost the first will made a . .
Cited – Jones and others v Firkin-Flood ChD 17-Oct-2008
The trustees had contracted to sell shares in a private company held within the estate. A family member now claimed that they were held in trust after a settlement of a possible challenge to the will based in lack of testamentary capacity and undue . .
Cited – Green and others v Gaul and Another; In re Loftus deceased ChD 18-Mar-2005
The claimants began an action in January 2003 to seek to set aside the appointment of an administrator from December 1991, and to have set aside transfers of property made within the estate.
Held: The limitation period against a personal . .
Cited – Kershaw v Micklethwaite and Others ChD 12-Feb-2010
Application by the claimant, Mr Kershaw, for some or all of the defendants to be removed as executors of the Will of Mr Kershaw’s mother. . .
Cited – Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper SC 29-Jul-2020
Charitable Company- Directors’ Status and Duties
A married couple set up a charitable foundation to assist children in developing countries. When the marriage failed an attempt was made to establish a second foundation with funds from the first, as part of W leaving the Trust. Court approval was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.247442

Armitage v Nurse and Others: ChD 3 Jul 1995

A clause exonerating trustees from responsibility for breaches of duty will be construed strictly against them.
Ind Summary 03-Jul-1995
England and Wales
Cited by:
At first Instance – Armitage v Nurse SCCO 11-Apr-2000
review of counsel’s fees in a legal aid only case . .
Appeal from – Armitage v Nurse; etc CA 19-Mar-1997
A clause in a trust deed may validly excuse trustees from personal liability for even gross negligence. The trustee was exempted from liability for loss or damage ‘unless such loss or damage shall be caused by his own actual fraud’.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.77868

O’Rourke v Darbishire: HL 1920

Sir Joseph Whitworth had died in 1887. In 1884 he had made a will appointing three executors and leaving his residuary estate to charity. By a codicil made in 1885 he altered his will to leave his ultimate residue to his executors for their own benefit, with a precatory expression of his wishes that it should be used for charitable purposes. Two further codicils 1886 extended the first codicil’s gift to the executors. Sir Joseph’s intestate successors would have been Mrs Uniacke (as to realty) and Mrs Uniacke and Mrs McGowan (as to personalty). Mrs McGowan threatened to challenge the will and codicils, but in 1889 there was a compromise between all interested parties. In 1916, after Mrs Uniacke, Mrs McGowan and the executors had all died, Mrs Uniacke’s administrator (Mr O’Rourke) sought to challenge both the will and codicils and the compromise, alleging fraud by Mr Darbishire (who was one of the executors and had been Sir Joseph’s solicitor). Mr O’Rourke sought disclosure of documents containing legal advice given to Sir Joseph during his lifetime, and to his executors after his death.
Held: The House dismissed Mr O’Rourke’s appeal. He had not made out even a prima facie case that the will and codicils were invalid, or that the communications had promoted fraud. Mr O’Rourke’s relied on a ‘proprietary right’. A cestui que trust, in an action against his trustees, is generally entitled to the production for inspection of all documents relating to the affairs of the trust. It is not material whether this is seen as a paramount proprietary right in the cestui que trust, or as a right to be enforced under the law of discovery, since in both cases an essential preliminary is either the admission, or the establishment, of the status on which the right is based.
Viscount Finlay, Lord Sumner, Lord Parmoor
[1920] AC 581, [1920] All ER 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Vadim Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Limited PC 27-Mar-2003
PC (Isle of Man) The petitioner sought disclosure of trust documents, as a beneficiary. Disclosure had been refused as he had not been a named beneficiary.
Held: Times had moved on, and trust documents had . .
Cited – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (No 6) CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
Cited – Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another HL 1988
Use of ‘Without Prejudice Save as to Costs”
A sub-contractor sought payment from the appellants under a construction contract for additional expenses incurred through disruption and delay. The appellants said they were liable to pay the costs, and were entitled to re-imbursement from the . .
Cited – Rush and Tomkins Ltd v Greater London Council HL 3-Nov-1988
The parties had entered into contracts for the construction of dwellings. The contractors sought payment. The council alleged shortcomings in the works. The principal parties had settled the dispute, but a sub-contractor now sought disclosure of the . .
Cited – Martin and Others Gabriele v Giambrone P/A Giambrone and Law QBNI 5-Mar-2013
The claimants had made investments through their solicitors, the defendants. The investments failed. The defendants were said to have made a foul and threatening posting on facebook about the claimant after failure in earlier proceedings. The . .
Cited – Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .
Cited – Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.180360

Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v Cooley: 1972

Mr Cooley was the managing director of the claimant. His duties included procuring business in the field of developing gas depots. The company had unsuccessful negotiations with the Eastern Gas Board for the development of four depots. However, the Gas Board were not prepared to let the contracts to the company. The Gas Board subsequently approached Mr Cooley in his private capacity; and indicated that they would be prepared to contract with him personally. In the course of the meeting, Mr Cooley acquired knowledge that the company did not have; and would have wanted to have. Mr Cooley therefore resigned his office (on the basis of a false excuse) and entered into the contracts with the Gas Board.
Held: He was accountable for the profit. Where a fiduciary obtains a benefit in breach of his fiduciary duty, he is liable to account even if the beneficiary could not itself have obtained that benefit or opportunity. A company director owes a fiduciary duty to report relevant information of concern to the company: ‘Information which came to [the director] while he was managing director and which was of concern to [the company] and was relevant for [the company] to know, was information which it was his duty to pass on to [the company] because between himself and [the company] a fiduciary relationship existed . . ‘ and ‘Therefore, I feel impelled to the conclusion that when the defendant embarked on this course of conduct of getting information . . using that information and preparing those documents . . and sending them off . . , he was guilty of putting himself into the position in which his duty to his employers, the plaintiffs, and his own private interests conflicted and conflicted grievously. There being the fiduciary relationship I have described, it seems to me plain that it was his duty once he got this information to pass it to his employers and not to guard it for his own personal purposes and profit. He put himself into the position when his duty and his interests conflicted.’
References: [1972] 1 WLR 443
Judges: Roskill J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Crown Dilmun, Dilmun Investments Limited v Nicholas Sutton, Fulham River Projects Limited ChD 23-Jan-2004
    There was a contract for the sale of Craven Cottage football stadium, conditional upon the grant of non-onerous planning permissions. It was claimed that the contract had been obtained by the defendant employee in breach of his fiduciary duties to . .
    (Times 05-Feb-04, [2004] EWHC 52 (Ch), , [2004] 1 BCLC 468)
  • Cited – Fassihim, Liddiardrams, International Ltd, Isograph Ltd v Item Software (UK) Ltd CA 30-Sep-2004
    The first defendant (F) had been employed by a company involved in a distribution agreement. He had sought to set up a competing arrangement whilst a director of the claimant, and diverted a contract to his new company.
    Held: A company . .
    ([2004] EWCA Civ 1244, Times 21-Oct-04, , [2004] BCC 994, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 17, [2005] ICR 450, [2005] 2 BCLC 91, [2004] IRLR 928)
  • 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 . .
    (, [2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch))
  • Cited – O’Donnell v Shanahan and Another CA 22-Jul-2009
    The claimant appealed against dismissal of her petition for an order for the defendants to purchase her shares at a fair value, saying that they had acted unfairly toward her. Her co-directors had acquired, for another company of which they were . .
    (, [2009] EWCA Civ 751, Times 21-Aug-09)
  • Cited – Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and others CA 15-Dec-2006
    Whilst employed by the claimants as a salesman, the defendant came to want to develop his idea for a modular helmet suitable for fire-fighters and others. He took certain steps including showing the proposal confidentially to a competitor, and then . .
    (, [2006] EWCA Civ 1735, [2007] FSR 16, [2007] IRLR 126)
  • Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
    The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
    (, [2011] EWHC 1441 (Comm), [2011] ArbLR 55)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192208

Birmingham v Renfrew; 11 Jun 1937

References: (1937) 57 CLR 666, [1937] HCA 52
Links: Austlii
Coram: Dixon J, Latham CJ
Ratio: (High Court of Australia) Cases of mutual wills are only one example of a wider category of cases, for example secret trusts, in which a court of equity will intervene to impose a constructive trust. Latham CJ described a mutual will arrangement as ‘a trust which is declared by the law to affect the conscience of [the survivor’s] executor and of the volunteers who are devisees or legatees under his will.’
Dixon J set down the principles for mutual wills: ‘It has long been established that a contract between persons to make corresponding wills gives rise to equitable obligations when one acts on the faith of such an agreement and dies leaving his will unrevoked so that the other takes property under its dispositions. It operates to impose upon the survivor an obligation regarded as specifically enforceable. It is true that he cannot be compelled to make and leave unrevoked a testamentary document and if he dies leaving a last will containing provisions inconsistent with his agreement it is nevertheless valid as a testamentary act. But the doctrines of equity attach the obligation to the property. The effect is, I think, that the survivor becomes a constructive trustee and the terms of the trust are those of the will he undertook would be his last will . . The purpose of an arrangement for corresponding wills must often be, as in this case, to enable the survivor during his life to deal as absolute owner with the property passing under the will of the party first dying. That is to say, the object of the transaction is to put the survivor in a position to enjoy for his own benefit the full ownership so that, for instance, he may convert it and expend the proceeds if he choose. But when he dies he is to bequeath what is left in the manner agreed upon. It is only by the special doctrines of equity that such a floating obligation, suspended, so to speak, during the lifetime of the survivor can descend upon the assets at his death and crystallize into a trust. No doubt gifts and settlements, inter vivos, if calculated to defeat the intention of the compact, could not be made by the survivor and his right of disposition, inter vivos, is, therefore, not unqualified. But, substantially, the purpose of the arrangement will often be to allow full enjoyment for the survivor’s own benefit and advantage upon condition that at his death the residue shall pass as arranged.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Dufour v Pereira ((1769) 1 Dick 419, (1769) 2 Harg Jurid Arg 304, Commonlii, [1769] EngR 63, (1769) Dick 419, (1769) 21 ER 332)
    The court was asked as to the validity and effect of a single joint will.
    Held: Lord Camden considered the nature of joint or mutual wills. Lord Camden LC said: ‘The parties by mutual will do each of them devise, upon the engagement of the . .
  • Cited – Re Oldham ([1925] Ch 75)
    The court was asked whether an agreement for mutual wills should be inferred. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Goodchild and Another v Goodchild CA (Times 12-May-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1611, [1997] 3 All ER 63, [1997] 1 WLR 1216)
    The deceased and his wife made wills in virtually identical form. The husband changed his will after their divorce, but his son and other wife claimed that the couple had intended the wills to be part of a larger arrangement of their affairs, . .
  • Cited – In re Cleaver dec’d, Cleaver v Insley ChD ([1981] 1 WLR 939, [1981] 2 All ER 1018)
    Cases of mutual wills are only one example of a wider category of cases, for example secret trusts, in which a court of equity will intervene to impose a constructive trust.
    Nourse J said: ‘The principle of all these cases is that a court of . .
  • Cited – Goodchild v Goodchild ChD (Times 22-Dec-95, Ind Summary 08-Jan-96, [1996] 1 WLR 694)
    The husband and wife had made mirror wills. They divorced, and the husband made a new will. After his death, the child and the third wife of the deceased made a claim against the second wife.
    Held: The wills were in identical terms, but . .
  • Cited – The Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation v Carvel and Another ChD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 1314 (Ch), [2007] 4 All ER 81)
    The husband and wife had made mutual wills in the US with an express agreement not to make later alterations or dispositions without the agreement of the other or at all after the first death. The wife survived, but having lost the first will made a . .
  • Cited – Walters v Olins CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 782, [2009] Ch 212, [2009] 2 WLR 1, [2008] WTLR 1449)
    The claimant appealed against a finding that he had entered into a mutual will contract with the deceased.
    Held: It is a legally necessary condition of mutual wills that there is clear and satisfactory evidence of a contract between two . .
  • Cited – Healey v Brown ChD ([2002] 19 EG 147, Bailii, [2002] EWHC Ch 1405)
    The two deceased had made mutual wills bequeathing the family home. The survivor transferred the property during his life to defeat the agreement. It was now said that the arrangement fell foul of the 1989 Act and was unenforceable.
    Held: . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 28-Aug-16
Ref: 183791

Greenwood v Percy; 10 Mar 1859

References: [1859] EngR 402, (1859) 26 Beav 572, (1859) 53 ER 1019
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: A testator devised freeholds to two and their heirs as tenants in common, and in case either should die without lawful issue surviviog her, then he devised her part ‘ unto the survivor.’ Held, that ‘survivor’ was to he read in its ordinary sense, and not in the sense of ‘other.’
A partition decreed without a commission, in a case in which infarns were interested, upon satisfactory evidence of the value.

Last Update: 11-Aug-16
Ref: 287754

Kelson v Kelson; 11 Feb 1853

References: [1853] EngR 240, (1853) 9 Hare App 86, (1853) 68 ER 807
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: A question in the cause was whether a settlement was voluntary, which was expressed to be made for ‘divers good and valuable considerations.’ No evidence had been given on the question of consideration ; and the Court was of opinion that the parties ought to have an opportunity of shewing whether there was or was not a valuable consideration for the deed ; and the case was adjourned to Chambers for that purpose.

Last Update: 06-Aug-16
Ref: 294226

Burrows v Walls; 10 Mar 1855

References: [1855] EngR 294, (1855) 5 De G M & G 233, (1855) 43 ER 859
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: A testator, by his will, gave the residue of his property to three trustees, whom he appointed executors, upon trust to sell and invest the same and to pay the income thereof to his widow for life, and after her decease, to his children, who were still infants at the time of his death. The eldest child attained twenty one in the year 1839, and the youngest in 1846. The three executors proved the will, but one of them almost exclusively acted. The money which was the proceeds of the estate was suffered by two of the executors to remain in the hands of the third, who ultimately became insolvent. On the youngest child attaining twenty one on behalf of himself and his brothers and sisters, attempted to obtain payment from the acting executor, and in 1848 wrote to him a letter consenting to receive payment of the amount then admitted to be due by annual instalments. In 1849, and shortly before the insolvency of the acting trustee, a bill was filed by all the children against the three trustees for the purpose of making them each responsible. Held, that inasmuch as it was the duty of the three trustees to have explained to their cestuis que trust what their rights were, and as they had not done so, there was nothing in the conduct of the children to deprive them of their remedy against the three trustees, who were accordingly declarecl to be, jointly arid severally liable to make good the deficiency,
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 02-Aug-16
Ref: 292216

Kelson v Kelson; 13 Jan 1853

References: [1853] EngR 74 (B), (1853) 10 Hare 385
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: The statement in a deed of settlement, executed after marriage, was that it was made in consideration of 5s., and divers other good and valuable considerations. Held, that this statement did not, as against strangers to the settlement, amount to evidence that it was not voluntary; and a Defendant claiming against it as a purchaser for valuable consideration, and insisting at the Bar that the settlement was fraudulent and void under the stat. 27 Eliz. c. 4, the Court directed an inquiry whether the settlement was founded on any and what valuable Consideration.

Last Update: 30-Jul-16
Ref: 294060

Gee v Liddell; 4 Jun 1866

References: [1866] EngR 161, (1866) 35 Beav 658, (1866) 55 ER 1053
Links: Commonlii
Ratio:The meaning of the word ‘survive’ in a limitation of property, is that the person to survive shall be living at the time of the event which he is to survive; it does not mean living at any time whatever after the event referred to. Consequently, a gift over, if there should be no child or remoter issue of AB who should survive the testator and AB, and should live to attain twenty-one, is not void for remoteness.

Last Update: 19-Jul-16
Ref: 280872

Saunders v Vautier; 7 May 1841

References: (1841) 4 Beav 115 affd Cr & Ph 240, [1841] EWHC Ch J27, [1841] EWHC Ch J82, (1841) Cr & Ph 240, [1841] EngR 629, (1841) 4 Beav 115, (1841) 49 ER 282
Links: Bailii, Bailii, Commonlii
Coram: Lord Cottenham
Ratio:A direction in a will stated that the income from certain shares was to be accumulated and invested until the beneficiary attained the age of 25. On attaining his majority at 21 years, the beneficiary sought termination of the trust, and transfer of the legal title in the property to him.
Held: The beneficiary was entitled to call for the property. The intention of the testator was that the beneficiary would ultimately take the property, but had merely sought to postpone the date on which this would happen. Beneficiaries who are sui juris and together entitled to the whole beneficial interest can put an end to the trust and direct the trustees to hand over the trust property as they may direct: ‘once something has been given to a person the court will not enforce any attempt to keep it out of his grasp until a later date.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Tod -v- Judith Cobb Lady Barton, William Godfrey Lukes Barton, The Royal Society of Chemistry, In re Barton (Deceased) ChD (Bailii, [2002] EWHC 264 (Ch))
    The deceased was an English scientist who died domiciled in Texas. His beneficiaries in England executed a deed of variation, but this would not be recognised in the law of Texas. The will expressly stated it was subject to the laws of England. . .
  • Cited – Goulding and Goulding -v- James and Daniel CA (Times 07-Feb-97, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1156)
    The family sought approval of a proposed variation of the will to make best advantage of tax allowances. Because the beneficial interests of children would be affected, the court’s approval was necessary. The judge had refused to approve the . .
  • Cited – Hunt and Another -v- McLaren and others ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 2386 (Ch))
    Land had been given to a football club under a trust for its exclusive use as such. That land was sold and a new ground acquired and a stadium built, but the land was subject to restrictive covenenats limiting its use to sports, which considerably . .
  • Cited – Barbados Trust Company Ltd -v- Bank of Zambia and Another CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 148)
    The creditor had assigned the debt, but without first giving the debtor defendant the necessary notice. A challenge was made to the ability of the assignee to bring the action, saying that the deed of trust appointed to circumvent the reluctance of . .
  • Cited – Nelson -v- Greening & Sykes (Builders) Ltd CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 1358, Times 22-Jan-08)
    The builders had obtained a charging order for the costs awarded to them in extensive litigation, and a third party costs order but without the third party having opportunity to test the bill delivered. They had agreed to sell land to the defendant, . .
  • Cited – Clarence House Ltd -v- National Westminster Bank Plc ChD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 77 (Ch))
    The claimant landlord alleged that the defendant tenant had transferred the lease under a ‘virtual assignment’ and that this was in breach of its lease.
    Held: The Abbey National case was not helpful. However, the arrangement was not a breach . .
  • Cited – Clarence House Ltd -v- National Westminster Bank Plc CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1311)
    The defendant tenants, anticipating that the landlord might delay or refuse consent to a subletting entered into a ‘virtual assignment’ of the lease, an assignment in everything but the deed and with no registration. The lease contained a standard . .
  • See Also – Saunders -v- Vautier (, Commonlii, [1841] EngR 765, (1841) Cr & Ph 240, (1841) 41 ER 482)
    . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 07-Jul-16
Ref: 182790

Knight v Bowyer; 7 May 1858

References: (1858) 2 De G & J 421, [1858] EngR 673, (1858) 2 De G & J 421, (1858) 44 ER 1053
Links: Commonlii
Ratio:The doctrine of laches and delay did not apply to an express trust, save possibly where there was a release or abandonment by the beneficiary and that was capable of being presumed from the facts of the case.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Patel and others -v- Shah and others CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 157, Times 02-Mar-05)
    The parties entered into a commercial agreement for the sale and purchase of properties.
    Held: The claimants had failed to meet their part of the bargain, and had failed to make mortgage payments, leaving the defendants to do so. The . .
  • See Also – Knight -v- Bowyer ([1859] EngR 908, Commonlii, (1859) 4 De G & J 619, (1859) 45 ER 241)
    . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17-Jun-16
Ref: 223436

Sir John Douglass, Bart v Hugh Dalrymple, andC: HL 26 Jan 1770

References: [1770] UKHL 2_Paton_187, (1770) 2 Paton 187
Links: Bailii
Ratio Absolute Disposition – Trust.-
A party disponed certain lands to his agent, in order, as he stated, to qualify him to vote in the county election, but held no written obligation under his hand to redispone. Held that the absolute disposition, together with the law agent’s accounts, amounting to £1400 due him, foreclosed all idea of trust, unless this were proved by writing under the trustee’s hand, in terms of the act 1696.

Last Update: 14-Apr-16
Ref: 561660

Harrold v Harrold; 23 Jul 1861

References: [1861] EngR 833, (1861) 3 Giff 192, (1861) 66 ER 378
Links: Commonlii
A trust to raise by sale of a competent part of a sum of £3389 Bank annuities a sum not exceeding £2000, and pay -&he same to the Plaintiff : Held, not to be exhausted or fully performed by raising a sum of 31391 at the Plaintiffs request.
Last Update: 03-Feb-16 Ref: 284594

Talbot v Staniforth; 27 May 1861

References: [1861] EngR 625, (1861) 1 J & H 484, (1861) 70 ER 837
Links: Commonlii
Where a tenant for life purchased the reversion of his nephew in the family estate : Held, that the transaction fell within the ordinary rule as to reversionary interests, and was not to be regarded as a family arrangement.
The fact that a reversion is dependent on contingencies, which do not admit of estimation by actuaries, does not relieve the purchaser from the onus of shewing that fair value was given.
A family estate stood settled on A. (a bachelor) for life, with remainder to his issue in tail male, with remainder to his nephew B. in tail male, with remainder to the brothers of B. successively in tail male. A. purchased B.’s interest, and required B. to concur in disentailing the estate and conveying the fee. The sale was bona fide intended to be for a fair price ; and the object of the purchaser appeared to be to prevent the estate being sold by B. out of the family. The devisees of A. having failed to prove that fair value was given, the sale was set aside, without costs on either side.
Semble, that the estate to be valued was the reversion in fee which the purchaser acquired, and not merely the base fee which the vendor alone could have sold to a stranger.
Last Update: 29-Jan-16 Ref: 284386

The Rev Adam John Walker And Loveday His Wife, Late Loveday Whitmore Spinster, William Roberts Since Deceased, And John Sanderson v William Symonds Since Deceased, John Lilly, Isaac Harris, And Johanna Whitmore (By Original Bill); 6 Jul 1818

References: [1818] EngR 592, (1818) 3 Swans 1, (1818) 36 ER 751
Links: Commonlii
A deed of compromise executed by a cestui que trust, with the representatives and creditors of a deceased trustee was guilty of a breach of trust, rescinded, and co-trustees declared responsible.
Last Update: 04-Jan-16 Ref: 332592

Wardle v Carter; 23 Dec 1835

References: , [1835] EngR 1081, (1835) 7 Sim 490, (1835) 58 ER 925
Links: Commonlii
A. was entitlecl for the joint lives of himself and his father to a rent-charge of £500 charged on an estate of which his father was tenant for life, with remainder to A in fee. A having agreed to sell to B a perpetual rentcharge of £500 issuing out of the estate, assigned to E. the rent-charge to which he was so entitled, and conveyed his reversion in fee to trustees in trust to secure to B a rent-charge of £500 a year, to commence on the termination of the prior rent-charge. Held, that the transaction was not to be considered as a sale of an interest in reversion, as A when he made the agreement, had it in his power to secure to B a perpetual rentcharge of £500 in possession.
In determining whether a fair price has been paid for a reversionary interest, the market value, and not an actuary’s estimate, ought to be regarded.
Last Update: 13-Dec-15 Ref: 316589

Burnley etc. Textile Union v ATWU: 1986

References: [1986] 1 All ER 885
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 09-Dec-15 Ref: 223945

The Attorney-General v Jesus College, Oxford; 13 Feb 1861

References: [1861] EngR 322, (1861) 29 Beav 163, (1861) 54 ER 589
Links: Commonlii
A testatar devised his estate for providing £108 a year for scholars and exhibitioners of a college, and the remainder of the yearly rents for purchasing advowsons for them. By a codicil, he gave for a school and schoolmaster a house and land at Bala, and £15 a year for the master, and £15 to the scholars, and he gave the money necessary for keeping the school in repair; ‘there beirig £4, 17s. of the present rents ‘I of his estate in Merionethshire, above the £108 to the scholars and exhibitioners at the college, and £15 to the schoolmaster, and £15 to the scholars at Bala; but the house and land at Bala ‘being of the yearly rent of £3, 13s being so much of the £4, 17s., the remainder thereof is £1 5s. per annum for the repairs.’ The rental having greatly increased, held that the school ‘was entitled to such a proportion of the increase as £4, 17s. bore to the whole original rents.
Last Update: 17-Nov-15 Ref: 284083

Libertarian Investments Ltd v Hall; 6 Nov 2013

References: [2014] 1 HKC 368, [2013] HKCFA 93
Links: Hklii
Coram: Millett NPJ, Ribeiro PJ
(Hong Kong) A trustee owes a duty to hold trust funds and apply them for the purposes of the trust (a stewardship or custodial duty). He is bound to answer for his stewardship when called on by the beneficiary to do so. If for any reason he misapplies the trust fund, or part of it, he must immediately reconstitute the trust fund in full. If he fails to do so, the court will order him to reconstitute the fund in specie, if that is possible, or pay the equivalent sum in money so as to produce the same result in financial terms.
Millett NPJ said that the relevant principle, in a case of unauthorised dissipation of trust funds is that: ‘Where the defendant is ordered to make good the deficit by the payment of money, the award is sometimes described as the payment of equitable compensation; but it is not compensation for loss but restitutionary or restorative. The amount of the award is measured by the objective value of the property lost determined at the date when the account is taken and with the full benefit of hindsight.’
Ribeiro PJ carried out a valuable review of the authorities concerned with equitable compensation in the context of a commercial relationship. He noted that where a relationship was fiduciary, there might be obligations which were not fiduciary in nature; and, equally, even in a commercial relationship, there might be aspects which engaged fiduciary obligations.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – AIB Group (UK) Plc -v- Mark Redler & Co Solicitors SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 58, [2014] 3 WLR 1367, [2014] WLR(D) 466, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2013/0052, SC, SC Summary)
    The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 09-Nov-15 Ref: 553779

Hodgkinson v Simms; 30 Sep 1994

References: [1994] 3 SCR 377, 117 DLR (4th) 161, [1994] 9 WWR 609, 97 BCLR (2d) 1, 16 BLR (2d) 1, 171 NR 245, 22 CCLT (2d) 1, 49 BCAC 1, 57 CPR (3d) 1, 5 ETR (2d) 1, [1994] CarswellBC 438, AZ-94111096, JE 94-1560, [1994] SCJ No 84 (QL), [1994] ACS no 84, 50 ACWS (3d) 469, 80 WAC 1, 95 DTC 5135
Links: Canlii
Coram: La Forest, L’Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ
Supreme Court of Canada – Fiduciary duty — Non-disclosure — Damages — Financial adviser — Client insisting that adviser not be involved in promoting — Adviser not disclosing involvement in projects — Client investing in projects suggested by adviser — Ultimate decision as to whether or not to invest that of client — Substantial losses incurred during period of economic downturn — Whether or not fiduciary duty on part of adviser — If so, calculation of damages.
Contracts — Contract for independent services — Breach by failure to disclose — Calculation of damages.
La Forest J, giving the judgment of the majority, drew the distinction between fiduciary relationships and commercial interactions governed by the common law, the former being characterised by one party’s duty to act in the other’s best interests, and often by power on the one hand and dependency on the other, whereas the common law generally respected the pursuit of self-interest. The proper approach to damages for breach of a fiduciary duty was said to be restitutionary. On that basis, the majority of the court concluded that the claimant was entitled to be compensated for the loss sustained on investments which he had made on the advice of a fiduciary who had failed to disclose a conflict of interest, notwithstanding that the loss had resulted from an unforeseen general economic downturn.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cadbury Schweppes -v- FBI Foods ([1999] 1 SCR 142, Canlii, 1999 CanLII 705 (SCC), 85 ACWS (3d) 166, 191 WAC 161, [1999] SCJ No 6 (QL), JE 99-317, AZ-99111005, 83 CPR (3d) 289, 235 NR 30, 117 BCAC 161, 42 BLR (2d) 159, 59 BCLR (3d) 1, 167 DLR (4th) 577)
    Supreme Court of Canada – Commercial law – Confidential information – Breach of confidence – -Remedies – Manufacturer using confidential information obtained under licensing agreement to manufacture competing product – Whether permanent injunction . .
  • Cited – AIB Group (UK) Plc -v- Mark Redler & Co Solicitors SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 58, [2014] 3 WLR 1367, [2014] WLR(D) 466, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2013/0052, SC, SC Summary)
    The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to . .
  • Approved – Pilmer -v- Duke Group Ltd ((2001) 207 CLR 165, [2001] HCA 31, Austlii)
    High Court of Australia – Trusts – Express trust – Money received by firm of solicitors to be held for a specific purpose and in accordance with specific conditions – Misapplication of funds by firm – Breach of express trust – Liability of firm as . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 05-Nov-15 Ref: 554204

KM v HM; 29 Oct 1992

References: (1992) 96 DLR (4th) 289, [1992] 3 SCR 6, 14 CCLT (2d) 1, AZ-92111111, EYB 1992-67549, JE 92-1644, [1992] SCJ No 85 (QL), 36 ACWS (3d) 466, 57 OAC 321
Links: Canlii
Coram: La Forest, L’Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ
Supreme Court of Canada – Limitation of actions – Torts – Assault and battery – Incest – Woman bringing action against father for damages for incest – Whether or not action limited by Limitations Act – Application of the reasonable discoverability principle – Whether or not incest a separate and distinct tort – Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, s. 45(1)(j), 47.
Limitation of actions – Equity – Fiduciary relationship – Parent/child – Woman bringing action against father for incest – Whether incest constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty by a parent – Whether limitation period applicable and whether the defence of laches applies.
Limitation of actions – Fraudulent concealment – Incest – Whether a limitation period in an incest action is postponed by defendant’s fraudulent concealment.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – AIB Group (UK) Plc -v- Mark Redler & Co Solicitors SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 58, [2014] 3 WLR 1367, [2014] WLR(D) 466, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2013/0052, SC, SC Summary)
    The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 03-Nov-15 Ref: 554205

Sugden v Crossland; 18 Feb 1856

References: [1856] EngR 276, (1856) 3 Sm & G 192, (1856) 65 ER 620
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Sir William Page Wood V-C
A sum of money paid to a trustee to persuade him to retire in favour of the payee was to be ‘treated as a part of the trust fund’.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others -v- Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 45, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 471, [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 425, [2014] WTLR 1135, [2014] 4 All ER 79, [2015] 1 AC 250, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 617, [2014] 3 WLR 535, [2014] WLR(D) 317, [2014] 2 BCLC 145, [2015] 1 P &CR DG1, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2013/0049, SC, SC Summary, SC Video)
    The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .

Talbot v Marshfield; 15 Jun 1865

References: [1865] EngR 589, (1865) 2 Dr & Sm 549, (1865) 62 ER 728
Links: Commonlii
Trustees took counsel’s opinion as to whether they should exercise a discretionary power to advance part of their trust fund for the benefit of some of the cestuis que trust: and others of the cestuis que trust having filed a bill to restrain them from exercising such discretion, they took a second opinion as to their defence in the
suit.
Upon summons for production by the Plaintiffs :
Held, that, the first case and opinion having reference to the dealings with the trust estate, all the cestuis que trust had a right to inspection, and the Court ordered them to be produced ; but that the second case and opinion being after suit instituted, the Plaintiffs had no right to production.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Talbot -v- Marshfield ([1864] EngR 762, Commonlii, (1864) 2 Dr & Sm 285, (1864) 62 ER 630)
    Payment into Curt. Discretionary Power in Trustees Over Fund, – Although the mere existence of a discretionary power in trustees over a fund affords no reason why the Court should not order payment of the fund into Court, unless such payment into . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dawson-Damer and Others -v- Taylor Wessing Llp and Others ChD (Bailii, [2015] EWHC 2366 (Ch))
    The clamants sought orders under the 1998 Act for disclosure of documents about them by the defendant solicitors and others. The defendants said that the request would require the consideration of a very large number of documents, considering in . .

Talbot v Marshfield; 17 Nov 1864

References: [1864] EngR 762, (1864) 2 Dr & Sm 285, (1864) 62 ER 630
Links: Commonlii
Payment into Curt. Discretionary Power in Trustees Over Fund, – Although the mere existence of a discretionary power in trustees over a fund affords no reason why the Court should not order payment of the fund into Court, unless such payment into Court would interfere with the exercise by the trustee of such discretion ; yet where it appeared that trustees were about in the due exercise of a discretionary power to deal with a fund, the Court refused to order payment into Court, although the trustees had not actually parted with the fund.
This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Talbot -v- Marshfield ([1865] EngR 589, Commonlii, (1865) 2 Dr & Sm 549, (1865) 62 ER 728)
    Trustees took counsel’s opinion as to whether they should exercise a discretionary power to advance part of their trust fund for the benefit of some of the cestuis que trust: and others of the cestuis que trust having filed a bill to restrain them . .

Stone v Godfrey; 10 Dec 1853

References: [1853] EngR 1085, (1853) 1 Sm & G 590, (1853) 65 ER 258
Links: Commonlii
The father of a female infant, who was himself tenant by the curtesy, but whose right was regarded as doubtful, became next friend of his daughter in a suit against the trustee of his late wife’s real estates, in which a decree was obtained for a partition, and conveyance of the infant’s portion to the father, until she attained twenty one, and then to the use of the infant in fee. The father received the rents and profits, and duly accounted to his daughter in respect of them ; but, on her marriage, filed a bill against her and her husband, for a declaration that his daughter’s interest in the estate might be declared, subject to his estate by curtesy. Held, that the Plaintiff, having relinquished what was regarded as a doubtful right, by an arrangement under which he derived a benefit, was not entitled to relief. Semble -A wife, entitled to real estate sested in trustees, who, under an erroneous impression of her rights, paid the rents to other persons, died, without having received the rents, leaving her husband and one daughter her surviving that; the husband was tenant by the curtesy.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Gibbon -v- Mitchell ChD ([1990] 1 WLR 1304, [1990] 3 All ER 338)
    G executed a deed surrendering his life interest in a trust fund in order to vest the property in his two children: the deed did not have that effect because of two errors (one of which was ignoring the fact that his life interest was subject to . .

Stanley v Jackman; 10 Feb 1857

References: [1857] EngR 259 (C), (1857) 23 Beav 450
Links: Commonlii
A father directed a fund, given to his daughter, to be settled ‘upon her and her issue,’ so that ‘the same might not be liable or subject to the debts, control or engagements of any husband’ whom she might happen to marry during her lifetime. Held, that the settlement ought to give the daughter a power of appointment by will, in default of issue. Form of settlement in such a case.

Egerton v Lord Brownlow; 20 Aug 1851

References: [1851] EngR 789, (1851) 1 Sim NS 464, (1851) 61 ER 180
Links: Commonlii
John WilIiam Earl of Bridgewater devised his freehold estates to trustees, in trust to convey them to the use of Lord Alford, his great-nephew, for ninety-nine years, if he should so long live ; remainder to trustees and their heirs doring the life of Lord Alford, in trust to preserve contingent remainders ; remainder to the use of the heirs male of the body of Lord Alford, with diverse remainders over: provided that, if Lord Alford should die not having acquired the title of Duke or Marquis of Bridgewater, the estate directed to be limited to the heirs male of his body should cease, and the estates should thereupon go over and be enjoyed according to the subsequent uses and limitations directed by his will. Lord Alford died leaving a son, but without having acquired the title. Held, that the proviso was valid.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Egerton -v- Earl of Brownlow HL ([1853] 4 HLC 484, [1853] 4 HLC 1, [1853] EngR 885, Commonlii, (1853) 10 ER 359)
    The House considered a challenge to the terms of a trust on the basis that it offended public policy. The House therefore considered the nature and importance of public policy.
    Held: Public policy ‘has been confounded with what may be called . .

Jones v Morgan; 24 Mar 1783

References: [1783] EngR 55, (1778, 1783) 1 Bro CC 206, (1783) 28 ER 1086
Links: Commonlii
(Lincoln’s Inn Hall) Devise to trustees to pay debts, then to stand seised to the use of A ‘for Life, without impeachment of waste ; after his decease to the use of the heirs male of his body, severally, respectively, and in remainder, is an estate-tail in A. Where tenant for life pays off an incumbrance upon the estate, he shall be considered as a creditor for the money so paid ; but where tenant in tail pays, it is in exoneration of the estate of which he may make himself absolute owner. This is merely a general rule of presumption or primary inference ; and therefore liable to be rebutted by circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

Legg v Goldwire; 10 Nov 1736

References: [1736] EngR 81, (1736) Cas T Talbot 20, (1736) 25 ER 637
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Talbot LC
By Lord Chancellor Talbot – Where articles are entered into before marriage, and a settlement is made after marriage different from those articles (as if by articles the estate was to be in strict settlement, and by the settlement the husband is made tenant in tail whereby he hath it in his power to bar the issue), this Court will set up the articles against the settlement; but where both articles and settlement are previous to the marriage, at a time when all parties are at liberty, the settlement differing from the articles will be taken as a new agreement between them and shall control the articles. And although, in the case of West v Errissey . . afterwards in the House of Lords, in 1727, the articles were made to control the settlement made before marriage, yet that resolution no way contradicts the general rule; for in that case the settlement was expressly mentioned to be made in pursuance and performance of the said marriage articles, whereby the intent appeared to be still the same as it was at the making of the articles.

Willeter v Dobie; 23 Jun 1856

References: [1856] EngR 706, (1856) 2 K & J 647, (1856) 69 ER 942
Links: Commonlii
A married woman, by her will, in exercise of a power of appointment over trust moneys, made several bequests, and ‘after payment of her just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and the expenses attending the execution of her will, appointed’ the residue of the trust moneys among her nieces.
Held: The charge of funeral expenses was not contingent upon her surviving her husband, and that her husband surviving was entitled to repayment, out of the trust moneys, of money paid by him in respect of such expenses.

Marquis Cholmondeley And The Hon Ann Seymour Damer v Lord Clinton; 18 Dec 1816

References: [1816] EngR 865, (1816) 2 Mer 71, (1816) 35 ER 867 (B)
Links: Commonlii
This case cites:

  • See Also – Earl Cholmondeley -v- Lord Clinton (Commonlii, [1789] EngR 567, (1789-1817) 2 Ves Jun Supp 570, (1789) 34 ER 1231)
    A solicitor even though he may not be continuing to act for a particular client, must never be permitted to disclose, to the injury of that client, matters of which he had learned whilst so employed. . .
  • See Also – The Earl of Cholmondeley -v- Lord Clinton (Commonlii, [1813] EngR 513, (1813) 2 Ves & Bea 113, (1813) 35 ER 262)
    . .
  • See Also – Earl Cholmondeley And Ann Seymour Damer -v- Lord Clinton And Others (Commonlii, [1815] EngR 448, (1815) G Coop 80, (1815) 35 ER 484)
    A solicitor for one of the parties in a suit cannot become the solicitor for the opposite party, though he is separated from the partnership which jointly were so employed on the other side, and the remaining partner still continues so employed, and . .
  • See Also – Earl Cholmondeley -v- Lord Clinton (Commonlii, [1815] EngR 511, (1815) 19 Ves Jun 261, (1815) 34 ER 515)
    An Attorney or solicitor cannot give up his client, and act for the opposite party, in any suit between them. . .

This case is cited by:

Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No 2); 1 Jun 1963

References: [1963] 1 All ER 857, [1963] 3 WLR 742, [1963] Ch 576
Coram: Wilberforce J
An application was made for the trustee to be replaced. The trustee complained that he would remain liable in certain events, and sought an indemnity from any new trustee out of the trust fund.
Held: A new trustees would be under ‘the normal duty of preserving an equitable balance, and if at any time it was shown they were inclining one way or the other, it would not be a difficult matter to bring them to account.’ The court asked to what extent a trustee may have a lien over the trust fund for the liabilities to which that trustee may be subject.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No.1) CA (Bailii, [1963] EWCA Civ 5, [1964] Ch 303, [1963] 3 All ER 1, [1963] 3 WLR 742)
    Property had been placed in trust for the daughter of the family, fearing that she might fritter it away. The trust was managed by the bank. The judge had found that, having misunderstood the powers of advancement given, the bank was liable to repay . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – X -v- A, B, C ChD (Bailii, [2000] EWHC Ch 121)
    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 . .

Earle v Bellingham; 24 Jul 1857

References: (1857) 24 Beav 448, [1857] EngR 795 (B), (1857) 24 Beav 445
Links: Commonlii
The right to receive legacies charged on a reversionary legacy payable under the will of another was not a present right to receive them until the reversionary legacy fell into possession on the death of the life tenant.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hornsey Local Board -v- Monarch Investment Building Society CA ([1889] 24 QBD 1)
    The local authority had incurred expense in paving a street. They were entitled to apportion those expenses amongst the owners of the properties fronting onto that street and summarily to recover from the respective owners the amounts so . .
  • Cited – Gotham -v- Doodes CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 1080, Times 14-Aug-06, [2007] 1 WLR 86)
    The former bankrupt resisted sale of his property by the trustee, saying that enforcement was barred by limitation. He and his wife bought the property in early 1988, and he was made bankrupt in October 1988. He was dischaged from bankruptcy in . .

The Trusts of Waite’s Will Ex parte Pugh; 2 Jul 1852

References: [1852] EngR 803, 11 Vict c 96, (1852) 61 ER 428
Links: Commonlii
As between the husband’s creditors and the wife, in respect of the wife’s equity for a settlement, the Court will, under circumstances, give the wife more than one-half; and where the wife had been at the time of the marriage and long afterwards in circumstances of comfort, and was reduced to distress by the husband’s embarrassments, the Court gave the costs of the Petitioner and of the husband’s assignees out of the fund, which was £681, £400 to the wife, and the remainder to the Petitioner ; the wife’s costs out of her own fund.

Lyon v Baker; 30 Jun 1852

References: [1852] EngR 796 (A), (1852) 5 De G & Sm 622
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Sir James Parker VC
In a suit by a trustee against his co-trustee, a solicitor, and the parties beneficially interested under a will, some of them being infants, the costs of all parties had been ordered to be taxed and paid. It appeared that the Defendant trustee, the solicitor, had conducted his defence by his partner. The Taxing Master allowed the solicitor trustee costs out of pocket only. Held, that the rule which had allowed to solicitor trustees costs out of pocket only being well established, the Court would not, with reference to the question of costs, inquire whether the conduct of the suit by the partner of the solicitor trustee was beneficial for all parties, though no party objected to such inquiry, but that all costs beyond those out of pocket must be disallowed.

The London Chartered Bank of Australia v William George Lempriere And Others; 6 Feb 1873

References: [1873] EngR 3, (1873) 9 Moo PC NS 426, (1873) 17 ER 574
Links: Commonlii
The property of a married woman, settled by an ante-nuptial Settlement for her separate use for life, with remainder as she should by Deed or Will appoint, with remainder in failure of appointment to her Executors or Administrators, is an absolute settlement for her sole and separate use, without restraint or anticipation, and vests in equity the entire corpus in her for all purposes.