Beneficiaries under a trust sought damages from a solicitor trustee, and the firm of which he was a partner.
Held: Where a trustee acted in breach of trust in a claimed belief that he was acting in the interests of the beneficiaries, but no reasonable trustee in his place could have that belief, then an allegation against him of dishonesty should proceed. A trusteeship is not part of the normal duties of a partner of a firm, and the firm is not vicariously liable for the acts of a partner in such trusts. The court rejected the ‘Robin Hood’ test of dishonesty (a person is only regarded as dishonest if he transgresses his own standard of honesty, even if that standard is contrary to that of reasonable and honest people) saying: ‘A person may in some cases act dishonestly, according to the ordinary use of language, even though he genuinely believes that his action is morally justified. The penniless thief, for example, who picks the pocket of the multi-millionaire is dishonest even though he genuinely considers that theft is morally justified as a fair redistribution of wealth and that he is not therefore being dishonest.’
‘a claimant is entitled to recover damages where:
(a) the claimant can establish that the defendant’s conduct has constituted a breach of some legal duty owed to him personally (whether under the law of contract, torts, trusts or any other branch of the law) AND
(b) on its assessment of the facts, the Court is satisfied that such breach of duty has caused him personal loss, separate and distinct from any loss that may have been occasioned to any corporate body in which he may be financially interested.
I further conclude that, if these two conditions are satisfied, the mere fact that the defendant’s conduct may also have given rise to a cause of action at the suit of a company in which the claimant is financially interested (whether directly as a shareholder or indirectly as, for example, a beneficiary under a trust) will not deprive the plaintiff of his cause of action; in such a case, a plea of double jeopardy will not avail the defendant.’
Judges:
Sir Christopher Slade
Citations:
Times 26-Sep-2000, Gazette 14-Sep-2000, [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 864
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Legal Professions, Trusts, Equity, Vicarious Liability
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.90254