Soton Equity and Trusts - alastairhudson.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Nestle v National Westminster Bank plc (No 2)[1993] 1 WLR 1260, [1994] 1 All ER 118 5) The Principles of Liability: liability is personal and compensatory Re Lucking's Will Trust [1968] 1 W.L.R. 866 (a) Measure of liability (i) "The measure of liability is the loss caused to the trust estate, directly or indirectly, and the onus is on the complainant to prove a causal connection between the breach and the loss" (Hanbury & Martin, 18th ed., pp. 683-684) Bartlett v. Barclays Bank [1980] Ch 515 Target Holdings v.Redferns [1995] 3 WLR 352; [1995] 3 ALL ER 785 Swindle v Harrison [1997]4 All ER 705 Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 Collins v Brebner [2000] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 587; 2000 WL 395 Hulbert v Avens [2003] EWHL 76; 2003 WL 116999; (2003) 100 (12) LSG 301 (ii) Profit in one transaction, loss in another Fletcher v. Green (1864) 33 Beav. 426 Bartlett v. Barclays Bank (supra) (b) (c) Liability is joint and several Liability for acts of retired trustees Head v. Gould [1898] 2 Ch. 250 2 Liability of trustees inter se Townley v Sherborne (1633) Re Lucking’s Will Trust (supra) (B) Remedies for breach of trust. Reading: Hudson, section 18.3 **Target Holdings v. Redferns [1996] 1 AC 421, [1995] 3 All ER 785 HL per Lord Browne-Wilkinson:- ‘Courts of Equity did not award damages but, acting in personam, ordered the defaulting trustee to restore the trust estate. If specific restitution of the trust property is not possible, the liability of the trustee is to pay sufficient compensation to the trust estate to put it back to what it would have been had the breach not been committed. Even if the immediate cause of the loss is the dishonesty or failure of a third party, the trustee is liable to make good that loss to the trust estate if, but for the breach, such loss would not have occurred. Thus the common law rules of remoteness of damage and causation do not apply. However, there does have to be some causal connection between the breach of trust and the loss to the trust estate for which compensation is recoverable, viz the fact that the loss would not have occurred but for the breach.’ There are therefore three forms of remedy here: 1. specific restitution - proprietary obligation, 2. restore the value of the trust fund, or 3. equitable compensation for losses in general. 48
1) Specific Restitution Harris v Kent [2007] EWHC 463 (Ch), Briggs J 2) Restore the value of the trust fund 3) Equitable compensation Swindle v Harrison [1997] 4 All ER 705 (C) Valuation of loss to the trust. Reading: Hudson, section 18.3.6 Parker Tweedale v. Dunbar [1991] Ch 26, [1990] 2 All ER 577 Nestle v. NatWest [1994] 1 All ER 118, [1993] 1 WLR 1260, CA Jaffray v. Marshall [1994] 1 All ER 143, [1993] 1 WLR 1285 *Target Holdings v. Redferns [1996] 1 AC 421, [1995] 3 All ER 785 HL (D) Defences to breach of trust. Reading: Hudson, section 18.4 1) Lack of a causal link between breach and loss Target Holdings v. Redferns [1996] 1 AC 421 2) Breach committed by another trustee Townley v Sherborne (1633) Bridg 35; (1633) W & TLC 577. Brice v Stokes (1805) 11 Ves Jr 319 3) Failure by beneficiary to alleviate loss Nacional del Cobre de Chile v Sogemin Metals Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 1396 4) Release Lyall v Edwards (1861) 6 H & N 337; (1861) 158 ER 139 BCCI v Ali [2000] 3 All ER 51 5) Trustee exemption clause Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241 Bogg v Raper (1998) The Times, 12 April Wight v Olswang [2000] WTLR 783 Walker v Stones [2001] QB 902 6) Excuses for breach of trust *Trustee Act 1925, s.61: “If it appears to the court that a trustee … is or may be personally liable for any breach of trust … but has acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust and for omitting to obtain the directions of the court in the matter in which he committed such breach, then the court may relieve him either wholly or partly from personal liability for the same.” Chapman v Browne [1902] 1 Ch 785 Re Evans (Deceased) [1999] 2 All ER 777 7) Action not in connection with fiduciary duties *Ward v Brunt [2000] WTLR 731 *Galmerrow Securities Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc [2002] WTLR 125 49
Page 1 and 2: University of Southampton Law Schoo
Page 3 and 4: Lay-out of materials These “Lectu
Page 5 and 6: Formative assessment - (i.e. non-as
Page 7 and 8: How to study for this module 1. Uni
Page 9 and 10: Common law and equity were always d
Page 11 and 12: (E) The rudiments of express trusts
Page 13 and 14: Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsc
Page 15 and 16: (2) Trusts as opposed to merely mor
Page 17 and 18: (3) after all valid claims in (2) h
Page 19 and 20: Topic 2. CERTAINTY OF OBJECTS Readi
Page 21 and 22: 10) Mechanisms for eluding the “a
Page 23 and 24: Topic 3. THE BENEFICIARY PRINCIPLE
Page 25 and 26: (C) Alternative interpretations of
Page 27 and 28: **Leahy v. Att.-Gen. for New South
Page 29 and 30: purpose of blocking the house up an
Page 31 and 32: Topic 4. THE CONSTITUTION OF TRUSTS
Page 33 and 34: Richards v. Delbridge (1874) L.R. 1
Page 35 and 36: *s. 53 (1) (b): "A declaration of t
Page 37 and 38: Topic 5. THE DUTIES OF TRUSTEES & B
Page 39 and 40: [Considered in detail in relation t
Page 41 and 42: (a) to any special knowledge or exp
Page 43 and 44: ule does not afford the right to th
Page 45 and 46: Burrell v Burrell [2005] EWHC 245,
Page 47: (F) Judicial control of trustees’
Page 51 and 52: EQUITY & TRUSTS PART II TRUSTS IMPL
Page 53 and 54: Topic 6. RESULTING AND QUISTCLOSE T
Page 55 and 56: (b) (c) father and child Bennet v.
Page 57 and 58: II. QUISTCLOSE TRUSTS Reading: Huds
Page 59 and 60: e. … other commercial-contract la
Page 61 and 62: (c) The nature of the constructive
Page 63 and 64: (b) where the company is a public c
Page 65 and 66: 6) Profits from theft Reading: Huds
Page 67 and 68: Topic 8. TRUSTS OF HOMES General Re
Page 69 and 70: (5) Each case will turn on its own
Page 71 and 72: Ferguson, ‘Constructive trusts -
Page 73 and 74: *Pascoe v. Turner [1979] 2 All ER 9
Page 75 and 76: inging up the children is no doubt
Page 77 and 78: first sight this may seem surprisin
Page 79 and 80: (ii) Cases looking to the character
Page 81 and 82: *Niru Battery Manufacturing Co v Mi
Page 83 and 84: Hudson, 20.5.2. Hudson, Securities
Page 85 and 86: C. EQUITABLE TRACING Reading: Hudso
Page 87 and 88: D. REMEDIES AFTER TRACING Reading:
Page 89 and 90: e) Is change of position now equita
Page 91 and 92: 2) The four heads of charity in Pem
Page 93 and 94: (c) (d) (e) Gifts for relief of dis
Page 95 and 96: (D) Advancement of education. Readi
Page 97 and 98: (H) Requirement of the exclusivity
Page 99 and 100:
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON EQUITY
Page 101 and 102:
Polly Peck International v Nadir (N
Page 103 and 104:
Concepts Contract Torts Property Fi
Page 105 and 106:
of what has been called unjust enri
Page 107 and 108:
actions, then the claimant should b
Page 109 and 110:
o Recovery of an enrichment will no
Page 111 and 112:
£200,000 on Static plc shares whic
show all

Soton Equity and Trusts - alastairhudson.com

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?