DOCSLIB.ORG

C00 Br Eq&Tr Prelims.Ps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
C00 Br Eq&Tr Prelims.Ps 衡平法和信托法简明案例s Briefcase on Equity and Trust Third Edition Gary Watt , MA ( Oxon), Solicitor 武 汉 大 学 出 版 社 本 书 导 读 信托制度起源于中世纪英国的 衡平 法 , 因为 当时英 国普 通法院 不承 认 受益人依赖于受托人获得的权利 , 而衡 平法 院则 总是通 过对 受托人 施加 衡 平法上的义务来支持这种权利的。 它是 英美 法系一 个独 特的制 度 , 在大 陆 法系中几乎找不到一个与之相对应的制度。又由于信托制度是建立在双重 所有权观念基础之上的 , 即受托 人享有 普通 法上 的所有 权而 受益人 享有 衡 平法上的所有权 , 所以坚持一物 一权主 义的 大陆 法国家 在接 受和移 植该 制 度的时候难免与英美法中该制度有所差异。对于学习信托法的人来说有必 要参考一下英美法学者有关信 托法的 论著。 本书就 是这 样一 本案例 教材 , 作者在理论和实务的基础上运用各 种案 例讲 述了信 托法 的基本 制度 , 这 对 于我们这些长期接受大陆法系理论教育的人来说的确是一种很新颖的教学 方式。 本书既介绍了衡平法与信托法 的历 史沿 革 , 也介绍 了它 们最近 的一 些 最新发展。全书分为六个部分 , 第一部分主要是介绍衡平法和信托法 ; 第二 部分则叙述了明示信托的设立 , 该部分又分了 8 节 , 逐一介绍了设立明示信 托行为能力与要式的要求 , 确定 性的 要求 , 赠 与的完 成与 信托的 设立 , 永 久 权与信托设立时的公共政策限制 , 目 的信托 , 公益信 托和 特殊种 类信 托 ; 第 三部分探讨了明示信托变更 的各 种方 式以及 1958 年信 托变 更法中 对于 变 更的要求 ; 第四部分则分析了受托人的地位和职责 , 同时也分析了类似于受 托人的人的地位和义务 , 该部分 又分 6 节 , 逐 一介绍 了受 托人 的职的 任命 , 受托人的职的履行 , 受托人的义 务 , 受托 人投 资的权 利及 义务 , 抚养 与预 付 以及信托违约的抗辩与免除 ; 第 五部分 则把 重点 放在拟 制信 托与回 归信 托 之上 , 讲解了推定的回归信托 , 自动的回归信托 , 地产的拟制信托 , 拟制信托 受托人的义务 , 陌生人作为拟制信托的受托人等许多内容 ; 最后作者谈到了 追及与衡平法上的救济 , 在讲到追及的时候既谈到了普通法上的追及 , 又谈 到了衡平法上的追击 , 在讲衡平 法上的 救济 的时 候则讲 到了 衡平法 上对 于 实际履行的救济和衡平法上的禁令。 本书作 为介 绍 英国 信托 法律 制度 的 基本 读物 , 内容 简明 扼要 , 通俗 易 懂。作者理论联系实际 , 借助丰富翔实的案例 , 深入浅出地勾勒出了英国信 托法的基本框架制度。这对于我们 开展 比较 研究 , 理解 和掌 握英国 美法 系 1 相关法律知识 , 借鉴和学习英美法系相对成熟的法律制度是大有裨益的。 本书中文目录、法规一览表、术语及索引部分由武汉大学民商法博士研 究生王茂祺翻译并整理 , 纰漏之处在所难免 , 希望广大读者多提宝贵意见。 译 者 2004 年 4 月 2 Glos sar y 术 语 Abbot t Fund, Re: Two old ladies 两个老年妇女 � Abergavenny’s ( Marquess of) , Re : Advancement used up 预付已用完 Abrahams, Re: 25 year old infant ? 25 岁的婴儿 ? Abrahams v Trustee in Bankruptcy of Abrahams: Lottery result 彩票获奖了 Adams, Re: Accidental residue 意外的剩余遗产 Adams and the Kensington Vestry, Re: Confidence in wife 信任妻子 Adam & Co Ltd v Theodore Goddard: Adam and God: two needed 亚当与上 帝 : 两者都需要 Agip v Jackson: Tunisian bank 突尼斯银行 Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton: Perpetual pension 永久的养老金 Andrews v Partington: Close class gift 对亲近群体的赠与 Andrew’s Trust, Re: Educate bishop’s children 教育主教的孩子 Anker-Petersen v Anker-Petersen: 57 variation 按 照信 托 法 ( 1925 年 ) 第 57 条所作的遗嘱变更 Astor , Re: Observer newspaper 观察者报 Armitage v Nurse : Exclusion clause 排除条款 AG v Blake: Secret memoirs 秘密论文集 AG v Cocke: No limitation for charity 慈善机构不受时效限制 AG for Hong Kong v Reid: Bribe 贿赂 BCCI , Re : Worldwide Mareva 国际马勒瓦禁令 Baden’s DT , Re (No 1) : Discretionary trust test made 自由裁量信托要求的 满足 Baden’s DT , Re ( No 2) : Discretionary trust test used 自由裁量信托要求 的 使用 Baden v Societe Generale: Knowledge by degrees 因为社会地位而明知 Bahin v Hughes: No sleeping trustees 不能有睡着不管事的受托人 Balfour’s Settlement, Re:‘Bal-forfeiture’of protection 保护性信托被剥夺 Bali’s Settlement , Re : Substratum test 信托基础的检验标准 213 Banner Homes v Luff Developments: Bent joint venture 扭曲的合资企业 Bannister v Bannister: Undervalued cottage 估价过低的房子 Banque Belge v Hambrouck: Thieving cashier 出纳盗走雇主的钱 Banque Financèi re v Parc: Subrogation remedy 代为清偿救济 Barclays Bank v Quistclose: Debt become trust 债务转变成信托 Barings ST , Re : Protection lost abroad 潜逃国外而导致保护性信托的丧失 Barlow Clowes v Vaughan: Pari passu preferred 根据 原始 投资 的多 寡按 比 例分配资金的办法更受欢迎 Barlow’s W T , Re : Painting friends 画友“( 朋友”的定义) Barnes v Addy: Assistant and receipt 协助与接受 Barralet v AG: Ethical society 道德团体 Bartlet t v Barclays Bank: Guildford and Old Bailey 吉尔 德 福德 与 欧德 贝 里 (两处的公司) Bateman’s W T , Re : Sealed envelope 密封盖章的信封 Beckett’s Settlement , Re: Discretion is only hope 自由裁量是惟一的希望 Bell’s Indenture, Re: Toll at judgment day 在审判日鸣钟 (对赔偿的估定 � 应在法庭裁判之日决定) Belmont Finance v Williams Furniture: Know no evil 无过错 Berkeley Applegate, Re: Do equity 按照衡平法行事 Best , Re : Charitable and benevolent 慈善(机构) Beswick v Beswick: Coal black widow 煤矿商的寡妇 Bishop v Bonham: Mortgagee thinks fit 抵押权人认为合适 Bishopsgate Investment v Homan: Tracing overdrawn 透支追及 Bishopsgate Investment v Maxwell (No 2 ) : Joint breach 共同违约 Blackwell v Blackwell: The half secret five 半秘密信托中的五人 Boardman v Phipps: Shrewd solicitor stung 精明的律师被敲诈 Boles and the British Land Company’s Contract , Re : Sale after 12 years � 12 年后的地产出卖 Borden v Scottish Products: Nothing to trace 无法追及 Boscawen v Bajwa: Subrogation 代位清偿 Bowes, Re: No trees please 请不要种树 Bowman v Secular Society: No political charity 无政治性的慈善机构 Boyes, Re : Fully secret letters 完全保密的信件 Bray v Ford: Inflexible profits rule 弹性利润规则 214 Brink’s v Abu-Saleh (No 3) : Bullion heist to Zurich 被劫掠到苏黎世的金条 Bristol and West v Mothew : Fiduciary defined 受托人的含义 British Coal v British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme: Trustee of own pen- sion 自己养老金的受托人 Brogden, Re: ￡18 ,000 in 1888 1888 年的一万八千英镑 Bucks Constabulary Widows and Orphans Fund, Re: Police widows and or- phans 警察遗孀与孤儿 Butterworth, Re : Defraud creditors 欺诈债权人 Buttle v Smmders: Gazumped 房价谈妥后又抬价改售(抬价敲诈) Cannon v Hartley: A party in deed 合同中的一方当事人 Carl Zeiss v Herbert Smith: Claim no knowledge 声明不知晓 Carreras Rothmans v Freeman Mathews Treasure: Cigarette advertising 香 烟 广告 Chapman v Chapman: Compromise dispute 争议的妥协 Chase Manhattan Bank v Israel-British Bank : Bankers’expensive mistake 给 银行带来巨大损失的错误 Chichester Diocesan Fund v Simpson: Charitable or benevolent 慈善(机构) Churchill, Re: Maintain intention 抚养的意图 Clayton’s Case: First in, first out 首先转入 , 首先转出 Clifford’s ST , Re: Class in perpetuity 永久权群体 Clore’s ST , Re: Dad’s charity 父亲的慈善机构 Cohen, Re: Poor relations 贫困的亲戚 Cohen’s ST , Re: No unborn variation 不允许为未出生的人而作出变更 Cole, Re: Husband’s furnished flat 丈夫装饰好的公寓 Collard’s WT , Re : Capital circular 资本循环 Columbia Picture v Robinson:‘ Star wars’pirate“s 星球大战”被盗版 Comiskev v Bowring-Hanbury: Full confidence in wife 对妻子完全信任 Commissioners for Spedal Purposes of the Income Tax v Pemsel: Four heads of charity 慈善机构之四要件 Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell: Tory party club 保守党俱 乐部 Cook’s ST , Re: Rembrandt re-sold 转卖的伦勃朗的油画 Cotdthurst, Re: Bankers’widows 银行家们的遗孀 215 Cowan v Scargill: Arthur’s argument 阿瑟的理由 Cowan de Groot v Eagle Trust: High bird, low price 好东西 , 低价格 Coxen, Re: Aldermen’s dinner 阿德曼的晚餐 Cradock v Piper: Solicitor-trustee fees 律师受托人的费用 Cunnack v Edwards: Widows all dead 寡妇全部死亡 Dale, Re: Mutual will for others 相互遗嘱 D’Angibau, Re: Volunteer’s indirect benefit 无偿受让人的间接利益 Danish Bacon, Re : Pension nomination 养老金提名 Davis v Richards and Wallington: Surplus to employer 剩余分配给雇主 Dawson, Re: Sixty year old mum 60 岁的母亲 Dean, Re: The horse and hounds 马与猎狗 Delamere’s ST , Re : Indefeasible decision 不可抗拒的决定 Delius, Re: Composed charity 作曲家财产的公益依托 Denley’s TD, Re: Employees’sports club 雇员体育俱乐部 Derby v Weldon ( Nos 3 and 4 ) : Panamanian Luxembourg 起诉 巴拿 马和 卢 森堡的两家公司 Diggles, Re: Desire of daughter 女儿的要求 Dimes v Scott : No set off 不许抵销 Dingle v Turner Poor employees 贫困的雇员 Diplock, Re: Recover from charity 从慈善机构取回无效遗赠 Douglas, Re: Churchyard maintenance 教堂庭院的维护 Dover Coalfield, Re : Director’s profit authorised 得到授权的主管的利润 Downshire , Re : No remoulding benefit 不能改变信托的利益 Drexel Burnham Lambert, Re: Trustee-beneficiaries approved 被认 可的受 托 人的受益人 Druce’s ST , Re : Beneficiaries should apply 受益人应适用 Duke of Norfolk’s ST , Re: Court authorised remuneration 经 过 法院 授权 了 的报酬 Dupree’s DT , Re: Chess tournament 象棋比赛 Duxbury’s Settlement Trusts, Re: Has to be public trustee 必须 是公共受 托 人 EVTR, Re: Premium bond winner 以资金代息储蓄债券的获奖者 216 Eagle Trust v SBC: Need knowledge 需要明知 Edge v Pensions Ombudsman: Impartial pension 公平的养老金 Edwards v Carter: Infancy incapacity 无缔约能力的未成年人 Endacott , Re: Some useful memorial 一些有用的纪念物 Faraker , Re: Mrs Bailey’s Charity 贝利夫人的慈善机构 Finger’s W T , Re: Charitable purpose or person ? 为慈善目的还是为特定 人 之利益 ? Foskett v McKeown: Suicidal policy 自杀者的保险单 Foster v Spencer: That’s cricket 那是公正的行为 Fowkes v Pascoe: Paxo stock 帕科索股票 Frawley v Neill: Proceeds without delay 马上进行 Fry, Re : Treasury consent 财政部的同意 Fry v Tapson: Londoner in Liverpool 在利物浦的伦敦人 GKN Bolts and Nuts Sports and Social Club, Re: A wind up 停止清理 ; 破产 Gaite’s WT , Re: Illegitimate child, legitimate gift 私生子 , 合法的馈赠 Gascoigne v Gascoigne: Improper use of wife 妻子对预付推定的不当利用 Geering, Re: Deferred contingent bequest 延迟的期待性遗赠 Gibbon v Mitchell: Surrender forgiven 因错误而让与财产的契约法院宣布无 效 Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund, Re: Cadets killed 死亡的军官学校学生 Gillott’s Settlement , Re : Appoint a new husband 任命一个新丈夫 Gilmour v Coats: Cloistered nuns 隐居的修女 Gisborne v Gisborne : Absolute discretion 完全的自由裁量 Goodchild v Goodchild: Son claims mutual wills 儿子主张相互遗嘱的权利 Golay’s WT , Re: A‘reasonable’decision 一个合理的决定 Goldcorp Exchange , Re : Bullion customers 金条消费者 Goulding v James: Benefits of variation 变更的利益 Grant’s WT , Re : Labour party club 劳动党俱乐部 Grey v IRC: Six settlements 六个遗赠契约 Grove-Grady, Re: Animal refuge 动物庇护 Guild, Re: Recreational charity 娱乐性慈善机构 Guinness v Saunders: Guinness cost ￡5 .2 m 吉尼斯花了 520 万英镑 217 Gulbenkian’s Settlements, Re: Individual ascertainability 个人的确定性 Gwyon, Re: Knickers for boys 男孩子穿的短裤 HRT v Alsford Pension Trustees: Pension fraud 养老金欺诈 Hadden, Re: Recreation of Vancouver and Nottingham 温哥华与诺丁汉的娱 乐 Hallett’s Estate, Re: Trustee’s monies used first 先使用受托人的钱 Halifax Building Society v Thomas: Doubtful Thomas 疑心的托马斯 Hamilton, Re : Precedent not conclusive 先例并不是决定性的 Hancock v Watson: Trust engrafted onto gift 信托转换成赠与 Harari’s ST , Re: Construction of investment clause 投资条款的解释 Hardoon v Belilios: Expenses claim 费用索赔 Hardy v Shaw: Wide advancement 广泛的预付 Hargreaves, Re: Remote appointment fails 间接指定无效 Harmer v Armstrong: Copyright contract or trust ? 版权合同还是信托 ? Harries v Church Commissioners for England: Ethical investment 道德投资 Harwood, Re: Peace Society of Belfast 贝尔法斯特的和平团体 Hastings’Bass, Re : Three discretionary questions 三个自由裁量的问题 Hay’s ST , Re: Powers 权力 Hayim v Citibank: American lost property 美国人损失财产 Haynes WT , Re : Marriage covenant forfeiture 婚姻契约扣押 Head v Gould: Retiring disgracefully 有失体面地卸职
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (A) Panag. Prelims
    RESTITUTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW Restitution in Private International Law GEORGE PANAGOPOULOS B. A., LL.B (hons.) (Mon.) B.C.L., D.Phil. (Oxon) Barrister and Solicitor of Victoria, Australia Solicitor, England and Wales OXFORD – PORTLAND OREGON 2000 Hart Publishing Oxford and Portland, Oregon Published in North America (US and Canada) by Hart Publishing c/o International Specialized Book Services 5804 NE Hassalo Street Portland, Oregon 97213-3644 USA Distributed in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg by Intersentia, Churchillaan 108 B2900 Schoten Antwerpen Belgium © George Panagopoulos 2000 The author has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work Hart Publishing Ltd is a specialist legal publisher based in Oxford, England. To order further copies of this book or to request a list of other publications please write to: Hart Publishing Ltd, Salter’s Boatyard, Oxford OX1 4LB Telephone: +44 (0)1865 245533 or Fax: +44 (0)1865 794882 e-mail: [email protected] www.hartpub.co.uk British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data Available ISBN 1 84113–142–3 (cloth) Typeset by Hope Services (Abingdon) Ltd. Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd, Guildford and King’s Lynn. “λλ πειρ ται τ ζημ α σζειν, φαιρν τ κρδο . στε τ πανορθωτικν δκαιον "ν ε#η τ μσον ζημα κα$ κρδου” &Αριστοτλη, &Ηθικ Νικομχεια, V 4 1132α 9–10, 18–19 “but (the judge) tries to equalize things by the penalty he imposes, taking away the gain . therefore the restitutionary justice is the mean between loss and gain” Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics V 4 1132a 9–10, 18–19 Preface This book is based on my doctoral thesis, which was submitted at the University of Oxford in July 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • STRANGER LIABILITY: a QUESTION of CONSCIENCE PROPERTY OR STANDARDS? by Kerrell Ma* PART ONE Introduction Trustees Have Some Onerous Duties
    STRANGER LIABILITY: A QUESTION OF CONSCIENCE PROPERTY OR STANDARDS? by Kerrell Ma* PART ONE Introduction Trustees have some onerous duties. Their principle duty is to discharge themselves by accounting to their beneficiaries for the trust property. That duty or a duty akin to it should not be imposed lightly on any persons other than an express trustee, unless those persons' actions in relation to the trust property are such that they ought to attract such a duty. Furthermore, before equity imposes a liability on persons other than an express trustee (referred to as strangers to the trust) for participating in a breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty there should be a clear reason for so doing. Is it because of: 1.the unconscionable behaviour of the stranger in relation to the property; or 2. the stranger's fault in not realising that the dealing with the property constitutes a breach of trust or fiduciary duty or that any assistance rendered enables a breach to be committed; or 3. the stranger's notice in respect of the breach; or 4. the stranger's unjust enrichment by receipt of property, or for more than one of these reasons? Judges and academics cannot agree on the underlying basis for the obligations imposed on strangers for receipt of property received in breach of trust or in breach of fiduciary duties or for the rendering of assistance in such breaches.1 It is then no small wonder that with the offering of different paths, the law in relation to constructive trust liability for strangers to trusts is in disarray.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Trusts
    Administration of Trusts Administration of Trusts Denis Barlin Barrister 13 Wentworth Selborne Chambers 174-180 Phillip Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 (02) 9231 6646 [email protected] page 1 Administration of Trusts Contents 1 General principles – trusts ................................................................................. 4 1.1 Trustee’ Duties .................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Duty to carry out terms of the trust .................................................................................. 5 1.3 Duty of care in the management of the trust affairs ........................................................ 5 1.4 Duty to act impartially ....................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Duty to perform trusts honestly and in good faith for the benefit of beneficiaries ......... 7 1.6 Bankruptcy Act considerations.......................................................................................... 8 1.7 Undervalue transfers ......................................................................................................... 8 1.8 Transfers to defeat creditors ........................................................................................... 10 2 The Court’s power to remove a trustee ............................................................ 12 3 Statutory power of appointment ..................................................................... 16 4 The
    [Show full text]
  • Claims Against Third-Party Recipients of Trust Property
    Cambridge Law Journal, 76(2), July 2017, pp. 399–429 © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2017. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use. doi:10.1017/S0008197317000423 CLAIMS AGAINST THIRD-PARTY RECIPIENTS OF TRUST PROPERTY DAVID SALMONS* ABSTRACT. This article argues that claims to recover trust property from third parties arise in response to a trustee’s duty to preserve identifiable property, and that unjust enrichment is incompatible with such claims. First, unjust enrichment can only assist with the recovery of abstract wealth and so it does not assist in the recovery of specific property. Second, it is difficult to identify a convincing justification for introducing unjust enrich- ment. Third, it will work to the detriment of innocent recipients. The article goes on to show how Re Diplock supports this analysis, by demonstrating that no duty of preservation had been breached and that a proprietary claim should not have been available in that case. The simple conclusion is that claims to recover specific property and claims for unjust enrichment should be seen as mutually exclusive. KEYWORDS: trusts, third parties, proprietary claims, knowing receipt, res- titution, unjust enrichment, Re Diplock. I. INTRODUCTION According to orthodox trust principles, where property is transferred in breach of trust, a beneficiary can either bring a proprietary claim to recover the property or a personal claim against a knowing recipient of the trust property (hereinafter, the combination of these two claims will be referred to as the “equitable regime”).
    [Show full text]
  • High Court of Australia
    Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22 (24 May 2007) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA GLEESON CJ GUMMOW, CALLINAN, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ FARAH CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD & ORS APPELLANTS AND SAY-DEE PTY LTD RESPONDENT Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22 24 May 2007 S347/2006 & S461/2006 ORDER 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 21 December 2005 and varied on 28 November 2006 and in their place order that the appeal to that Court from the judgment and orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dated 19 August 2004 and 22 November 2004 be dismissed with costs. 3. Respondent to pay the appellants' costs of the proceedings in this Court. On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales Representation F M Douglas QC with V R W Gray and R J Hardcastle for the appellants (instructed by Strathfield Law) A J Sullivan QC with J K Kirk and J S Emmett for the respondent (instructed by Esplins) Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports. CATCHWORDS Farah ConstructIons Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd Equity - Fiduciary duties - Joint venture to redevelop property between first appellant and respondent - Second appellant learnt that redevelopment would gain Council approval only if the property was amalgamated with adjoining properties - Adjoining properties purchased by the second appellant, his wife and children and another company controlled by the second appellant - Whether first appellant had an obligation to disclose to the respondent opportunities to purchase adjoining properties and information concerning the Council's attitude to redevelopment - Whether first appellant fulfilled any such obligation of disclosure.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Dishonest and Fraudulent Design' Requirement in Accessorial Liability
    THE PLACE OF THE ‘DISHONEST AND FRAUDULENT DESIGN’ REQUIREMENT IN ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY FOR ASSISTING IN A BREACH OF TRUST OR FIDUCIARY DUTY TANYA SHANKAR* Currently in Australia, a plaintiff may sue a third party on the basis that such party has knowingly assisted in a trustee or fi duciary’s dishonest and fraudulent design in furtherance of the latter’s breach of trust or fi duciary duty. This is known as the equitable claim of accessorial liability. The ‘dishonest and fraudulent design’ limitation has received considerable criticism. This paper will investigate whether this requirement has any justifi cation in principle and/or legal policy as a component of the test for accessorial liability, by evaluating its strengths and weaknesses. It is suggested that the removal of this limitation is necessary, because it is both incoherent and unfair. Equity should be able to intervene where the third party can be shown to have dishonestly assisted in any breach of trust or fi duciary duty, regardless of whether the defaulting trustee or fi duciary has additionally exhibited any fraudulent behaviour. I INTRODUCTION It may be impossible or impractical for a benefi ciary or principal (‘plaintiff’) to sue their trustee or fi duciary (‘primary wrongdoer’) for harm which has resulted from the latter’s breach of trust or fi duciary duty.1 In these circumstances, the plaintiff may cast the net of liability over a third party who has knowingly assisted in a ‘dishonest and fraudulent design on the part of the trustee or fi duciary’.2 This equitable claim is known as ‘accessorial liability’3 or the ‘second limb’ of the rule in Barnes v Addy,4 the formulation of which prevails in Australia as a result of the High Court of Australia’s infl uential dicta in Farah.5 * LLB (Hons) (University of South Australia), Grad Dip (Legal Practice) (College of Law).
    [Show full text]
  • Honours Paper Final
    THIRD PARTY LIABILITY FOR ‘KNOWING RECEIPT’ AND ‘KNOWING ASSISTANCE’ POST-GRIMALDI v CHAMELEON MINING NL (NO 2) Claire McGowan This thesis is presented for the Honours degree of Bachelor of Laws of Murdoch University 2012. I declare that this is my own account of my research. Signed: ………………………………. COPYRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I acknowledge that a copy of this thesis will be held at the Murdoch University Library. I understand that, under the provisions of s51.2 of the Copyright Act 1968, all or part of this thesis may be copied without infringement of copyright where such a reproduction is for the purposes of study and research. This statement does not signal any transfer of copyright away from the author. Signed: …………………………………………………………... Full Name of Degree: Bachelor of Laws with Honours Thesis Title: Third Party Liability for ‘Knowing Receipt’ and ‘Knowing Assistance’ Post-Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) Author: Claire McGowan Year: 2012 Abstract This paper examines the position of third party liability for ‘knowing receipt’ and ‘knowing assistance’ under Barnes v Addy in Australia following the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2). Grimaldi demonstrates that third party liability under Barnes v Addy is a primary, fault based liability concerned with the wrongdoing of the third party. There remains a technical distinction between the ‘two limbs’ of Barnes v Addy on the basis that a dishonest state of mind on the part of the breaching fiduciary or trustee is required to trigger liability for knowing assistance, but not for knowing receipt.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitation Periods and the Constructive Trust
    Limitation Periods and the Constructive Trust Scott Aspinall Barrister Ground Floor Wentworth Chambers, Sydney Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. Limitation Periods and the Constructive Trust What is a “constructive” trust? The constructive trust has been referred to as one of the most difficult of all the equitable doctrines to understand, and consistent with this it is difficult to produce an all-embracing definition of what a constructive trust is. In Muschinski v Dodds Deane J, said: “viewed in its modern context, the constructive trust can properly be described as a remedial institution which equity imposes regardless of actual or presumed agreement or intention (and subsequently protects) to preclude the retention or assertion of beneficial ownership of property to the extent that such retention would be contrary to equitable principle”.1 His Honour’s approach was subsequently affirmed by all members of the High Court in Baumgartner v Baumgartner.2 In a sense, the constructive trust is defined by its differences from the other types of trust. It is different from an express trust because it arises or is raised without reference to the intention of the parties and indeed is sometimes, contrary to the wishes of the constructive trustee. It does not need to comply with the statutory requirements of writing. It is different from an implied or resulting trusts, because whereas in those cases the Court is looking for is the actual or presumed intentions of the parties, in the case of a constructive trust the inquiry goes further as to whether it would be a fraud or unconscientious for the constructive trustee to deny the trust.3 The traditional English view of a constructive trust was explained by F.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessory Liability
    Equity and Trusts 03 – Accessories PART III — ACCESSORY LIABILITY I Introduction A Definition Accessory liability concerns the remedies available against parties who, although not the fiduciary, are connected in some way to a breach of fiduciary duty — whether by receiving property, participating in the breach itself, or both. The general rule is as follows: third parties who knowingly participate in the default of a fiduciary may themselves be accountable in equity to the principal (Barnes v Addy). The doctrine of accessory liability provides a way for these other defendants to be liable for their role in breaches of fiduciary duties owed by other, in some way related, parties. B Rationale It may well be puzzling to the naïve scholar why there is much concern for the liability of third parties when, plainly, a breaching fiduciary will herself be subject to all the remedial ferocity with which equity treats its villains. There are essentially three reasons why secondary participants in a breach may become important focal points in a dispute: 1 Insolvency of the primary defendant If the breaching fiduciary cannot satisfy a personal judgment against them, and has no assets against which to secure a primary remedy, there is little point (besides public condemnation) in pursuing that party; 2 The absconder–fiduciary Dealing, as it does, with depraved exhibits of human greed and frailty, the equitable doctrine of breach of duty must be prepared to deal with the breaching fiduciary who absconds to avoid incurring the wrath of his beneficiaries; 3 Piercing the corporate veil If the breaching fiduciary is a company, it might be possible to make an individual director liable as an accessory to the breach, ensuring equitable liability corresponds to the parties’ true measure of practical responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions Concerning Third Party Recipient Liability in Equity and Unjust Enrichment
    ‘THE RECEIPT OF WHAT?’: QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIRD PARTY RECIPIENT LIABILITY IN EQUITY AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT JOACHIM DIETRICH∗ AND PAULINE RIDGE† [This article argues that equitable recipient liability should not be displaced by a strict liability claim in unjust enrichment. Furthermore, recent judicial and academic suggestions to the contrary fail to engage in a proper analysis of the requisite elements of either claim. In particular, the questions of whether there has been a ‘receipt’ of trust property and whether proprietary relief is available have been glossed over. To demonstrate the complexity and confusion surrounding both the equitable and unjust enrichment claims the article considers (against the backdrop of proprietary claims reliant on the priority/tracing rules) the application of equitable recipient liability and unjust enrichment theory to a simple fact scenario and then more complex variations. It is argued on doctrinal and policy grounds that equitable fault-based liability best reconciles the competing claims of the beneficiary of a trust or fiduciary relationship, and the third party recipient of trust property. The High Court of Australia, in its recent decision of Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, reached similar conclusions on a number of key points.] CONTENTS I Introduction............................................................................................................... 48 II An Overview of Possible Claims in Equity.............................................................. 51 III General
    [Show full text]
  • Smith V Smith [ ] NSWSC ( April )
    5/25/2018 Smith v Smith [2017] NSWSC 408 (13 April 2017) Australasian Legal Information Institute Supreme Court of New South Wales Smith v Smith [] NSWSC ( April ) Last Updated: May Supreme Court New South Wales Case Name: Smith v Smith Medium Neutral Citation: [2017] NSWSC 408 Hearing Date(s): 24, 25 and 26 November 2015; 2 and 3 February 2016; and written submissions culminating in written submissions dated 1 December 2016 Decision Date: 13 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Lindsay J Decision: Subject to allowing the parties an opportunity to be heard as to orders to be made: (1) The First Defendant (the holder of an enduring power of attorney on behalf of her husband, an incapable person, now deceased) held liable to account to the estate of the deceased for her mismanagement of his property in breach of fiduciary obligations. (2) The second defendant (executor of the deceased’s estate) held not liable, in devastavit, for wilful default in performance of his duties, for a failure or refusal to institute proceedings against the first, third and fourth defendants. https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2017/408.html?context=1;query=Smith%20v%20Smith%202017;mask_path= 1 5/25/2018 Smith v Smith [2017] NSWSC 408 (13 April 2017) (3) Declaration to be made that the first, third and fourth defendants hold on trust for the estate of the deceased (prima facie, for the benefit of the plaintiffs as beneficiaries of the estate) property acquired by them in the names of the third and fourth defendants, using funds of the deceased applied by the first defendant in breach of fiduciary obligations she owed to the deceased as his attorney (4) Further consideration to be given to questions of remedy, and consequential relief, to be granted.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FIRST LIMB of BARNES V ADDY: a TAXONOMY in TATTERS the HON JUSTICE DAVID J S JACKSON*
    QUT Law Review ISSN: (Print) 2205-0507 (Online) 2201-7275 Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 4-29. DOI: 10.5204/qutlr.v15i1.658 THE FIRST LIMB OF BARNES v ADDY: A TAXONOMY IN TATTERS THE HON JUSTICE DAVID J S JACKSON* Acknowledgements: Chief Justice, Judges of this and other courts, Professor Lee, ladies and gentlemen. This lecture is given in tribute to Tony Lee. That is only fitting. He is a scholar of international significance and he was personally responsible for much of the core statutory law reform in this State on the subjects of Trusts and Succession Law. Not long after the High Court’s decision in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (‘Farah’),1 I asked Professor Lee what he thought about it. He said this: ‘Well, David, after all these years of reading cases I think that cases where plaintiffs don’t win generally don’t decide very much about the law.’ Then he said: ‘But I don’t know, what do you think?’ I was taken aback. At that time, I was full of the joys of the High Court’s decision. First, I thought it had rescued indefeasibility from the scrap heap, particularly so far as bank mortgages were concerned. Secondly, whilst I now agree with Professor Keith Mason’s point of view that the High Court’s treatment of the New South Wales Court of Appeal was intemperate, I was not unhappy then that the High Court had stemmed the tide of those who were intent on bending first limb Barnes v Addy2 liability into a restitutionary framework.
    [Show full text]