Tutorial 3 (prepared by Yuvanesh Kumar 1171100848)

Question (a)

The issue is whether Remy purchase the house in dispute through auction.
The first case to be looked upon is Holder v Holder. In this case, the testator appointed
his son as one of his executors but the son took no part in the further administration of the
estate. The court decided not to set aside the transaction on several grounds and one of the
major grounds is that the executor had not interfered in the administration of the estate. The
second case, which was also cited in Holder v Holder, to be looked upon is Clark v Clark. In
this case, the court established that an executor who renounces before he has acted in the
administration of the estate is entitled to buy any part of the testator's property. The third case
to be looked upon is re Boles and British Lan Co.’s Contract. In this case, the court established
that a trustee who has been discharged from the trust before any question of sale of the property
has arisen is entitled to purchase. The fourth case to be looked upon is Tito v Waddell. In this
case, Megarry VC established that when a trustee deals with the beneficial interest or acquires
it, there will be an obligation imposed to demonstrate fair dealing.
Applying back the laws to the current scenario, just like in the case of Holder v Holder,
Remy had renounced his position and never took part in the further transaction of the house
thus it is clear that he is entitled to the house and it cannot be set aside. Similar principle was
also laid out in both Clark v Clark and re Boles and British Lan Co.’s Contract and this further
affirmed that Remy didn’t acquire the title of the house illegally as the facts clearly said he
wasn’t part of any further transaction of the trust property. Apart from that, in the case of Tito
v Waddell, it is established that trustee can acquire beneficial interest as long as they
demonstrate fair dealing and, in this situation, there are no fact suggesting that Remy had
acquired the house illegally or acted against the benefit of the beneficiaries thus he is entitled
to acquire the house.
In conclusion, it is highly likely that Tizz will not win the case if she took legal action
against Remy since he is entitled to purchase the house in dispute.

Question (b)
The issue is whether Alex’s action constitute of self-dealing and it is against the
fiduciary relationship.
Before diving into the laws, it should be noted that a person being in a fiduciary
relationship is not allowed to benefit himself by taking advantage of the trust and if he does so,
the equity will not allow him to retain the same and he or she hold the benefit under a
constructive trust. The first case to be looked upon is AG V Blake. In this case, the court
established that employee relationship is one of trust and confidence and the employee
undertook to act in the interest of the employer. The second case to be looked upon is Bristol
& West Building Society v Mothew. In this case, the court established that a fiduciary is
someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in
circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The third case to be
looked upon is Keech v Sandford. In this case, the court established that a trustee must not use
his position to enrich himself and this is applied to all instances where one stands in a fiduciary
relationship with another. The fourth case to be looked upon is Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A v
Risser. In this case, the court established that any conduct by the trustee which violates
fiduciary duty by taking advantage of the trustee's position as trustee to benefit the trustee or
some third person which the trustee desires to be benefited, can constitute self-dealing.
Applying back the laws to the current scenario, Alex was an employee of Good Cost
Ltd and was hired by Quick Build Ltd to do the survey the development plot thus he holds a
fiduciary duty towards Quick Build Ltd. In fact, in the case of AG v Blake, it was established
that employee falls within the trust and confidence relationship which also means fiduciary
relationship and the person must act in the interest of the company but in this situation, Alex
went against the interest of the company by telling and outbidding the plot which was actually
meant to benefit Quick Build Ltd. By also applying the principle laid in the case of Bristol &
West Building Society v Mothew, it can be proved that Alex indeed had fiduciary relationship
with Quick Build Ltd as he was assigned to act for them, which is to survey the disputed plot.
Since it is proven that he had fiduciary relationship, by virtue of the principle laid out in Keech
v Salford, he can’t use his position to enrich himself by buying the plot for himself. Even the
case of Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A v Risser, although it is focused on trustee position, it is
still applicable to Alex as he was holding fiduciary duty towards Quick Build Ltd and at such
his act falls within the definition of self-dealing as he had benefitted both himself and the third
person, John. Self-dealing is prohibited under equity thus Alex is liable for his act.
In conclusion, Alex had acted against his duty of fiduciary.