Accessory Liability-Constructive Trustee I

ACCESSORY LIABILITY-
CONSTRUCTIVE
TRUSTEE (CT)
MARK HSIAO
1
ACCESSORY LIABILITY OR THIRD PARTY
LIABILITY CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE
 Third parties who are not trustees may incur personal liability for breaches of
trust on the basis of either accessory or recipient liability.
 Although the case law, particularly in older cases, is replete with the language
of constructive trusteeship (“liability to account as a constructive trustee”), it is
quite clear that this area of the law is concerned not with proprietary claims
but personal liability: Smith, “Constructive Trusts and Constructive Trustees”
(1999) 58 CLJ 294.
 The question for both sets of liability is whether they should be premised on
fault or be strict and if based on fault, the degree of fault required.
2
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
 Both forms of liability may be traced to the case of and Lord Selborne LC’s
dictum:
 “Those who create a trust clothe the trustee with a legal power and control
over the trust property, imposing on him a corresponding responsibility. That
responsibility may no doubt be extended in equity to others who are not
properly trustees, if they are found either making themselves trustees de
son tort, or actually participating in any fraudulent conduct of the trustee
to the injury of the cestui que trust.”
3
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
 “But, on the other hand, strangers are not to be made

constructive trustees merely because they act as the agents of
trustees in transactions within their legal powers, transactions,
perhaps of which a Court of Equity may disapprove, unless
1. those agents receive and become chargeable with some part
of the trust property, or,
2. unless they assist with knowledge in a dishonest and
fraudulent design on the part of the trustees.”
4
Accessory Liabilities: Personal Liabilities
clothes under the title CT.
Action against 3rd Party
(a) Recipient liability (Knowing (b) Assistance liability (Knowing

receipt) assistance)
1. Breach of Fiduciary duty 1. Breach of Fiduciary duty
(trustee or fiduciary) (Trustee or fiduciary)
2. Receive the assets 2. Assist (act)
3. Knowledge or unconscionable 3. Knowledge (Objective
test Dishonesty)
5
Accessory Liabilities: Personal Liabilities
clothes under the title CT.
3rd Party can be any of the following examples
1. Banks (receipt equitable properties: money or administering the

payment)
2. Accountant (assist in creating tax avoidance scheme)
3. Any third party that receives the trust property knowing of the
fiduciary breach
4. Any third party that would reasonably know that there was a breach
in fiduciary and non the less assist the matter
6
COMMON TERMINOLOGIES FOR
ACCESSORY LIABILITY
 Knowing assistance  Knowing receipt
 (Dishonest Assistance)  (Unconscionable Receipt)
 Assistance liability  Recipient liability
7
Legal Conditions ( Brief map )
1. Fiduciary Breach
(common ground)
(a) Recipient liability (Unconscionable (b) Assistance liability (dishonest

receipt) assistance)
1. Fiduciary Breach 1. Fiduciary breach
2. Receive the assets (subsisting 2. Assist (act as accomplice, no
equitable interest need to receive the equitable
3. Knowledge or unconscionable interest of the breach)
test of the breach 3. Knowledge of the wrong ( A
reasonable honest person:
dishonest test: objective)
8
Setting the scene- breach by
1. Fiduciary / Trustees
A trustee/ fiduciary has an obligation to act in the best interests of another.
 (1) THE CONTENT OF FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS
 Millett L.J. in Bristol and West B.S. v Mothew [1998] Ch. 1, 18:
 "The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty … A
fiduciary must act in good faith: he must not make a profit out of his trust: he
must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may
conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person
without the informed consent of his principal."
9
The rationale of the ‘no conflict rule’
Lord Herschell in Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44, 51.
 It is an inflexible rule of a Court of Equity that a person in a fiduciary
position … is not … entitled to make a profit; he is not allowed to put
himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict.
 … I regard it … as based on the consideration that, human nature
being what it is, there is danger … of the person holding a fiduciary
position being swayed by interest rather than by duty, and thus
prejudicing those whom he was bound to protect.
10
A. WHO IS A FIDUCIARY?
P.J. Millett, "Equity's Place in the Law of Commerce" (1998) 114 L.Q.R. 214. pp. 219 - 221:
 "There are at least three distinct categories of fiduciary relationship which possess different
characteristics and which attract different kinds of fiduciary obligation."
1. where there is a relationship of trust and confidence.
2. where there is a relationship of influence. Its key characteristic is vulnerability. It is
unconscionable for one to exploit this vulnerability.
3. where there is a relationship of confidentiality. "This arises whenever information is
imparted by one person to another in confidence." p. 220.
 p. 221: "Of course, these different fiduciary relationships are intertwined and grow into each
other."
11
A. WHO IS A FIDUCIARY?
 Trustees and the beneficiaries;
 Executors and administrators of an estate;
 Agents and their principals (such as their companies). This includes partnerships.
 Solicitors and their clients. See Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46.
 Contrast the situation where traders are dealing at arm’s length in a commercial matter: Re
Goldcorp Exchange [1995] 1 A.C. 74, P.C. The claimants were persuaded by a company to
invest their savings in gold bullion. The company was subsequently put into receivership.
12
 Obtaining a benefit
Keech v. Sandford (1726) Sel Cas Ch 61
A lease of property was held on trust for the benefit of a child beneficiary. When the lease was
due to expire, the trustee applied to renew it for the benefit of the trust. The landlord refused. The
trustee then renewed the lease for his own personal benefit.
See further Boardman v. Phipps [1967] 2 A.C. 46, HL
Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v. Cooley [1972] 1 WLR 443

The defendant was managing director of the claimant company, which offered construction and
design services. The defendant entered into negotiations with a gas company to design and
construct new depots. The company`s bid was unsuccessful. The gas company then approached
the defendant and offered him a contract personally. The defendant agreed.
13
Thompson`s Trustee v. Heaton [1974] 1 WLR 605
A partner obtained the freehold reversion of a lease, which was a
partnership asset, and then sold the property making a substantial profit.
But in order to obtain a proprietary remedy, it is not enough to show a
breach of fiduciary duty: it must be shown that the fiduciary obtained
property which belonged to the beneficiaries or his principal. In other
words, the property must be impressed with fiduciary obligations.
14
Can a principal or beneficiaries bring a proprietary claim in relation to a bribe? Yes
Attorney General of Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 A.C. 324 (affirmed by the Supreme
Court in FHR Europe Ventures LLP v Mankarious [2014] UKSC 45 [2014] 3 W.L.R.
535).
Mr. Reid was Acting Director of Public Prosecutions in Hong Kong. He accepted
bribes in return for impeding the prosecution of certain criminals. He used the money
to purchase property in New Zealand which increased in value.
FHR Europe Ventures LLP v Mankarious [2014] UKSC 45 [2014] 3 W.L.R. 535
Cedar Capital Partners acted as an agent for a buyer of a hotel but received a secret
commission from the seller. 15
Any defences?
If the trustee or fiduciary has taken advantage of his position and/or put himself in a
position where there is a conflict of interest, then it is not sufficient to show:
 That he acted honestly and in good faith;
 That the beneficiaries/principal suffered no injury;
 That the beneficiaries/principal benefited from the actions of the fiduciary
 That the beneficiaries/principal would have agreed if they had been fully
informed (i.e. they would have given permission for the transaction to go ahead)
 That the beneficiaries/principal could not have received the benefit themselves.
16
(a) Recipient Liability (Unconscionable Receipt)?
I: KNOWING RECEIPT OF TRUST PROPERTY

 Personal and proprietary claims
This category of cases is concerned with the situation where a person
 receives property and
 treats it as his own
 even though he ‘knows’ that it is trust property or subsequently learns that
this is the case.
17
I: FROM KNOWING TO UNCONSCIONABLE RECEIPT OF TRUST PROPERTY

In order to establish liability on the part of a third party for unconscionable receipt
of property transferred in breach of trust, a plaintiff must establish:
i. receipt of trust property or its traceable product;
ii. breach of trust or fiduciary duty; and
iii. the requisite element of fault.
Historically, this liability was called “knowing receipt” but with the falling out of
favour of knowledge as a basis of liability, it has morphed into unconscionable
receipt.
18

 Personal and proprietary claims
If the defendant knowingly receives trust property in breach of trust:
 he is personally liable to account as a constructive trustee (action in
personam);
 If there is any trust property still left in the defendant`s hands, then the
beneficiary can trace in equity to recover it (action in rem).
19

Elements of the claim
 The recipient (meaning third party including banks) of trust
property is a constructive trustee where:
 he receives property that was misappropriated in breach of
trust or fiduciary duty
 his state of mind is “unconscionable.”

20
Element in receipt: beneficial receipt or ministerial receipt
Beneficial Receipt
 A recipient of trust property is a constructive trustee where he receives the property for
his own benefit.
 An agent will not usually receive property for its own benefit (“ministerial receipt”).
 Exception? See Blyth v Fladgate [1891] 1 Ch 337.
 Does a bank ever receive property for its own benefit?
 Agip (Africa) v Jackson [1990] 1 Ch 365, 292: accounts which were overdrawn.

21
What if the bank exchanges money from one currency to another?

Polly Peck International Plc v Nadir (No.2) [1992] 4 All ER 769,
CA, 777.
22

In order to be considered to have received the relevant property, a defendant
must have received it for its own benefit rather than on behalf of another
(sometimes called ministerial receipt).
The most significant question in this respect is whether a bank who receives
money for its customer receives such money ministerially or beneficially.
In Uzinterimpex JSC v Standard Bank plc [2008] Lloyd’s Rep 456, Moore-Bick
LJ suggested obiter that a bank received such money beneficially because it will
be able to beneficially use such money until called upon to repay it by its
customer.
23
Knowledge ?
There are 3 possible tests:

 actual knowledge, shutting one`s eyes, reckless; subjective
 being put on enquiry (includes negligence) objective
 strict liability
24
Knowledge ?
There are 3 possible tests:

 actual knowledge, shutting one`s eyes, reckless; subjective
 being put on enquiry (includes negligence) objective
 strict liability
25
Earlier cases: “knowing receipt”
The main cases in this area are authority for the proposition that the
claimant must show that the defendant had actual knowledge, or
shut his eyes, or was recklessness.
26

Re Montagu`s S.[1987] Ch. 264
 Trustees were supposed to select certain chattels (furniture,
paintings, etc.) to be included in a trust (of which the claimant
was a beneficiary) and to then transfer the rest to the tenth Duke.
The trustees made no selection but, instead, they transferred all of
the chattels to the tenth Duke. Was the tenth Duke a constructive
trustee because he had later sold some of the items thinking that
they were his own?
27

Cowan de Groot Properties Ltd. v. Eagle Trust PLC [1992] 4 All
E.R. 700
 Ferriday, the Chief Executive of Eagle Trust, sold land at less
than it was worth, on unusual terms which required a cash deposit
of £500,000. The purchasers (Cowan de Groot) sued when Eagle
Trust refused to convey the land.

28
Unconscionable receipt
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) v Akindele
[2001] Ch. 437, CA
 The senior managers of BCCI had been defrauding their
company, and in order to cover up the true financial position they
set up an artificial loan transaction with the defendant, a
businessman. The defendant invested US $10 million and
eventually received US $17 million.
29
The test should be unconscionable receipt
BCCI v Akindele [2001] Ch. 437, CA, at 455. Nourse L.J.
 All that is necessary is that the recipient's state of
knowledge should be such as to make it unconscionable
for him to retain the benefit of the receipt.
30
 dishonesty is not a prerequisite to liability for knowing receipt
BCCI v Akindele [2001] Ch. 437, CA, at 448. Nourse L.J.

 While a knowing recipient will often be found to have acted
dishonestly, it has never been a prerequisite of the liability that he
should.
31
After knowledge as a criterion of liability was rejected for “knowing
assistance”, the English Court of Appeal also sought to recast the level of
fault required for recipient liability in Bank of Credit and Commerce
International (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele [2001] Ch 437.
 The employees of BCCI breached their fiduciary duty by procuring BCCI to
enter into an artificial investment agreement with the defendant, Akindele.
 In return for an investment of US$10 million, Akindele received nearly
US$17 million from BCCI.
 The liquidators of BCCI sued the defendant for knowing receipt of money
transferred in breach of fiduciary duty.
32
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele [2001] Ch 437.
 The Court of Appeal rejected dishonesty as a criterion for liability
for receipt on the basis that receipt might be passive and dishonesty
was only relevant to actions.
 Instead, the Court of Appeal preferred to premise liability on
unconscionability.
 On the facts, the defendant was found not to be liable because he
was unaware of any impropriety relating to the transaction. Although
there was no clear guidance as to what unconscionability meant, it is
regarded by Virgo as clearly contemplating a subjective test.
33
Clarification of the scope of the action in unconscionable receipt post-Akindele

When should a claimant sue at common law?
Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004] 1 WLR 1846, HL.
 Criterion’s directors had entered into a joint venture agreement with Oaktree which
contained a ‘poison pill’ clause whereby, if either of Criterion’s two directors were
dismissed, Oaktree could demand that it should be bought out (by Criterion) from its
partnership on terms which were highly disadvantageous to Criterion.
 At common law, if an agent buys or sells property on behalf of his principal, the principal
is bound if the agent acts within his actual or apparent authority.
 If property is bought in good faith and there is no reason to doubt the authority of a
company’s agents, the recipient cannot be characterised as having ‘knowingly received’
trust property.
34
Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004] 1 WLR 1846, HL.
The need to distinguish liability of unconscionable receipt with cases involving simple
want of authority.
Lord Nicholls clarified that the case (and Akindele) had nothing to do with knowing
receipt:
 “I respectfully consider the Court of Appeal in Akindele’s case fell into error on this
point. If a company (A) enters into an agreement with B under which B acquires
benefits from A, A’s ability to recover these benefits from B depends essentially on
whether the agreement is binding on A. If the directors of A were acting for an
improper purpose when they entered into the agreement, A’s ability to have the
agreement set aside depends upon the application of familiar principles of agency
and company law. If, applying these principles, the agreement is found to be valid
and is therefore not set aside, questions of ‘knowing receipt’ by B do not arise.”
35
Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004]

1 WLR 1846, HL.
Lord Nicholls clarified that the case (and Akindele) had nothing
to do with knowing receipt:
 “So far as B is concerned there can be no question of A's
assets having been misapplied. B acquired the assets from A,
the legal and beneficial owner of the assets, under a valid
agreement made between him and A. If, however, the
agreement is set aside, B will be accountable for any benefits
he may have received from A under the agreement.” 36
Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004] 1

WLR 1846, HL.
Lord Nicholls clarified that the case (and Akindele) had nothing to do
with knowing receipt:
 “A will have a proprietary claim, if B still has the assets.
Additionally, and irrespective of whether B still has the assets in
question, A will have a personal claim against B for unjust
enrichment, subject always to a defence of change of position. B’s
personal accountability will not be dependent upon proof of fault
or ‘unconscionable’ conduct on his part. B’s accountability, in this
regard, will be ‘strict’.” 37
The criticism by Lord Nicholls in Criterion Properties plc v Stratford

UK Properties LLC [2004] 1 WLR 1846 was criticised by Lord
Neuberger NPJ in Thanakharn Kasikorn Thai Chamkat (Mahachon) v
Akai Holdings Ltd (2010) HKCFAR 479 as “uncharacteristically
obscure” in his first sitting on the Court of Final Appeal.
 On the facts, Ting was the company director of two shared parent
companies, Akai Holdings and Singer Co NV.
 He purported to act on behalf of Akai in procuring a US$30m loan
from Thai Farmers Bank and pledged as security US$50m worth of
shares that Akai owned, in order to substitute a loan owed to the bank
by Singer 38
 When Akai defaulted on the loan, the bank sold part of the shares for
US$20m but when Akai went into liquidation, its liquidators sought to
recover the full US$50m from the bank on the basis of knowing receipt.
 The bank, in turn, sought to argue that its basis of liability should be
determined on the basis of authority rather than knowing receipt. If Ting
had entered into the transaction without the necessary authority, then they
were void and the bank would at most be liable for conversion with
damages assessed at US$20m, being the proceeds of sale.
 Although the Court of Final Appeal found the bank so liable, it
nevertheless proceeded to consider its liability under knowing receipt.
39
 The Court of Final Appeal held that a third party was not
permitted to rely on the apparent authority of an agent if the
belief in the agent’s apparent authority is dishonest or irrational.
 Counsel (Jonathan Sumption QC) had argued that a
recklessness in belief or turning a blind eye would amount to
dishonesty or irrationality.
 Preferring irrationality over unreasonableness, Lord Neuberger
NPJ accepted that “that [irrationality] involves a more
subjective exercise than [unreasonableness], although
irrationality ultimately involves an objective assessment.” 40
 On the facts, given that the loan benefitted Singer at the expense
of Akai, and the bank’s awareness of Ting’s conflict of interest,
the court concluded that the transaction was unauthorised so
that the bank was liable for conversion, with damages assessed
at US$20m.
 However, despite so concluding, it proceeded to analyse the
case on the basis of unconscionable receipt.
 According to Lord Neuberger NPJ, the test for liability for
recipient liability is the same as that for determining absence of
apparent authority, i.e. dishonesty or irrationality. 41
 On the facts, given that the loan benefitted Singer at the expense
of Akai, and the bank’s awareness of Ting’s conflict of interest,
the court concluded that the transaction was unauthorised so
that the bank was liable for conversion, with damages assessed
at US$20m.
 However, despite so concluding, it proceeded to analyse the
case on the basis of unconscionable receipt.
 According to Lord Neuberger NPJ, the test for liability for
recipient liability is the same as that for determining absence of
apparent authority, i.e. dishonesty or irrationality. 42
 Moreover, liability would take the form of equitable

compensation and be assessed in line with causation principles
from Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] 1 AC 421.
 Both aspects of the case in relation to recipient liability have
been criticised: see Rebecca Lee and Lusina Ho, “Reluctant
Bedfellows: Want of Authority and Knowing Receipt” (2012)
75 MLR 91
 If the bank is liable for conversion, then it stands to reason it
received no title at all to the shares, in which case it is difficult
to understand how it is liable for recipient liability in equity. 43
 Furthermore, liability for knowing or unconscionable receipt takes the

form of liability to account as constructive trustee.
 In other words, the assessment of liability should follow that applicable
to express trustees, albeit limited to the value of the trust property
received.
 This is arguably a very different exercise than that for conversion,
especially if the view expressed by Robert Chambers, “The End of
Knowing Receipt” (2016) 2 CJCCL 1, is followed.
 According to Chambers, a knowing recipient of trust property comes
under the same basic trust duty as an express trustee to preserve the
trust assets. 44
(a) Recipient Liability (Knowing Receipt or
Unconscionable Receipt?)
Cases after Akindele dealing with the defendant’s state of mind-
The test is unconscionability: Arthur v Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos
Islands [2012] UKPC 30
Starglade Properties Ltd v Nash [2010] EWCA Civ 134

 Reasonable- objective standard of mindset. The defendant had agreed to
establish a trust in favour of the claimant when a judgment was paid. The
defendant received the money but spent the money elsewhere (paying ordinary
creditors).
45
Cases after Akindele dealing with the defendant’s state of mind
Law Society v Isaac & Isaac International [2010] EWHC 1670, at [6].
 Two firms of solicitors acted on behalf of mortgage companies and
paid the money to the defendants before the sales had gone
through. The Law Society intervened to recover the money alleging
that the solicitors concerned had acted fraudulently. Recipient-
based liability is not necessary to establish a dishonest state of
mind.
46

Law Society v Isaac & Isaac International [2010] EWHC 1670, at [6].
 Confirming Akindele that it requires:
 (a) that the monies were held on trust or subject to fiduciary obligations;
 (b) that they were paid over in breach of that trust or those fiduciary obligations;
 (c) that they were received beneficially; and
 (d) that at the time of receipt (or before they were dealt with) the recipient had such knowledge
as
would make it unconscionable for it, him or her to retain the benefit of the receipt.
47
Relfo Ltd v Varsani [2012] EWHC 2168

 A company director of Relfo arranged for Relfo’s money to be
transferred to Mirren; there was evidence that a similar sum of
money had been paid to Intertrade and a similar sum had been paid
by Intertrade to Varsani (but not in this chronological order).
Unconscionable test on recipient liability.
48
Would the imposition of strict liability be a better approach?
 At the moment the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the defendant's
state of knowledge.
 Contrast the position at common law where strict liability is imposed where the
defendant treats the claimant’s property as if it was his own:
(i) conversion;
(ii) money had and received: Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale [1991] 2 AC 548, HL.
49
(a) Recipient Liability (Summary or Re-cap
Lord Nicholl)
Should liability be imposed upon recipients of trust property without any need to show the
state of their mind?
BCCI v Akindele [2001] Ch. 437, CA, at 455-456.
 We were referred in argument to "Knowing Receipt: The Need for a New Landmark", an essay by
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Restitution Past, Present and Future (1998). Most pertinent for
present purposes is the suggestion made by Lord Nicholls, at p 238 …:
 "In this respect equity should now follow the law. Restitutionary liability, applicable regardless of
fault but subject to a defence of change of position, would be a better-tailored response to the
underlying mischief of misapplied property than personal liability which is exclusively fault-
based…
 … No argument before us was based on the suggestions made in Lord Nicholls's essay … I beg
leave to doubt whether strict liability coupled with a change of position defence would be
preferable to fault-based liability in many commercial transactions … Without having heard
argument it is unwise to be dogmatic, but in such a case it would appear to be commercially
unworkable … 50
(a) Recipient Liability (Summary)
In Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2003] 2 AC 366 and Williams v Central

Bank of Nigeria [2014] 1 AC 1189, Lord Millett and Lord Neuberger respectively
referred to dishonesty as a criterion of liability.
In Crédit Agricole Corporation and Investment Bank v Papadimitrou [2015] 1 WLR

4265, Lord Sumption appears to favour an objective interpretation of
unconscionability.
Previously, Lord Nicholls, writing extra-judicially, “Knowing Receipt: The Need for
a New Landmark” appeared to favour a twofold basis of liability for receipt.
51
(a) Recipient Liability (Summary)
 Mere receipt would attract strict liability on the basis of unjust enrichment
subject to a change of position defence.
 Where the receipt was coupled with dishonesty, then liability would be based on
dishonest assistance, the receipt being the relevant assistance.
 The strict basis of liability has been criticised as being premised upon an
improper analogy with common law unjust enrichment liability, trust property
being of a very different (derivative) nature than legal property.
 Adopting a strict liability subject to a defence of change of position would also
effectively reverse the burden of proof and may prove unacceptable
commercially.
52
(a) Recipient Liability (Update)
Byers and others (Appellants) v Saudi National Bank (Respondent)
[2023] UKSC 51
 The recipient liability is based on the subsisting equitable

interest/proprietary interest in tracing to the hand of the recipient.
 If the recipient is a bona fide purchaser, the tracing ceases or
extinguishes, which equally to say that bona fide purchaser without
notice can not be held personal account under unconscionable receipt.
 It also confirms that unconscionable receipt is premised on the receipt
of proprietary interest, whilst dishonest assistance is premises on the
accessory in civil wrong, akin to criminal accessory liability.
53
TO BE CONTINUED
54

Accessory Liability-Constructive Trustee I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Accessory Liability-Constructive Trustee I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accessory Liability-Constructive Trustee I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACCESSORY LIABILITY-

 “But, on the other hand, strangers are not to be made

Action against 3rd Party

(a) Recipient liability (Knowing (b) Assistance liability (Knowing

3rd Party can be any of the following examples

1. Banks (receipt equitable properties: money or administering the

(a) Recipient liability (Unconscionable (b) Assistance liability (dishonest

Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v. Cooley [1972] 1 WLR 443

I: KNOWING RECEIPT OF TRUST PROPERTY

I: FROM KNOWING TO UNCONSCIONABLE RECEIPT OF TRUST PROPERTY

I: KNOWING RECEIPT OF TRUST PROPERTY

I: KNOWING RECEIPT OF TRUST PROPERTY

Element in receipt: beneficial receipt or ministerial receipt

Element in receipt: beneficial receipt or ministerial receipt

What if the bank exchanges money from one currency to another?

Element in receipt: beneficial receipt or ministerial receipt

There are 3 possible tests:

There are 3 possible tests:

Earlier cases: “knowing receipt”

Earlier cases: “knowing receipt”

Earlier cases: “knowing receipt”

BCCI v Akindele [2001] Ch. 437, CA, at 448. Nourse L.J.

Clarification of the scope of the action in unconscionable receipt post-Akindele

Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004]

Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004] 1

The criticism by Lord Nicholls in Criterion Properties plc v Stratford

 Moreover, liability would take the form of equitable

 Furthermore, liability for knowing or unconscionable receipt takes the

Starglade Properties Ltd v Nash [2010] EWCA Civ 134

Cases after Akindele dealing with the defendant’s state of mind

Cases after Akindele dealing with the defendant’s state of mind

Cases after Akindele dealing with the defendant’s state of mind

Relfo Ltd v Varsani [2012] EWHC 2168

Would the imposition of strict liability be a better approach?

In Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2003] 2 AC 366 and Williams v Central

In Crédit Agricole Corporation and Investment Bank v Papadimitrou [2015] 1 WLR

 The recipient liability is based on the subsisting equitable

You might also like