Equity and Trusts (Answering Problem Questions)

Advise one of the senior partners in your firm of solicitors on the legal issues in ALL of the following situations:

(a) Horatio & Isabella are the trustees of the Grant family trust. They ask if they are able to delegate their trust investment decisions to Kerry & Luis. Luis is a retired landscape designer & Kerry is a waitress. (500 words)

(b) Marco, aged 18, is a beneficiary of the foster family trust. His mother asked the trustees to advance some of the capital fund to Marco ahead of time. Marco consented to this because his mother who squandered it on her extravagant lifestyle. The trust instrument provides that the trustees shall not be liable for any breach of trust howsoever caused. (600 Words)

(c) Quickbuild Ltd is a property development company. They employ cost-It Ltd as their surveyors. Walter is one of Cost-its surveyors. He goes to value a development plot for Quickbuild. Walter then tells his friend Victoria about the plot. Victoria goes ahead & successfully outbids Quickbuild for the plot. (500 Words)

(d) Zebedee & Amma are trustees of the Bowood family trust. Tom Bowood is one of the beneficiaries. Clement is a solicitor to the trust. The Bowood trust has a 20% shareholding in Dunn Company. Tom & Clement asked the Dunn Company for information they both acquire shares in Dunn Company. Tom & Clement are both voted onto board of directors of Dunn Company & earn substantial fees as directors. The company's profitability increases significantly & a profit is made by all shareholders. (600 Words)

(e) Paulo took bribes & secret commissions whilst a trustee of the Quicksilver trust. He spent the bribe money & commissions on a racehorse which is now worth double the price he paid. Paulo is insolvent. (600 Words)

(f) Theo is the chief executive of the Supacash Bank. In 2003 he instructed Selma, a senior executive at the bank, to transfer £3 million of bank funds into a newly established account entitled 'Theodore Enterprise'. Selma followed the instructions & transferred the fund. It now appears the £3 million has been used fraudulently by Theo, for his own purposes, in the following ways: Theo gave his wife £1 million. She spent £500,00 paying off her mortgage. The remaining money has been sent on holidays, clothes & luxury lifestyle. Theo put the other £2 million into a company account. The company business involves selling holiday homes to the public. Theo took a further £6 million from prospective purchasers & placed it the same account. No homes were actually built.
Theo withdrew £2 million from the account in January 2004 & purchased property in Australia. In February 2004 Theo withdrew the remaining £6 million & used £1 million to pay a life insurance premium. The remaining £5 million was then passed to Grabbit Accountancy Ltd who passed it through a series of accounts & it eventually ended up in a bank in the Cayman Islands. Theo went to the Cayman Islands in March 2004 to access the money. He spent £1 million gambling at a casino & the rest of the money has been dissipated. Theo has made further deposits into this account & the balance stands at £1 million. Theo died in April 2004. The beneficiaries of the life insurance policy are Theo's two children's & his wife. Theo's will leaves all his property to his wife. Advise the Supercash Bank & the investors who did not receive the holiday homes they thought they were purchasing. (1000 Words)

Horatio & Isabella

The general duty of trustees is the maxim “delegate’s non potest delegare” – the person to whom responsibility has been delegated may not delegate the responsibility to another. In other words, a trustee must provide personal service to the trust. However in Re Chetwynd’s Settlement. [1] Farewell J stated that “No trustee accepts the responsibility for the term of his natural life, or for more than a reasonable period.” It is important to note, however, that Horatio and Isabella cannot retire on a whim and in some circumstances retirement will not be a valid unless a new trustee is appointed in their place. There are various ways in which Horatio and Isabella could go about retiring from the trust and appointing Kerry and Luis in there place.
Horatio and Isabella may retire if the trust instrument entitles them to so and if it does not then whenever the court approves an application for retirement. The Trustee Act 1925 also details two other modes of retirement.
Horatio and Isabella may apply for Kerry and Luis to become trustees under the Trustee Act 1925 s36 which allows for the appointment of a new trustee or trustees “in the place of” a trustee “desiring to be discharged.” The important point to note is that a retirement purported to be carried out in pursuance of this section will only be valid to discharge the trustee if at least one new trustee has been appointed in their place as is the case here. This is of course as long as the trust instrument does not contain instructions to the contrary.
Horatio and Isabella may also be able to retire under s39 of the Trustees Act and this will permit their retirement without the appointment of Kerry and Luis. The circumstances in which this can happen are retirement by deed; the trustee must obtain the consent of the other trustees and any person who is empowered to appoint new trustees; such consent must be given by deed and most approve of the retirement and of the vesting of the property in the remaining trustees alone and the retirement will only be valid if two trustees remain or a trust corporation remains after the retirement.
A trustee continues to be liable for breaches of trust that occur after they have attempted to retire if their “retirement” was technically defective. If however the retirement was valid then they will only be liable for breaches of trust which occurred when they were a trustee.
Horatio and Isabella may also retire from their position with leave of the court. The court may order the retirement of a trustee when exercising its power under s41.There is also an inherent power for the court to allow retirement. The court will not use this inherent power if it would result in the trust being left with no trustee, and this would not be the case here as there are two trustees to replace the existing trustees and therefore an order of the court may be obtained.
It should be briefly considered whether or not Luis and Kerry can be trustees. The general rule is that anyone who has the legal capacity to hold property may be a trustee including corporations and married women .A minor is not capable of being a trustee so as long as Kerry is other the age of majority then it should be acceptable for Luis and Kerry to become trustees.

 

Marco

Marco is entitled to an advancement of the trust money under the Trustee Act 1925 [2] which provides t hat trustees may apply capital money for the advancement or benefit of a beneficiary, regardless of whether that beneficiary is an infant or an adult. Advancement is “the establishment in life of the beneficiary who was the object of the power or at any rate some step that would contribute to the furtherance of his establishment [3].
Section 32(1) (a) provides that the money paid for the advancement or benefit of the beneficiary “shall not exceed altogether in amount one-half of the presumptive or vested share or interest of that person in the trust property.”Therefore the trustees may only advance to Marco one half of the presumptive (that is the amount that Marco is expected to receive when t he money becomes vested in him) of his share in the trust property. Furthermore under section 32(1)(c) the trustees will not be permitted to make a payment by way of advancement if to do so would prejudice any person with a prior interest in the fund , unless the person with the prior interest gives their consent in writing to the advancement. It is assumed that all the factors listed have been satisfied in this scenario apart from the issue of advancement- can the money forwarded to Marco be considered to be “the establishment in life of the beneficiary who was the object of the power or at any rate some step that would contribute to the furtherance of his establishment?” The following factors should be considered by the trustees when considering whether or not to advance the money. The first factor is the benefit to the beneficiaries; the trustees should ask themselves when considering an exercise under s32 “will the application of capital moneys be for the benefit of the beneficiary [4].” However, the most important thing to consider as in this scenario is that the power to make advancement is a fiduciary power and therefore the trustees must weigh, against the benefit to the advance, the interests of other persons entitled under the trust. [5]
The trustees must make sure the capital moneys paid to the advancee are used by the advancee for the use intended by the trustees. “They [the trustees] cannot…. Prescribe a particular purpose, and then raise and pay the money over to the advancee leaving him or her entirely free, legally and morally, to apply it for the purpose or to spend it in any way he or she chooses, without any responsibility on the trustee even to inquire as to its application. [6]”
Therefore the trustees cannot simply hand over the money to Marco and then wash their hands of the affair. They have a duty to make enquiries as to how the moneys are actually spent. They have a duty to supervise and oversee what Marco does with his money. If the moneys are not used for the prescribed purpose, and the trustees receive notice of this fact, they will be under a duty not to make further advances to Marco in the future without his first satisfying them that the money will be properly applied. It is unlikely that following the decision in Re Pauling that the trustees will be able to evade liability for this breach of trust despite a clause to the contrary.

Victoria, Walter and Quickbuild

Quickbuild may have a claim against Walter for unauthorised profits. [7] It may be that Walter will be treated as a constructive trustee “by reason of the fiduciary position in which [he] stood.” [8]
It must first be established whether or not Walter had a fiduciary relationship with Quickbuild. This can be established as Walter is working for Quickbuild on behalf of his company Cost-it Limited and therefore is privy to information which is confidential and to a degree has a monetary value.
A fiduciary must not place himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict [9] .Similarly a fiduciary must not profit from his fiduciary position. If this does occur then any personal gain attributable to the fiduciary position must be held on constructive trust for the persons to whom the fiduciary relationship is owed, in this case Quickbuild [10].
This is because a fiduciary owes clear and strict duties to administer the assets for the benefit of those entitled to equity to that property or assets. In order to ensure that these duties are honoured in full, there is virtually an absolute bar against the trustee using his position for personal gain. Liability will be imposed on Walter irrespective of any intentional deceit, recklessness, or negligence on his part. [11] It will be enough that Walter has placed himself in a position where his duty to the trust has conflicted with his own interest.
It is useful to look at similar situations where the court has imposed a constructive trust on a fiduciary because of a conflict of interest and duty in a business context. Examples include where fees were paid to company directors who hold those directorships because of their legal ownership of trust shares must be held on trust for the beneficiaries [12] and where an army sergeant was held constructive trustee of monies received for escorting vehicles unsearched through army checkpoints. [13]
If there exists a good motive this may mean that a fiduciary is entitled to receive equitable remuneration for her skill in achieving a profit, even though the profit itself must be held on trust for the beneficiaries. [14] This is not the case here and therefore as Lord-Browne Wilkinson stated:
“The court may by way of remedy impose a constructive trust on a defendant who knowingly retains the property of which the plaintiff has been unjustly deprived. Since the remedy can be tailored to the circumstances of the particular case, innocent third parties would not be prejudiced and restitutionary defences, such as a change of position, are capable of being given effect.” [15]
In conclusion this information was held on a constructive trust by Walter and Victoria may be liable to Quickbuild to account for profits.

Zebedee & Amma

It has been made clear in a line of cases that if a trustee is appointed a director of a company by reason of the fact that he is the legal owner of the shares, that is, he holds the shares on trust for others, any fees thereby received by way of remuneration must be held on the same trusts for the beneficiaries [16] .The trustee is under an obligation to account as a constructive trustees for any profits received by virtue of the trusteeship.
A trustee is under an obligation to account as constructive trustee for any profits received by virtue of the trusteeship. [17] However a director trustee is not bound automatically to hold any person profits on trust for the beneficiaries, but only after proper enquiry as to the facts of the particular case. Thus, if Tom and Clement became directors without reliance on the trust shares, they may maintain their substantial fees, even if the shares thereafter help them to maintain their position. [18]
In addition to this point it would seem that Tom and Clement obtained their shareholding from information supplied to them by Zebedee and Amma If this private purchase was made because of their position as trustees (or in Clement’s case as a result of his fiduciary relationship as solicitor to the trust) then there is a possibility that they will be deemed to be constructive trustee of the shares themselves, in a similar fashion as the result in Boardman v Phipps [19] In this case, a solicitor was held to be constructive trustee of profits made in certain share transactions because he had acquired the knowledge and opportunity to buy the shares by virtue of his fiduciary position. If this is the case with Tom and Clement then not only will he hold his directors remuneration on trust for Zebedee and Amma, but any dividends will also pass to the beneficiaries also, as income from the trust property. However if there is a provision in the trust instrument authorising Tom and Clements to receive remuneration for the performance of their duties [20] as trustee and solicitor of the trust respectively then they may be able to retain some of the fees and if they are acting “in a professional capacity” they may be able to claim “reasonable remuneration” under s29 (2) of the Trustee Act 2000, if the other trustees agrees and in writing. Similarly if they have behaved honestly and fairly throughout, the court might exercise its inherent jurisdiction to award them a sum by way of equitable compensation.
The beneficiaries of Quicksilver may have a claim against Paulo for unauthorised profits. [21]
A trustee must not place himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict [22] .Similarly a fiduciary must not profit from his fiduciary position. If this does occur then any personal gain attributable to the fiduciary position must be held on constructive trust for the beneficiaries of the Quicksilver trust [23].
This is because a trustee owes clear and strict duties to administer the assets for the benefit of those entitled to equity to that property or assets. In order to ensure that these duties are honoured in full, there is virtually an absolute bar against the trustee using his position for personal gain. Liability will be imposed on Paulo irrespective of any intentional deceit, recklessness, or negligence on his part [24] .It will be enough that Paulo has placed himself in a position where his duty to the trust has conflicted with his own interest. Therefore as Lord-Browne Wilkinson stated:
“The court may by way of remedy impose a constructive trust on a defendant who knowingly retains the property of which the plaintiff has been unjustly deprived. Since the remedy can be tailored to the circumstances of the particular case, innocent third parties would not be prejudiced and restitutionary defences, such as a change of position, are capable of being given effect. [25] ” It is clear from the case law that where a person who is a trustee or who holds a fiduciary relations takes a bribe the money will be held on constructive trust for the person(s) to whom the fiduciary duty is owed [26]
Therefore the money that Paulo misappropriated from the fund will be held on constructive trust for the Quicksilver trust. As Paulo is insolvent it will be difficult for Quicksilver to recover their money. However it may be that t he beneficiaries of the quicksilver trust have a claim on the racehorse through the equitable remedy of tracing. The trigger for a claim of equitable tracing is that the Claimant must have an equitable proprietary interest in property and only an equitable proprietary interest, [1] therefore beneficiaries under the Quicksilver trust will have such a right. Quicksilver beneficiaries must also show that there was in existence a fiduciary relationship. [28] This will occur of course as they are beneficiaries and Paulo a trustee and a trustee –beneficiary relationship is a fiduciary relationship. Thirdly it must be shown that the property of the beneficiaries has been transferred to another person wrongfully as it has here. Fourthly, being a claim in equity, equitable tracing is not possible against a person who is a bona fide purchaser for value of the property [29] , Paulo will not be a bona fide purchaser as he knew that the money he used to purchase the property was not his. In conclusion therefore it is likely that the beneficiaries will be able to trace the money held on constructive trust for them into the race horse that has been purchased by Paulo and this will be very useful to them in light of the fact that Paulo is now insolvent.

Theo

It is evident that Theo is in breach of trust, however it may be difficult to recover the trust property for the beneficiary as Theo is now deceased. Theo held the money for Super Cash and the prospective purchasers on trust, as this is not his money. However now Theo has died it may be that the strangers to the trust owe a duty to these beneficiaries.
Strangers to the trust are persons who are not themselves express trustees of it. While the rule that a trustee or other fiduciary may not profit from that position, the position of strangers is more complex. Only those strangers who inter meddle in the trust will become liable and much depends upon their state of mind when doing so. The stranger to the trust may become a constructive trustee because he or she has assumed the duties of a trustee. [30] In other words, if a stranger takes it upon himself to meddle with the trust property as it he were a trustee, equity will treat him as such a trustee. This is trusteeship de son tort and the essential point is that the person fixed with the liability as a constructive trustee has stepped willing into the shoes of the original trustees or fiduciaries. [31]
There are two ways in which a stranger may become liable and it is necessary to distinguish between personal and proprietary remedies. A person may receive trust property into his hands and may then be required to hold that property on trust and beneficiaries thus acquire a proprietary right against him In addition a stranger may be made personally liable for his involvement in a breach of trust the specific issue in relation to strangers which must concern us here is the state of mind of the stranger necessary to giver rise to such personal liability.
In all of the situations referred to in this scenario the strangers to the trust have received the trust property in their possession and therefore will be liable if at all for receipt and dealing. If they actually receive the property into their hands they will be subject to a proprietary remedy; the beneficiaries will be able to recover the property itself from the stranger unless any of the strangers to the trust can show that they are bona fide purchasers without notice [32]. Notice will be one of the following, actual notice, wilfully shutting one’ s eyes to the obvious; wilfully and recklessly failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make; knowledge of circumstances which would indicate the facts to an honest man; and knowledge which would put an honest and reasonable man on inquiry.
The persons whom Theo purchases the property from in Australia can be said to be bona fide purchasers without notice however his Wife, accountants and bank cannot be said to be.
Liability is strict and will be based upon the mere fact of possession of the trust fund, past or present, not upon intentional wrongdoing [33]. Therefore if the property has disappeared the beneficiaries will not be able to recover anything and therefore the beneficiaries will have no claim on the £500,000 that Theo’s wife used to pay off her mortgage or the holidays etc and therefore they will have no claim against Theo’s wife [34] .However the trustees may have a personal right against Theo’s wife as she would have known or at least should have know that the property was wrongly received [35]
In relation to the money that was sent to the accounts who placed Theo’ s money in various bank accounts it is not clear whether or not the claim will lie in knowing receipt or dishonest assistance. It seems clear that the money was passed to the accounts for Theo’s own personal use. This seems to be a case of dishonest assistance [36] .The authorities were fully explored and analysed in the case of Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson (1992) and then explained clearly by the Privy Council in Tan. It is now relatively clear that the accountants will be liable as constructive trustees for knowingly assisting in a breach of trust if they were “dishonest” and their actions did indeed facilitate the breach. Of course there are difficulties over the meaning of dishonesty. It is however established only where the defendant knows that the property was trust property or perhaps if he knows that the property belonged to someone else or that he was merely engaged in some dishonest design. It would seem that the accountants would have had to have known where the money had come from and indeed they would have known that some of the money came from uncompleted properties. Undoubtedly, the accountant will attempt to plead that he was merely carrying out his contract with Theo in much the same way as the bank claimed to avoid liability in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale [37], but this will not be enough and if the court establishes that the accountants were materially involved in the fraud or at least did not care about the possibility that fraud was being perpetrated then they will be liable.
Therefore the prospective purchasers will have a claim against the wife and the accountants and may be able to recover some of their money.

Plan

General

Considering general this assignment and the best approach and relevant sources to use, plan of action: -
1. To review all books on Equity and Trusts Available
2. Read relevant cases following review of books
3. Do Journal Article search and case search on keywords extracted from findings in books? Search will be carried out on Lexis Nexis; Lawtel; Westlaw.
4. Consider rule in each area and apply to problem question.

Question (a)

this is a general question on Retirement of trustees. Will need to research the office of trustee appointment, retirement and removal – how can a trustee retire?
Consider if there are any express powers contained within the trust itself.
Consider the Trustee’s Act 1925 s36 (1) and S39
Consider the powers of the court? Does the court have to improve the retirement of one trustee and the removal of the others?

Question (b)

this is a question dealing with breach of trust. Note that liability for breach of trust is generally strict in the sense that it is enough that the trustee has committed the act or omission which amounts to a breach of trust. It is irrelevant for liability whether the trustee knew he was committing a breach of trust and did so for his own benefit, was reckless as to the possibility of a breach occurring, was negligent of the same or was entirely innocent or honest.
Remains a breach of trust even if he believed he was acting in conformity of the trust – as in Re Diplock (1948) or if he did so in the belief that his action was in the best interests of beneficiaries –
Harrison v Randall (1852)
But see S61 of the Trustee Act 1925
Consider next the power of advancement (as this is what the question refers to and this is where the breach has occurred)
Section 32(1) (a) provides that the money paid for the advancement or benefit of the beneficiary “shall not exceed altogether in amount one-half of the presumptive or vested share or interest of that person in the trust property.”
Consider also the statement of Wilmer J in Re Paulings Settlement Trusts [1963] 3 ALL ER 1 “They [the trustees] cannot…. Prescribe a particular purpose, and then raise and pay the money over to the advancee leaving him or her entirely free, legally and morally, to apply it for the purpose or to spend it in any way he or she chooses, without any responsibility on the trustee even to inquire as to its application.”

Question (c)

This question deals with the trustee’s duty not to make unauthorised profits
A fiduciary must not place himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict. If this does occur then any personal gain attributable to the fiduciary position must be held on constructive trust for the persons to whom the fiduciary relationship is owed. [38]
Note that .Liability will be imposed irrespective of any intentional deceit, recklessness, or negligence on the trustee’s part. [39]

Question (d)

Constructive trusts imposed on persons already in fiduciary position in order to ensure that any profit made by virtue of that position is not retained
There is a duty to the trust but self-interest to keep the profits, thus merits of trustees action are not determinative of their right to keep a profit
Consider the various circumstances in which liability can arise
Consider cases that clearly establish that if a trustee is appointed a director of a company by reason of the fact that he is the legal owner of the shares, that is, he holds the shares on trust for others, any fees thereby received by way of remuneration must be held on the same trusts for the beneficiaries. [40]
Trustee Act 2000 Section 69

Question (e)

Consider the following key points that:-
A trustee must not place himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict [41].
A fiduciary must not profit from his fiduciary position. If this does occur then any personal gain attributable to the fiduciary position must be held on constructive trust for the beneficiaries. [42]
Important obiter dictum:
“The court may by way of remedy impose a constructive trust on a defendant who knowingly retains the property of which the plaintiff has been unjustly deprived. Since the remedy can be tailored to the circumstances of the particular case, innocent third parties would not be prejudiced and restitutionary defences, such as a change of position, are capable of being given effect. [43]”
Then consider the remedy of tracing – equitable in particular – what needs to be shown?
The trigger for a claim of equitable tracing is that the Claimant must have an equitable proprietary interest in property and only an equitable proprietary interest. [44]
Secondly beneficiaries must also show that there was in existence a fiduciary relationship [45]
Thirdly it must be shown that the property of the beneficiaries has been transferred to another person wrongfully as it has here.
Fourthly, being a claim in equity, equitable tracing is not possible against a person who is a bona fide purchaser for value of the property. [46]

Question (f)

this question is concerned primarily with the stranger to the trust and any liabilities that they may have.
Stranger to the trust may become a constructive trustee in four situations:
1. by honestly assisting the trustee in breach of trust;
2. by receiving trust property for his own use in the knowledge that it was transferred in breach of trust;
3. After having received trust property in conformity with the terms of the trust, by knowingly dealing with that property in breach of the terms of the trust; and
4. By inducing the trustee to commit a breach of trust
Only those strangers who inter meddle in the trust will become liable and much depends upon their state of mind when doing so.
Consider the two different ways in which a stranger may become liable and the difference between personal and proprietary remedies.
A person may receive trust property into his hands and may then be required to hold that property on trust and beneficiaries thus acquire a proprietary right against him. In addition a stranger may be made personally liable for his involvement in a breach of trust the specific issue in relation to strangers which must concern us here is the state of mind of the stranger necessary to giver rise to such personal liability.
The stranger to the trust may become a constructive trustee because he or she has assumed the duties of a trustee. [47] In other words, if a stranger takes it upon himself to meddle with the trust property as it he were a trustee, equity will treat him as such a trustee. This is trusteeship de son tort and the essential point is that the person fixed with the liability as a constructive trustee has stepped willing into the shoes of the original trustees or fiduciaries. [48]
Consider the differences between knowing receipt and dealing
Dishonest assistance and the lack of clarity in this area of law, very fine line sometimes and most decisions appear to turn on own merits rather than providing clarity on the law.
Consider the basis of the liability for knowing assistance and dishonest receipt
Confirmation that some degree of fault is required: Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan
Inconsistent dealing – consider the level of knowledge that is required and the meaning of dishonest – what degree of awareness is needed for dishonesty?

Bibliography 

 

Cases

• Aberdeen Town Council v AberdeenUniversity (1877) 2 App Cas 544
• Agip (Africa) v Jackson [1992] 4 ALL ER 385
• Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid [1992] 2 NZLR 385
• Baden Delvaux and Lecuit v Societe Generale pour Favouriser Le Developpment du Comerce et L’Industrie en france SA [1983] BCLC 325
• Barnes v Addy [1974] 9 Ch App 224
• BCCI v Akindele [2000] 4 ALL ER 221
• Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
• Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44
• Brink’s-Mat v Elcombe [1988] 3 ALL ER 188
• James v Williams [1999] 3 WLR 451
• Jyske Bank v Heini (1999) Lloyd’s Rep Bank 511
• Mara v Browne [1896] 1 Ch 199
• Pilkington v IRC [1964] AC 612
• Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465
• Re Dover Coalfield Extension [1908] 1 CH 65
• Re Francis (1905) 92 LT 77
• Re Gee [1948]Ch 284
• Re Macadam [1946] Ch 73
• Re Moxon’s Will Trust [1958] 1 ALL ER 386
• Re Paulings Settlement Trusts [1963] 3 ALL ER 1
• Regal (Hastings ) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] ALL ER 378
• Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts [1987] Ch 264
• Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 3 ALL ER 97
• Westdeutsche Landesbank v Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669
• Statutes
• Trustee Act 1925
• Trustee Act 2000
• Books
• Andrews G, (2003), The Redundancy of Dishonest Assistance, Sweet and Maxwell
• Chang C, (2003), Equity and Trusts, Sweet and Maxwell, Third Edition
• Edwards R & Stockwell N, (2004), Trusts and Equity, Longman Press, Sixth Edition
• Hayley M (2004), Equity and Trusts, Sweet and Maxwell, Sixth Edition
• Pearce R, (2002), The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations, Butterworths, Third Edition
• Ramjohn M, (2004), Cases and Materials on Trusts, Cavendish, Third Edition
• Watt G, (2003), Textbook: Trusts, OxfordUniversity Press

1. [1] [1902] 1 Ch 692
2. [2] S32
3. [3] See Viscount Radcliffe in Pilkington v IRC [1964] AC 612
4. [4] See Dankwerts J in Re Moxon’s Will Trust [1958] 1 ALL ER 386 for a definition of benefit
5. [5] Re Paulings Settlement Trusts [1963] 3 ALL ER 1
6. [6] Wilmer J in Re Paulings Settlement Trusts [1963] 3 ALL ER 1
7. [7] Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
8. [8] Barnes v Addy [1974] 9 Ch App 224
9. [9] Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44
10. [10] Aberdeen Town Council v AberdeenUniversity (1877) 2 App Cas 544
11. [11] Regal (Hastings ) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] ALL ER 378
12. [12] Re Francis (1905) 92 LT 77; Re Macadam [1946] Ch 73
13. [13] Regal (Hastings ) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] ALL ER 378
14. [14] Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
15. [15] Westdeutsche Landesbank v Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669
16. [16] Re Francis (1905) 92 LT 77 Re Macadam [1946] Ch 73
17. [17] Re Dover Coalfield Extension [1908] 1 CH 65
18. [18] Aberdeen Town Council v AberdeenUniversity (1887) 2 App Cas 644
19. [19] Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
20. [20] Re Gee [1948]Ch 284
21. [21] Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
22. [22] Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44
23. [23] Aberdeen Town Council v AberdeenUniversity (1877) 2 App Cas 544
24. [24] Regal (Hastings ) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] ALL ER 378
25. [25] Westdeutsche Landesbank v Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669
26. [26] Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid [1992] 2 NZLR 385
27. [27] Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465
28. [28] Westdeutsche Landesbank v Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669
29. [29] Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465
30. [30] Mara v Browne [1896] 1 Ch 199
31. [31] James v Williams [1999] 3 WLR 451
32. [32] Baden Delvaux and Lecuit v Societe Generale pour Favouriser Le Developpment du Comerce et L’Industrie en france SA [1983] BCLC 325
33. [33] Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 3 ALL ER 97
34. [34] See Agip (Africa) v Jackson [1992] 4 ALL ER 385
35. [35] See for example Re Montagu’ s Settlement Trusts [1987] Ch 264; and BCCI v Akindele [2000] 4 ALL ER 221
36. [36] See Brink’s-Mat v Elcombe [1988] 3 ALL ER 188; Jyske Bank v Heini (1999) Lloyd’s Rep Bank 511
37. [37] [1991] 2 AC 548
38. [38] Aberdeen Town Council v AberdeenUniversity (1877) 2 App Cas 544
39. [39] Regal (Hastings ) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] ALL ER 378
40. [40] Re Francis (1905) 92 LT 77 Re Macadam [1946] Ch 73
41. [41] Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44
42. [42] Aberdeen Town Council v AberdeenUniversity (1877) 2 App Cas 544
43. [43] Westdeutsche Landesbank v Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669
44. [44] Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465
45. [45] Westdeutsche Landesbank v Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669
46. [46] Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465
47. [47] Mara v Browne [1896] 1 Ch 199
48. [48] James v Williams [1999] 3 WLR 451