Constructive trusts in English law

Last updated • 16 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Constructive trusts in English law are a form of trust created by the English law courts primarily where the defendant has dealt with property in an "unconscionable manner"—but also in other circumstances. The property is held in "constructive trust" for the harmed party, obliging the defendant to look after it. The main factors that lead to a constructive trust are unconscionable dealings with property, profits from unlawful acts, and unauthorised profits by a fiduciary. Where the owner of a property deals with it in a way that denies or impedes the rights of some other person over that property, the courts may order that owner to hold it in constructive trust. Where someone profits from unlawful acts, such as murder, fraud, or bribery, these profits may also be held in constructive trust. The most common of these is bribery, which requires that the person be in a fiduciary office. Certain offices, such as those of trustee and company director, are always fiduciary offices. Courts may recognise others where the circumstances demand it. Where someone in a fiduciary office makes profits from their duties without the authorisation of that office's beneficiaries, a constructive trust may be imposed on those profits; there is a defence where the beneficiaries have authorised such profits. The justification here is that a person in such an office must avoid conflicts of interest, and be held to account should he fail to do so.

Contents

Other types of constructive trust not relating to unconscionable dealings are constructive trusts over property, mutual wills, and arguably secret trusts. Where property is sold or transferred, the signing of an agreement to do so automatically transfers the equitable interest to the buyer or transferee; until the property itself is transferred, it is deemed to be held on constructive trust for the recipient. Mutual wills are irrevocable wills made by multiple people to come into force at the writer's death; similarly, these are also considered constructive trusts. Secret trusts are the subject of much debate over their classification, but one theory holds that they are constructive in nature. Related to constructive trusts are constructive trustees, or trustees de son tort ; these are where "one, not being a trustee and not having authority from a trustee, takes upon himself to intermeddle with trust matters or to do acts characteristic of the office of trustee". [1] Where their actions are reckless or dishonest, the court makes that person a constructive trustee, forcing them to account to the beneficiaries for any loss suffered and look after the trust property in their possession.

Definition

A constructive trust is a trust the courts impose whenever the defendant knows that he has dealt with property in an "unconscionable manner", such as stealing it, possessing it via fraud, and accepting a bribe while in occupation of a fiduciary office. [2] The constructive trust is intended to take the property from the defendant's control, preventing them from causing additional harm with it. It thus acts regardless of the parties' intentions. In Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & Co, [3] Millett LJ defined a constructive trust as a trust that "arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (usually but not necessarily the legal estate) to assert his own beneficial interest in the property and deny the beneficial interest of another". Essentially, a constructive trust arises whenever an owner either ignores, or interferes, with the rights of another person with an interest in that property. [4] There is a distinction between personal and proprietary rights to property. A constructive trust normally gives a proprietary right to the beneficiary that can be enforced on any other person. The alternative (a personal right) merely gives the beneficiary the right to recover money equivalent to the value of the property. [5]

Constructive trusts, under Section 53(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925, do not require any particular formalities on creation, unlike express trusts. For them to be valid, however, the defendant (or "trustee" of the constructive trust) must know that he has dealt with property in an "unconscionable manner". In Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington London Borough Council , [6] Lord Browne-Wilkinson wrote that "Since the equitable jurisdiction to enforce trusts depends upon the conscience of the holder of the legal interest being affected, he cannot be a trustee of the property if and so long as he is ignorant of the facts alleged to affect his conscience". [7]

Reasons

Unconscionable dealings with property

When the owner of property deals with it in such a way as to deny or impede the rights of some other person over that property, the courts order that owner to hold it on constructive trust. For trusts of real property, constructive trusts may arise in one of three situations. First, when the parties form an agreement to buy the land, or show "common intention" by jointly contributing to the price or mortgage of a property, as in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset . [8] Second, when a contract to transfer rights is agreed to, the equitable interest is automatically transferred, [9] something that also applies to personal property. [10] Third, a constructive trust may be created where there are several parties interested in commercially exploiting land, and some refrain from doing so due to an agreement with the defendant, as in Pallant v Morgan . [11] In Banner Homes Group plc v Luff Developments Ltd , [12] it was decided that this principle applies even when no binding contract has been signed, and the claimant has refrained due to ongoing negotiations with the defendant. [13]

Another "more contentious" form of constructive trust is in a situation where the claimant has "done everything necessary". Where the owner of property intends to transfer property to another, completes their side of the transfer and the transfer then fails, this property is held on constructive trust as in Re Rose . [14] [15] In relation to personal property, a constructive trust is created over a fund created to protect pre-payments to a company in the event of that company going into insolvency. In several situations, companies, knowing they are in dire financial straits, have put money paid to them by customers for products not yet delivered in a separate bank account to protect it in the event of insolvency. This causes theoretical problems; it is "difficult to square the conscionability of holding the money on trust for the customers with the pari passu principle in insolvency law that no unsecured creditor should be given an advantage over any other unsecured creditor". [16]

Profits from unlawful acts

Where acts lead to profit and are illegal, under either English criminal law or an established legal principle, equity puts any property acquired through these acts into a constructive trust. The most common type of trust here is one resulting from bribery; where somebody in a fiduciary office makes unlawful profit, that money is held on constructive trust for the beneficiaries of his office. [17] In Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid , [18] the Director of Public Prosecutions in Hong Kong accepted bribes to not prosecute certain people. The court held that this was a violation of fiduciary duty, and put the money on constructive trust. An issue with this principle is that the position of Director of Public Prosecutions is not normally understood to be a fiduciary one. Rather, the courts are using fiduciary duties as a method of punishing the defendant; Alastair Hudson writes that they are "as concerned to punish the wrongdoer as to protect rights in property". [19]

Whether or not someone is a fiduciary depends on their position. Trustees, company directors, agents and business partners are all fiduciaries, as in Yugraneft v Abramovich , [20] but other positions may be recognised by the court if the misuse of powers in a particular circumstance renders them so, as in Reid. In Brink's Ltd v Abu-Saleh (No. 3), [21] a security guard who was bribed to give information on a company's security systems, allowing a gang of armed robbers to burgle their warehouse, was found to be in a fiduciary position. While a security guard would not normally be a fiduciary due to not holding a senior enough role, in relation to security arrangements the guard would be found to be acting in a fiduciary capacity. [22] Bribes may also be synonymous with "secret commissions", where somebody is given an undisclosed "kickback". [23]

Murder makes the killer a constructive trustee of whatever property they acquire as a result. This applies to murder, as in In the Estate of Crippen , [24] inciting someone to murder, as in Evans v Evans , [25] and causing death by reckless driving, as in R v Seymour (Edward) . [26] In Re K , [27] it was confirmed that involuntary manslaughter does not require constructive trusts, and neither do situations where there is a successful plea of insanity, as in found in Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. Curiously, there is no requirement that the defendant be found guilty in criminal proceedings; in Re Sigsworth , [28] it was decided that claims can be brought without criminal proceedings having taken place providing the defendant is held up to the criminal standards of guilt in the equity case. [29]

In cases of fraud, the same principle applies; the property is held by the fraudster on constructive trust for the original owner, unless the original owner was involved in the fraud, as in Lonrho plc v Fayed (No. 2) . [30] An exception to this principle is fraudulent misrepresentation, where the courts disagree over whether it immediately forms a constructive trust or requires action by the victim. In Collings v Lee, [31] an estate agent transferred property to a non-existent purchaser (in reality an alias) and then claimed that as he was not the transferee, he did not have to pay the vendors; it was held that this fraudulent misrepresentation meant he held the property on constructive trust. [32] However, in Lonrho, Millett J held that "A contract obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation is voidable, not void, even in equity. The representee may elect to avoid it, but until he does so, the representor is not a constructive trustee of the property transferred pursuant to the contact, and no fiduciary relationship exists between him and the representee". [33]

Fiduciary making unauthorised profits

Where a person in a fiduciary office earns unauthorised profits as a result of their position, this money is held on constructive trust. [34] This principle originated with Keech v Sandford , [35] and the rule was first fully defined in Bray v Ford , [36] where Lord Herschell said that:

It is an inflexible rule of the court of equity that a person in a fiduciary position...is not, unless otherwise [authorised,] entitled to make a profit; he is not allowed to put himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict. It does not appear to me that this rule is, as had been said, founded upon principles of morality. I regard it rather as based on the consideration that, human nature being what it is, there is danger, in such circumstances, 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. It has, therefore, been deemed expedient to lay down this positive rule. [37]

The questions then are fourfold; what is the justification for such a constructive trust, how can authorisation be acquired, who does the fiduciary owe duties to, and what are the remedies for unauthorised profit-making. The main case on this is Boardman v Phipps , [38] where the House of Lords espoused two possible justifications:

  • The first one is that it is a strict rule that a fiduciary cannot allow a conflict of interest. As such, if a fiduciary does do so, he is required to account to the beneficiaries of his office, regardless of whether or not he has acted in bad faith. [39]
  • The second justification is one given by Lords Hodson and Guest in Boardman, which concerned the use of confidential information by a trustee for the trustee's personal gain. Hodson and Guest held that where such a situation arises, the constructive trust is justified not only to avoid conflicts of interest but also because such information is trust property, and using it for personal gain is misuse. [40]

There is no requirement that the profit be directly made from the fiduciary position, merely in a way that causes a conflict between the fiduciary's personal interests and his duties. If a trustee was informed by the trust's stockbroker that only one parcel of highly sought-after stocks remained and chose to purchase it for himself rather than for the trust, he would be taking advantage of the trust and causing a conflict of interest. On the second issue, Boardman confirmed a defence of authorisation. If the fiduciary has informed the beneficiaries that he is acting on his own behalf, and has received permission to do so, the property would not have been held on constructive trust. [41] The third issue is who does the fiduciary owe duties to. In Boardman the case was concerning a trust, and it was held that the duties were towards the beneficiaries. Section 170 of the Companies Act 2006 provides that in situations concerning companies, the duties of the directors and other fiduciaries are to that company. [42]

Where a fiduciary has made unauthorised profits, the remedy is for those profits to be held on constructive trust. If that profit is no longer available, the fiduciary is "liable to account" to the beneficiaries. In Sinclair Investment Holdings SA v Versailles Trade Finance (No. 3), [43] Rimer J explained that this meant the beneficiaries acquire rights over those profits, and the trustee must pay that money or the money's worth back to the beneficiaries. If the profits are mixed with other money or used to purchase property, the beneficiary may trace that property and claim it. [44] Further expansion of the principle was later given in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC . [45]

Constructive trusts relating to property

Many constructive trusts relate to the transfer of property. Those trusts over homes are known as trusts of common intention, and relate exclusively to family homes. In Lloyds Bank v Rosset , [46] the House of Lords set out the circumstances in which a trust of common intention can arise. Firstly, where the parties demonstrate that there was an agreement formed before the acquisition of the property. Secondly, where the parties contribute to the purchase price or mortgage payments and therefore practically demonstrate a common intention to claim an equitable interest; this second form is similar to one form of resulting trust Common intention trusts grant a claimant an equitable right to the home, calculated as a proportion of the total value that corresponds to their financial contributions. [47] The second occasion on which a constructive trust may arise over property is where a piece of property is sold or transferred. The contract transfers the equitable interest from the original owner to the other party, which takes place through a constructive trust. This originated with Chinn v Collins , [48] where it was decided that the creation of such a contract automatically passes the equitable interest to the buyer, assuming the contract can be completed. Until it is completed, that property is held on constructive trust by the seller for the benefit of the buyer. [10] This applies to both personal and real property, with additional rules for the transfer of real property (land). Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 provides that the contract must be in writing, which is not a requirement for the transfer of personal property. [49]

Other

Constructive trusts also arise with mutual wills; wills created by two or more people at the same time, with the intention that the wills are completely binding. Normal wills can be altered or revoked; when one signatory to a mutual will dies, the will irrevocably binds the other signatories. This is dependent on several things. Firstly, there must be evidence of a contract between the signatories demonstrating that each would make a will in a certain form, and neither would revoke it, as in Walters v Olins . [50] Secondly, the will must make it clear that it is to apply to the other party after death. Until a death occurs, the arrangement is simply a contract and has no effect in equity. [51]

Secret trusts are sometimes considered constructive trusts. They do not follow the Wills Act 1837; a requirement for express trusts. [52] The argument is that it is such trusts are intended to prevent fraud by statute. Under this rule, secret trusts would be constructive trusts; the reason they do not have to follow the Wills Act is because they are created by the courts. [53] This is a difficult argument with which to justify half-secret trusts, because since the will mentions the trust, fraud is not directly possible. [53] A more modern argument is that secret trusts are independent and operate outside the will. [54] The trust was created by the donor and trustee during the donor's life, and simply not constituted until his death; it does not have to follow the Wills Act, because it was not created by a will. This view was expressed by Megarry VC in Re Snowden , [55] where he said "The whole basis of secret trusts...is that they operate outside the will, changing nothing that is written in it, and allowing it to operate according to its tenor, but then fastening a trust on to the property in the hands of the recipient". This suggests that secret trusts are not constructive trusts but rather express trusts. [56]

Constructive trustees

When non-trustees interfere with the workings of an express trust to such an extent as to harm it, they can be deemed constructive trustees, or trustees de son tort . In Mara v Browne, [57] Smith LJ stated that "if one, not being a trustee and not having authority from a trustee, takes upon himself to intermeddle with trust matters or to do acts characteristic of the office of trustee, he may therefore make himself what is called in law trustee of his own wrong - ie, a trustee de son tort, or, as it is also termed, a constructive trustee". [1] For someone to be made a constructive trustee, they must have had the property in their possession or control before the application, and have acted in a dishonest or reckless way. If found liable, the constructive trust is held to account personally to repay any loss suffered by the trust fund, and must keep that trust property in his possession. [58]

Related Research Articles

Trust law Three-party fiduciary relationship

A trust is a legal relationship in which the legal title to property is entrusted to a person or legal entity with a fiduciary duty to hold and use it for another's benefit. In the Anglo-American common law, the party who entrusts the property is known as the "settlor", the party to whom the property is entrusted is known as the "trustee", the party for whose benefit the property is entrusted is known as the "beneficiary", and the entrusted property itself is known as the "corpus" or "trust property". With the strategic and legal use of Trusts, individuals can ensure that their children and grandchildren or chosen beneficiaries are able to benefit completely from the inheritance they want them to receive.

Fiduciary person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

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.

Constructive trust

A constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference. It is a type of implied trust.

Joint wills and mutual wills are closely related terms used in the law of wills to describe two types of testamentary writing that may be executed by a married couple to ensure that their property is disposed of identically. Neither should be confused with mirror wills which means two separate, identical wills, which may or may not also be mutual wills.

Australian trust law is the law of trusts as it is applied in Australia. It is derived from, and largely continues to follow English trust law, as modified by state and federal legislation. A number of unique features of Australian trust law arise from interactions with the Australian systems of company law, family law and taxation.

English trust law

English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, and share a subsequent history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts have mostly been used where people have left money in a will, or created family settlements, charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investment, especially in unit trusts and in pension trusts. Although people are generally free to set the terms of trusts in any way they like, there is growing legislation to protect beneficiaries or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and Charities Act 2011.

Equitable interest

An equitable interest is an "interest held by virtue of an equitable title or claimed on equitable grounds, such as the interest held by a trust beneficiary". The equitable interest is a right in equity that may be protected by an equitable remedy. This concept exists only in systems influenced by the common law tradition, such as New Zealand, England, Canada, Australia, and the United States.

<i>Attorney General v Blake</i> English contract law case on damages for breach of contract

Attorney General v Blake[2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268 is a leading English contract law case on damages for breach of contract. It established that in some circumstances, where ordinary remedies are inadequate, restitutionary damages may be awarded.

Dishonest assistance, or knowing assistance, is a type of third party liability under English trust law. It is usually seen as one of two liabilities established in Barnes v Addy, the other one being knowing receipt. To be liable for dishonest assistance, there must be a breach of trust or fiduciary duty by someone other than the defendant, the defendant must have helped that person in the breach, and the defendant must have a dishonest state of mind. The liability itself is well established, but the mental element of dishonesty is subject to considerable controversy which sprang from the House of Lords case Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley.

The creation of express trusts in English law must involve four elements for the trust to be valid: capacity, certainty, constitution and formality. Capacity refers to the settlor's ability to create a trust in the first place; generally speaking, anyone capable of holding property can create a trust. There are exceptions for statutory bodies and corporations, and minors who usually cannot hold property can, in some circumstances, create trusts. Certainty refers to the three certainties required for a trust to be valid. The trust instrument must show certainty of intention to create a trust, certainty of what the subject matter of the trust is, and certainty of who the beneficiaries are. Where there is uncertainty for whatever reason, the trust will fail, although the courts have developed ways around this. Constitution means that for the trust to be valid, the property must have been transferred from the settlor to the trustees.

In English law, secret trusts are a class of trust defined as an arrangement between a testator and a trustee, made to come into force after death, that aims to benefit a person without having been written in a formal will. The property is given to the trustee in the will, and he would then be expected to pass it on to the real beneficiary. For these to be valid, the person seeking to enforce the trust must prove that the testator intended to form a trust, that this intention was communicated to the trustee, and that the trustee accepted his office. There are two types of secret trust — fully secret and half-secret. A fully secret trust is one with no mention in the will whatsoever. In the case of a half-secret trust, the face of the will names the trustee as trustee, but does not give the trust's terms, including the beneficiary. The most important difference lies in communication of the trust: the terms of a half-secret trust must be communicated to the trustee before the execution of the will, whereas in the case of a fully secret trust the terms may be communicated after the execution of the will, as long as this is before the testator's death.

Resulting trusts in English law

Resulting trusts in English law are trusts created where property is not properly disposed of. It comes from the Latin resultare, meaning to spring back, and was defined by Megarry VC as "essentially a property concept; any property that a man does not effectually dispose of remains his own". These trusts come in two forms: automatic resulting trusts, and presumed resulting trusts. Automatic resulting trusts arise from a "gap" in the equitable title of property. The equitable maxim "equity abhors a vacuum" is followed: it is against principle for a piece of property to have no owner. As such, the courts assign the property to somebody in a resulting trust to avoid this becoming an issue. They occur in one of four situations: where there is no declaration of trust, where an express trust fails, where there is surplus property, or upon the dissolution of an unincorporated association. Rules differ depending on the situation and the type of original trust under dispute; failed charitable trusts, for example, have the property reapplied in a different way from other forms of trust.

A Quistclose trust is a trust created where a creditor has lent money to a debtor for a particular purpose. In the event that the debtor uses the money for any other purpose, it is held on trust for the creditor. Any inappropriately spent money can then be traced, and returned to the creditors. The name and trust comes from the House of Lords decision in Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd (1970), although the underlying principles can be traced back further. There has been much academic debate over the classification of Quistclose trusts in existing trusts law: whether they are resulting trusts, express trusts, constructive trusts or, as Lord Millett said in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley, illusory trusts.

Tracing in English law is a procedure to identify property that has been taken from the claimant involuntarily. It is not in itself a way to recover the property, but rather to identify it so that the courts can decide what remedy to apply. The procedure is used in several situations, broadly demarcated by whether the property has been transferred because of theft, breach of trust, or mistake.

Knowing receipt

Knowing receipt is an English trusts law doctrine for imposing liability on people who receive property that belonged to a trust, or was held by a fiduciary, and knew that it been given to them in breach of trust. To be liable for knowing receipt, the claimant must show, first, a disposal of his trust assets in breach of fiduciary duty; second, the beneficial receipt by the defendant of assets which are traceable as representing the assets of the claimant; and third, knowledge on the part of the defendant that the assets he received are traceable to a breach of fiduciary duty.

<i>Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid</i>

The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC)[1993] UKPC 2[1993] UKPC 1993_36 was a New Zealand-originated trust law case heard and decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, where it was held that bribe money accepted by a person in a position of trust, can be traced into any property bought and is held on constructive trust for the beneficiary.

<i>Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC</i> English legal case

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC[1996] UKHL 12 is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House of Lords, presumed intention to reflect what is conscionable underlies all resulting and constructive trusts.

<i>Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd</i>

Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd[2011] EWCA Civ 347 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. Sinclair was partially overruled in July 2014 by the UK Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC.

<i>El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc</i>

El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc[1993] EWCA Civ 4 is an English trusts law case concerning tracing and receipt of property in breach of trust.

<i>FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC</i>

FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.

References

  1. 1 2 Hudson 2009, p. 575.
  2. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 498.
  3. ↑ Paragon Finance Plc v D B Thakerar & Co (A Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1249 , [1999] 1 All ER 400(21 July 1998)
  4. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 500.
  5. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 501.
  6. ↑ Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 , [1996] 2 All ER 961(22 May 1996)
  7. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 504.
  8. ↑ Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset [1990] UKHL 14 , [1990] 1 All ER 1111(29 March 1990)
  9. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 508.
  10. 1 2 Hudson 2009, p. 566.
  11. ↑ Pallant v Morgan, [1953] Ch 43
  12. ↑ Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments Ltd & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 18 , [2000] Ch 372(28 January 2000)
  13. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 509.
  14. ↑ Re Rose [1952] EWCA Civ 4 , [1952] 1 All ER 1217(4 April 1952)
  15. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 514.
  16. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 515.
  17. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 517.
  18. ↑ The Attorney General of Hong Kong v (1) Charles Warwick Reid and Judith Margaret Reid and (2) Marc Molloy Co [1993] UKPC 36 , [1994] 1 AC 324(1 November 1993), P.C. (on appeal from New Zealand)
  19. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 518.
  20. ↑ OJSC Oil Company Yugraneft v Abramovich & Ors (Rev 1) [2008] EWHC 2613(Comm) , [2008] All ER (Comm) 299(29 October 2008)
  21. ↑ [1996] CLC 133
  22. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 521.
  23. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 525.
  24. ↑ [1911] P 108
  25. ↑ [1989] 1 FLR 351
  26. ↑ [1983] AC 493
  27. ↑ [1986] Ch 180
  28. ↑ [1935] 1 Ch 89
  29. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 526.
  30. ↑ [1992] 1 WLR 1
  31. ↑ Collings v Lee, (2001) 82 P&CR 27
  32. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 531.
  33. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 532.
  34. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 535.
  35. ↑ Keech v Sandford [1726] EWHC J76(Ch) , (1726) 2 Eq Cas Abr 741(31 October 1726)
  36. ↑ [1896] AC 44
  37. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 536.
  38. ↑ Boardman v Phipps [1966] UKHL 2 , [1967] 2 AC 46(3 November 1966)
  39. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 539.
  40. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 540.
  41. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 543.
  42. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 545.
  43. ↑ Sinclair Investment Holdings SA v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd & Ors [2007] EWHC 915(Ch) (30 April 2007)
  44. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 548.
  45. ↑ FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 (16 July 2014)
  46. ↑ [1991] 1 AC 107
  47. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 564.
  48. ↑ [1981] AC 533
  49. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 567.
  50. ↑ Walters v Olins [2008] EWCA Civ 782 , [2009] 2 WLR 1(4 July 2008)
  51. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 574.
  52. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 572.
  53. 1 2 Edwards & Stockwell 2007, p. 121.
  54. ↑ Edwards & Stockwell 2007, p. 122.
  55. ↑ [1970] 1 Ch 700
  56. ↑ Hudson 2009, p. 290.
  57. ↑ [1896] 1 Ch 199
  58. ↑ Hudson 2009, pp. 576–577.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.