Liability of trustees inter se in English law

Last updated

The Liability of trustees inter se in English law governs in what circumstances and to what extent a trustee in English trust law is liable for the acts and defaults of their co-trustees under English Law. In general trustees are under a duty to act jointly and have authority to act individually only if the trust instrument so provides. In principle therefore each trustee has an equal say in the management of the trust property and therefore in the event of a breach the trustees are jointly and severally liable for their actions. [1]

Contents

However, trustees are only liable for their own breach and so a unilateral action by one trustee that constitutes a breach of trust will not engage the liability of another trustee's. [2]

Equitable principles still thought to survive

In no situations where joint and several liability is engaged contribution claims between parties are governed by the operation of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, but, in addition there remain several equitable principles developed by the chancery division of the English Courts that are thought to remain in effect. [3] Such principles are likely to influence the court in their interpretation of the 1978 Act. [4]

Solicitor Trustees

In Head v Gould [5] was a case in English trust law concerning the indemnity of trustees inter se for a breach of a trust. Where a trustee has committed a breach of trust relying on the professional advice of a fellow solicitor trustee they were entitled to be indemnified by virtue of that reliance . It is one of the few common law situations concerning inter-trustee indemnity that is still thought to apply following the passing of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. The rise of professional trustee companies has led to the suggestion that it may become of significant case law in the future. [6]

Facts

Miss Head and Mrs. Gould were appointed trustees of certain marriage settlements, Mrs. Gould was a "Solicitor-Trustee". The trustees sold the house that was part of the trust property and in breach of trust paid the proceeds of the sale to a life tenant. On the other hand, Miss Head sought to claim that she was indemnified because of the status of her co-trustee as a solicitor. Miss Head claimed that she had acted in reliance on the professional advice of Gould. Upon investigation, there was no evidence that that was the cause and so Miss Head's claim to indemnity her husband was declined.

However; in giving judgment by J. Kekewich, it was considered earlier an equitable case law and also considered that "I do not myself think that Bryne Jacob or any other judges ever intended to hold that a man is bound to indemnify himself of his co-trustees against loss merely because he was a solicitor, when that co-trustee was an active participant in the breach of trust complained of, and is not proved to have participated merely in consequence of the advice and control of the solicitor." [7]

Sole Benefit

In Bahin v Hughes [8] the situation where a sole trustee benefited from the breach of trust was considered by High Court. In that case there were two trustees, one of whom was passive in the management of the trust, one of those trustees acted honestly but in breach of the trust terms in making an investment. The passive trustee was unsuccessful in claiming an indemnity on the basis that it had been the actions of the other trustee that had caused the breach of trust. Cotton LJ felt that it would be wrong to punish a trustee who had acted honestly more than a trustee who had failed to act at all.

However, it is not clear exactly how far this principle can be extended and it is generally thought that Bahin v Huges should be treated with caution . [9]

Notes

  1. ↑ Oakley, AJ (2008). Parker and Mellows: The Modern Law of Trusts. London: Thomson, Sweet & Maxwell. p. 880. ISBN   978-0-421-94590-6.
  2. ↑ Hayton, David; Mitchell, Charles (2005). Commentary and Cases of The law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies. London: Thompson, Sweet & Maxwell. pp.  757–758. ISBN   0-421-90190-X.
  3. ↑ Oakley 2008, p. 881.
  4. ↑ Hayton & Mitchell 2005, p. 755.
  5. ↑ [1898] 2 Ch 250; 67 LJ Ch 480; 78 Lt 739
  6. ↑ Hayton & Mitchell 2005, p. 756.
  7. ↑ Please refer to : Head v. Gould [1898] 2 Ch. 250, from the Royal Common-Wealth Archives. Digitized on Monday, 23rd, 2045AR.
  8. ↑ (1886) 31 Ch D 390
  9. ↑ Oakley 2008, p. 882.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Subrogation</span> Legal doctrine whereby a person is entitled to enforce the rights of another

Subrogation is the assumption by a third party of another party's legal right to collect debts or damages. It is a legal doctrine whereby one person is entitled to enforce the subsisting or revived rights of another for one's own benefit. A right of subrogation typically arises by operation of law, but can also arise by statute or by agreement. Subrogation is an equitable remedy, having first developed in the English Court of Chancery. It is a familiar feature of common law systems. Analogous doctrines exist in civil law jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Misrepresentation</span> Untrue statement in contract negotiations

In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.

<i>Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd</i> UK landmark company law case

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the House of Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders for payment of outstanding debts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English trust law</span> Creation and protection of asset funds

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 a growing body of 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.

Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1996] EWCA Civ 533 is a leading English fiduciary law and professional negligence case, concerning a solicitor's duty of care and skill, and the nature of fiduciary duties. The case is globally cited for its definition of a fiduciary and the circumstances in which a fiduciary relationship arises.

<i>Boardman v Phipps</i>

Boardman v Phipps [1966] UKHL 2 is a landmark English trusts law case concerning the duty of loyalty and the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.

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.

<i>Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley</i>

Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley[2002] UKHL 12 is a leading case in English trusts law. It provides authoritative rulings in the areas of Quistclose trusts and dishonest assistance.

<i>Vandervell v IRC</i> 1967 English trusts law case

Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291 is a leading English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts. It demonstrates that the mere intention to not have a resulting trust does not make it so.

<i>Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)</i>

Wallersteiner v Moir [1975] QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim. The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely result in the old and new law alike.

<i>Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co</i>

Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co [1925] Ch 407 is a UK company law case concerning directors' duties, and in particular the duty of care. It is no longer good law, as it stipulated that a "subjective" standard of competence applied. Now under Companies Act 2006 section 174, and given the development of the common law in Re D'Jan of London Ltd, directors owe an objective standard of care based on what should reasonably be expected from someone in their position.

<i>Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns</i>

Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns[1995] UKHL 10 is an English trusts law case, concerning the test for causation and the extent of compensation for breaches of trust.

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

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC[1996] UKHL 12, [1996] AC 669 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.

Futter v HM Revenue and Customs [2013] UKSC 26 is an English trusts law case, concerning the fiduciary duty to take into account relevant factors, and disregard irrelevant factors. It held that trustees who act on professional advice do not breach this duty, and that even if they do, the failure to have proper regard to relevant matters only ever renders a transaction voidable. For a transaction to be wholly set aside, as in common mistake, a decision by a trustee must be based on a truly "basic" mistake.

<i>Barnes v Addy</i>

Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 was a decision of the Court of Appeal in Chancery. It established that, in English trusts law, third parties could be liable for a breach of trust in two circumstances, referred to as the two 'limbs' of Barnes v Addy: knowing receipt and knowing assistance.

Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48 is an English vicarious liability case, concerning also breach of trust and dishonest assistance.

<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.

<i>AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors</i>

AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58 is an English trust law case, concerning the applicable principles of causation for a breach of trust. It held that a "but for" test of causation applies for equitable compensation.

McDonald v Horn [1995] 1 All ER 961 is an English trusts law case on pensions, relevant for UK labour law. It enables the beneficiaries of a pension fund to be indemnified for costs in bringing actions for breach of trust, fiduciary duty or the duty of care against the trustees or directors of a pension fund.

Byers v Saudi National Bank[2022] EWCA Civ 43 is a decision of the English Court of Appeal in the long running litigation between the liquidators of SAAD Investments Company Limited and various parties relating to the alleged defrauding of the insolvent company by one of its principals.

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.