Tang Man Sit v Capacious Investments Ltd

Last updated
Tang Man Sit v Capacious Investments Ltd
CourtPrivy Council
Full case nameThe Personal Representatives of Tang Man Sit (deceased) (Tang Wing Hon Alan appointed to represent the Estate of Tang Man Sit, deceased) (Appellant) v Capacious Investments Limited (Respondent)
Citation(s)[1995] UKPC 54, [1996] AC 514
Keywords
Breach of trust, dishonest assistance

Tang Man Sit v Capacious Investments Ltd [1995] UKPC 54 is an English trusts law case, concerning breach of trust and liability for dishonest assistance.

Contents

Facts

Before he died, Mr Tang Man Sit signed a deed to assign houses to Capacious Investments Ltd. Later, he let them, without Capacious knowing. Capacious sought a declaration that Mr Tang Wing Hon Alan, Mr Tang's personal representative, should assign back the house free of incumbrances, account for the profits from the lease, and pay the profits over. It should also compensate for losses from use and occupation of the house, with a deduction for profits, and damages to the fall in the house value, as a result of the wrongful occupation.

The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong held that Capacious Investments Ltd had elected to get a remedy for restitution, and so could not recover damages for wrongful occupation as well. Both appealed.

Judgment

Lord Nicholls held that Capacious Investments Ltd could recover damages for loss of market rental value, and loss resulting from overuse and deterioration of the houses. It was true that remedies for loss of profits, and damages for loss of use and occupation were alternatives. However, Capacious had made no election when the judge made the order for profits and damages. It could proceed to claim for an assessment of damages, to see how much that would be, and then make an election.

Lord Keith, Lord Lloyd, Lord Steyn and Hardie Boys J agreed.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

    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.

    The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to give up his gains to the claimant. It should be contrasted with the law of compensation, the law of loss-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to pay the claimant for their loss.

    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.

    Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry VIII to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law.

    Tracing (law)

    Tracing is a legal process, not a remedy, by which a claimant demonstrates what has happened to his/her property, identifies its proceeds and those persons who have handled or received them, and asks the court to award a proprietary remedy in respect of the property, or an asset substituted for the original property or its proceeds. Tracing allows transmission of legal claims from the original assets to either the proceeds of sale of the assets or new substituted assets.

    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.

    English contract law Law of contracts in England and Wales

    English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

    <i>Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd</i>

    Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] QB 27 is a well-known English Court of Appeal case concerning the recovery of pure economic loss in negligence.

    <i>Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson</i>

    Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson[1991] EWCA Civ 12 is an English contract law case on misrepresentation. It examines the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and addresses the extent of damages available under s 2(1) for negligent misrepresentation.

    <i>Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd</i>

    Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd[1972] EWCA 8 is an English contract law case on the measure of damages for disappointing breaches of contract.

    <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.

    <i>Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd</i>

    Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 is an old English contract law and UK labour law case, which used to restrict damages for non-pecuniary losses for breach of contract.

    <i>Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd</i>

    Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd[1980] 1 WLR 277 is an English contract law case notable for its pronouncements on the doctrine of privity which have been modified by the Contracts Act 1999.

    Johnson v Unisys Limited [2001] UKHL 13 is a leading UK labour law case on the measure of damages for unfair dismissal and the nature of the contract of employment.

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

    The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC)[1993] UKPC 2 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.

    Swindle v Harrison [1997] 4 All ER 705 is an English trusts law case, concerning remedies for breach of trust.

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

    <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.

    <i>Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust</i>

    Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence[2011] UKSC 58 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.

    References