|
Knowing Receipt
Knowing receipt is an English trusts law doctrine for imposing liability on a person who has received property that belongs to a trust, or which was held by a fiduciary, having known that the property was 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. "Knowing receipt" is also sometimes called "unconscionable receipt" because of its theoretical foundation in the doctrine of unconscionability. The contrary view is that knowing receipt is, or ought to be, part of a broader doctrine of ignorance triggering a claim for unjust enrichment. On this view, anyone who receives property that was given away in breach of trust has a strict duty ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Trusts 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 (where trustees and fun ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fiduciary
A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons). 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 trust ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fiduciary Duty
A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons). 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 trust ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
El Ajou V Dollar Land Holdings
is an English trusts law case concerning tracing and receipt of property in breach of trust. Although the Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision on appeal, the first instance decision is much more widely cited. The decision was reversed relating to the issues around knowing receipt, and there was no substantive appeal against the trial judge's original rulings in relation to the law of tracing, and those statements all remain good law. In the 34th edition of ''Snell's Equity'', the judgment of Millett J at trial is cited eleven times, but the Court of Appeal's decision is not cited at all. Facts The facts were set out in the judgment. Abdul Ghani El Ajou was a wealthy businessman who resided in Saudi Arabia. He was the largest single victim, although not the only victim, of a massive share fraud scheme carried out in Amsterdam between 1984 and 1985 by three Canadians. The proceeds of that fraud were transferred around the world through various intermediaries, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Unjust Enrichment
In laws of equity, unjust enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defences such as change of position. Liability for an unjust (or unjustified) enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. The concept of unjust enrichment can be traced to Roman law and the maxim that "no one should be benefited at another's expense": ''nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura'' or ''nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura''. The law of unjust enrichment is closely related to, but not co-extensive with, the law of restitution. The law of restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. It is wider than the law of unjust enrichment. Restitution for unjust enrichment is a subset of the law of restitution in the same way that compensation for breach of contract is a subset of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd V Tan
is an English trusts law case, concerning breach of trust and liability for dishonest assistance. Facts Royal Brunei Airlines appointed Borneo Leisure Travel Sdn Bhd to be its agent for booking passenger flights and cargo transport around Sabah and Sarawak. Mr Tan was Borneo Leisure Travel's managing director and main shareholder. It was receiving money for Royal Brunei, which was agreed to be held on trust in a separate account until passed over. But Borneo Leisure Travel, with Mr Tan's knowledge and assistance, paid money into its current account and used it for its own business. Borneo Leisure travel failed to pay on time, the contract was terminated, and it went insolvent. Royal Brunei claimed the money back from Mr Tan.See the headnote of the Appeal Cases report, at 995UKPC 4 [19952 AC 378 The Judge held Mr Tan was liable as a constructive trustee to Royal Brunei. The Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam held that the company was not guilty of fraud or dishonesty, and so ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Restitution
The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to ''give up'' their 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. Evolving Meaning ''American Jurisprudence'' 2d edition notes: Legal vs Equitable Remedy Restitution may be either a legal remedy or an equitable remedy, "depend ngupon the basis for the plaintiff's claim and the nature of the underlying remedies sought". Generally, restitution and equitable tracing is an equitable remedy when the money or property wrongfully in the possession of defendant is traceable (i.e., can be tied to "particular funds or property"). In such a case, restitution comes in the form of a constructive trust or equitable lien. Where the particular property at issue cannot be particularly identified, restitution is a legal remedy. This occurs, for example ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Dishonesty
Dishonesty is to act without honesty. It is used to describe a lack of probity, cheating, lying, or deliberately withholding information, or being deliberately deceptive or a lack in integrity, knavishness, perfidiosity, corruption or treacherousness. Dishonesty is the fundamental component of a majority of offences relating to the acquisition, conversion and disposal of property (tangible or intangible) defined in criminal law such as fraud. English law Dishonesty has had a number of definitions. For many years, there were two views of what constituted dishonesty in English law. The first contention was that the definitions of dishonesty (such as those within the Theft Act 1968) described a course of action, whereas the second contention was that the definition described a state of mind. A clear test within the criminal law emerged from ''R v Ghosh'' (1982) 75 CR App. R. 154. The Court of Appeal held that dishonesty is an element of ''mens rea'', clearly referring to a state of m ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Negligence
Negligence (Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as ''negligence'' involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of ''carelessness'' possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property. Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue for damages to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss. The law on negligence may be assessed in general terms according to a five-part model which includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Elements of negligence claims Some things must be established by anyone who wants to sue in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Belmont Finance Corp Ltd V Williams Furniture (No 2)
''Belmont Finance Corp Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)'' 9801 All ER 393 is an English trusts law case, concerning breach of trust and dishonest assistance. Facts Belmont Finance Corp was wholly owned by City Industrial Finance, Mr James the chairman of both. Belmont’s directors paid £500,000 under a scheme to help Maximum Co, owned and controlled by Mr Grosscurth, to buy shares in Belmont from City. This was a breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the prohibition on financial assistance. City received £489,000 ultimately. Belmont later claimed City was liable to account as a constructive trustee.See the headnote of the All England Law Report, at 9801 All ER 393 Judgment The Court of Appeal held that City Industrial Finance was liable to account. Buckley LJ noted ''Barnes v Addy'' to mean that a stranger who receives some of the trust or assists with knowledge of facts in a dishonest design will be liable. Goff LJ concurred. Waller LJ concurred. See also *Engl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
El Ajou V Dollar Land Holdings Plc
is an English trusts law case concerning tracing and receipt of property in breach of trust. Although the Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision on appeal, the first instance decision is much more widely cited. The decision was reversed relating to the issues around knowing receipt, and there was no substantive appeal against the trial judge's original rulings in relation to the law of tracing, and those statements all remain good law. In the 34th edition of ''Snell's Equity'', the judgment of Millett J at trial is cited eleven times, but the Court of Appeal's decision is not cited at all. Facts The facts were set out in the judgment. Abdul Ghani El Ajou was a wealthy businessman who resided in Saudi Arabia. He was the largest single victim, although not the only victim, of a massive share fraud scheme carried out in Amsterdam between 1984 and 1985 by three Canadians. The proceeds of that fraud were transferred around the world through various intermediaries, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
BCCI (Overseas) Ltd V Akindele
is an English trusts law case, concerning breach of trust and knowing receipt of trust property. Facts The liquidators of BCCI sued Chief Labode Onadimaki Akindele, a Nigerian businessman, for $6,679,226 that he got in divestiture payments in 1988. ICIC Overseas Ltd, in the BCCI group, had agreed Akindele would buy shares in BCCI Holdings, and be guaranteed a 15% pa return for a $10m investment. BCCI, in fact, gave him $16.679m to do this, thus leaving $6.679m over. Akindele did not know this was part of a fraud scheme to enable BCCI Holdings to buy its own shares. The liquidator argued he was a constructive trustee, for both knowing receipt and knowing assistance. The liquidators argued his dishonesty could be inferred from his knowledge of the artificially arranged loan transactions and his unusually high-interest rate of 15%. The High Court refused recovery and refused to find him dishonest.999BCC 669 Judgment Nourse LJ held that Mr Akindele’s knowledge in 1985 was not ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
