''Re Diplock'' or ''Ministry of Health v Simpson'' 951AC 251 is an

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 ...

and

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 re ...

case, concerning tracing and an action for money had and received.

Facts

Various charities, including the Royal Sailors Orphans Girls’ School and Home and Dr Barnardo’s Homes had wrongly been paid money by personal representatives under Mr Caleb Diplock’s will, which left £263,000. The representatives mistakenly believed a clause in the will was valid. Some money went to be used to improve and repair other property. But the trust was held to be invalid in a decision of the House of Lords, called '' Chichester Diocesian Fund and Board of Finance Incorporated v Simpson''. The next of kin, including Cornelius Simpson, claimed that the money should be repaid by the recipients.

Judgment

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal rejected the claimant’s claim for a charge over newly built buildings. It allowed a claim for equitable tracing in the mixed funds held by the charities. For mixed funds not held in current accounts, as for Royal Sailor’s, the claimants held a proportionate share. For funds held in current accounts, as for Dr Barnado’s, the first in first out rule was applicable. Lord Greene MR said the following. Wrottesley LJ and Evershed LJ concurred.

House of Lords

The House of Lords upheld Court of Appeal that the next of kin, including Simpson, had a personal equitable remedy against the charities to recover the money, once the claims against the personal representatives were exhausted. Lord Simonds discussed why a mistake of law was different from a mistake of fact, because '' ignorantia juris neminem excusat''. He then continued on the question of receiving property. 951AC 251, 276. Lord Normand, Lord Oaksey, Lord Morton and Lord MacDermott concurred.

Notes

{{reflist, 2

References