Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > Equity & Trusts - Breach of Trust > Flashcards

Equity & Trusts - Breach of Trust Flashcards

This flashcard deck was created using Flashcardlet's card creator

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
0
Q

Boardman v Phipps

A
  1. Fiduciary relationship exists between solicitor and client
  2. T/F may be rewarded for profits made if shows considerable skill (still liable to account)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

s12 TA 2000

A

B may owe fiduciary duty to other Bs if acting as a principal (Boardman v Phipps)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

s. 175 Companies Act 2006

A

Directors owe fiduciary duty to company (Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Bray v Ford

A

T/F must not put himself in a position where his duty and personal interests conflict

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Foskett

A

T/F misappropriating funds will hold them on CT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

ex p Lacey

A

T/F may not purchase assists from himself/co-trustees (self-dealing) as there is a presumption of undue influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Holder v Holder

A

T/F may rebut self-dealing presumption if:

  • He takes steps to renounce his position
  • He makes his motives clearly known
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Barclays Bank v O’Brien

A

T may not purchase assists from B as there is a presumption of undue influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Tito v Waddell

A

T/F may rebut presumed undue influence if he can show ‘fair dealing’:

  • Disclosed all material facts to B
  • Not taken advantage of position
  • transaction is fair and honest
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Re Gates

A

T/F must not receive remuneration for his actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Re MacAdam

A

T/F must not receive remuneration for his appointment as company director

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

s29(1) TA 2000

A

Trust corporation may charge reasonable remuneration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Re Pooley

A

T/F may receive remuneration if authorised under terms of trust instrument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

s28(1) TA 2000

A

T/F may receive remuneration if authorised expressly by trust instrument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

s31(1)(a) TA 2000

A

T may recover incidental expenses, e.g. travel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Re Duke of Norfolk’s ST

A

T/F may receive remuneration by order of court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Ayliffe v Murray

A

T/F may receive remuneration with all Bs’ consent, provided:

  • Bs are all sui juris
  • Obtained in writing (s29(2) TA 2000)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver

Ketch v Sandford

A

T/F must not earn incidental profits

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Queensland Mines v Hudson

A

T/F may exploit opportunity if:

  • Keeps Bs fully informed
  • trust cannot take advantage anyway
  • T/F is not a company director (s175(2) Companies Act 2006)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

A-G for Hong Kong v Reid

A

T/F has a duty not to accept bribes, and will hold on CT if he does

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

s4 TA 2000

A

T has duty to comply with standard investment criteria:

  • Consider suitability
  • Ensure diversity
  • Periodically review for compliance (s4(2) TA 2000)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

s5 TA 2000

A

T has duty to seek and consider advice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

s5(3) TA 2000

A

T does not have to seek advice where it would be unnecessary/inappropriate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

s5(4) TA 2000

A

T must believe advisor is reasonably qualified

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Harries v Church Comms of England

A
  1. T under a duty to invest in a manner designed to generate maximum return
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Cowan v Scargill

A

T will ignore ethical considerations of Bs unless:

  • Ethical investment would be equally as strong
  • Bs are all sui juries and would have done likewise (Harries)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

s3(1) TA 2000

A

T has power to invest as if he were absolutely entitled, provided:
- No express provisions to the contrary in trust instrument

27
Q

Howe v Earl of Dartmouth

A

T has duty of impartiality, i.e. must balance life interests against those of remaindermen

28
Q

Styles v Guy

A

T has duty to monitor and correct actions of fellow Ts

29
Q

s1(1) TA 2000

A

T must exercise reasonable skill and care in relation to statutory duties, having regard to:

  • special knowledge he holds himself out as having
  • special knowledge (as professional T) he could reasonably be expected to have
30
Q

Sleight v Gaunt

A

Common law SoC is that of “reasonably prudent man of business”

31
Q

Bartlett v Barclays Bank

A
  1. Professional T owes higher DoC
  2. Professional T may not rely on provisions of s61 TA 1925
  3. T may offset profits against losses of a breach IF same transaction
32
Q

Target Holdings v Redfurns

A

Causation established through ‘but for’ test

33
Q

Townley v Sherborne

A

T will be VL if he has failed to keep property in joint control

34
Q

Boardman v Mossman

A

T will be VL if he has concealed a breach of another T

35
Q

Booth v Booth

A

T will be VL if he has stood by whilst another T committed breach

36
Q

ss11 & 12 TA 2000

A

T may delegate duties of investment and advice to agent

37
Q

s23 TA 2000

A

T will not be liable for actions of agent exercising his delegable duty

38
Q

s25 TA 1925

A

T is VL for actions of PoA donee

39
Q

s15 TA 2000

A

T may only delegate duty in writing

40
Q

s22 TA 2000

A

T must review actions of agent from time to time

41
Q

Armitage v Nurse

A

Trust instrument may include clause excluding T’s liability

42
Q

s61 TA 1925

A

T may avoid liability if he can show he acted honestly and reasonably

43
Q

Re Pauling’s ST

A

T may escape liability if he can show he acted with knowledge and consent of all Bs (all must be sui juris); not necessary for Bs to be aware actions constitute a breach

44
Q

Laches

A

T may escape liability if:

  • B acquiesced to breach
  • Acquiescence was for a long period

‘delay defeats equity’

45
Q

Re Smith

A

T may be indemnified if co-trustee acted fraudulently

46
Q

Head v Gould

A

T may be indemnified if honestly followed advice of solicitor, who is co-trustee, and T relied upon the advice

47
Q

s62 TA 1925

A

T may be indemnified if acted upon inducement/request of B

48
Q

Re Dawson

A

Ts are personally liable to return trust to state before breach

49
Q

s2 Civil Liability (Contribution) Act

A

Ts may be jointly and severally liable for breach if they commit a breach along with another T, but court has power to determine share of contributions

50
Q

Re Diplock

A

Personal claims against Ts must be exhausted first before proprietary claim may be brought

51
Q

s21(3) LA 1980

A

Personal claims time-barred after 6 years, but proprietary claims are not time-barred

52
Q

Taylor v Plumer

A

Tracing I. Common law possible only if original property remains distinctly identifiable

53
Q

Re Diplock

A

Tracing in equity must satisfy 3 conditions:

  • fiduciary relationship needed
  • must be in traceable form
  • no inequitable result, e.g, BFPFVWN takes free
54
Q

Chase Manhattan Bank

A

Fiduciary relationship can arise subsequently if D’s conscience affected, e.g. mistaken payment gives rise to CT

55
Q

Borden v Scottish Timber

A

Dissipated funds are not traceable

56
Q

Re Hallet

A

Where TP mixed with D’s own money, D presumed to have spent own money first

57
Q

Re Oatway

A

Where Re Hallet produces inequity, D deemed to have spent TP first

58
Q

Clayton’s Case

A

Where TP mixed with money from another trust/innocent party, FIFO rule applies

59
Q

Foskett

A

Where TP used with other monies to fund purchase, C has two choices:

  • May claim proportionate share of asset (if value increased)
  • May enforce lien against asset for full value (if value decreased)
60
Q

Barnes v Addy

A

Personal claims are permissible against 3rd parties subject to 3 conditions:

  • Existence of fiduciary relationship
  • Assistance in breach by 3rd party
  • Dishonesty on part of 3rd party
61
Q

Royal Brunei Airlines

A

Dishonesty is ‘failure to behave as an honest person would in the circumstances’

62
Q

Barlow Clowes

A

Dishonesty may simply be acting with conscious impropriety, i.e. w/o actual knowledge of breach

63
Q

Recipient liability

A

3 conditions:

  • 3rd party received TP as a result of breach
  • 3rd party received TP for own benefit
  • 3rd party had actual knowledge of breach
64
Q

Re Montagu’s ST

A

Only actual knowledge suffices for recipient liability

Law (25 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions