Intermeddlers - Knowing Receipts

Question 1

what are the 3 elements of knowing reciept?

Answer 1

1. Disposal of assets in breach of trust or
   fiduciary duty
2. Beneficial receipt of property (word beneficial important as if it was any old receipt solicitor would be liable - ministerial receipt)
3. Knowledge - lot of debate

Question 2

what happened in BCCI (overseas) ltd v Akindele?

Answer 2

• Persuaded to invest 10 million dollars, this was back in 1985 when BCCI was reliable
  
  • By 1988 rumours swirling about integrity of BCCI - WORRIES HIS MONEY IS BEING USED IN THE COURRUPT ENTERPRISE
  • Uses his rights to exit investment - gets back 16 million dollars
  • Liquidators of bank sued
  • At first instance Ak was intitled to take steps to protect his own interest before rumours turned into being involved in actual wrong doing
  • Main criticism COA made of first instance judge was setting the test as dishonesty - the test was actually knowledge that would make his actions unconscionable, which is step below dishonesty
  • But unconscionability criticised as being vague

Baden-Delvaux scale useful as a ‘tool’

Question 3

what was said in Starglade Properties Ltd v Nash [2010]?

Answer 3

 This is a flexible test, which requires the court to
consider what is right, taking into account the nature
and extent of the defendant’s knowledge and all the
circumstances relating to the receipt.
 Actual knowledge which would put a reasonable man
on enquiry, coupled with a failure to enquire, may
suffice.

So unconciousability has soldiered on in the law, but its still difficult to say whether the person knows too much to make them liable for the receipt, or whether its just suspicions

Question 4

who wrote an article advokating for knowing recpet to be replaced with unjust enrichment and in what year?

Answer 4

Lord Nicholls

1998

Question 5

what are the 3 requirements for restitution for unjust enrichment?

Answer 5

1. that the defendant has been enriched,
   
   2. this enrichment was gained at the claimant’s expense,
      and
   3. the defendant’s enrichment at the claimant’s expense
      was unjust (list of special reasons)

 The defendant is not liable if she can show she
changed her position bona fide in reliance of the receipt.

Question 6

what happened in Another real example - Lipkin Gorman v karpnale?(example of unjust enrichment)

Answer 6

• Man had a gambling problem, stole money and spent it at playboy club
  
  • Casino received nearly 230,000 in funds
  • He won back about 75k
  • Casino left with over 100,000 in proft
  • The law firm obvs want the money back
  • Client money held on trust by the law firm - the man breached fiduciary duties by withdrawing money and spending it
  • So they could get the 75,000 back from him but no the rest
  • So was the casino dishonest assistants? There was no suspicion from the casino that the money was stolen
  • But Gorman sued K (casino )in unjust enrichment
    ○ The def was enriched
    ○ It was done that the expense of Gorman the law firm
    ○ The enrichment at the expense was unjust
  • So it would work, but would they get the 75,000 or all of it
    Def was the change of the extent of the position - so they paid back 150,000 rather than the full over 200,000

Question 7

what is the current stance on unjust enrichment?

Answer 7

aKINDELE STILL STANDS, AND THERES limited application of the new unjust enrichment procedure