Unit 8 Flashcards
Agip (Africa) ltd v Jackson
Knowing receipt by bank when the bank has received the money ministerially for the customer and not for their own benefit the bank will not be liable for the receipt of this property.
Armstrong v Winnington networks
Carbon allowances through the EU ( EUA). Companies can sell excess allowances if they are under the limits. EUA claimant misappropriated as they gave the d password and was given to the recipient the transfer this property to claim of known receipt.
BCCI V Akindele
BCCI bank is about to go bust so fraudulently attracted investors to bring money in contracted with A to invest 10 million into the bank and received 7 million back eventually the bank collapse and the liquidators sued as he was liable for the money that was paid to him in return of his investment as this was part of the fraud. Held: he was not liable as he had no reason to be suspicious about the particular transaction. This rose to unconscionability.
The unconscionability test
“ the recipient stated knowledge must be Such to make it unconscionable for him to retain the benefit of the receipt”
Buyers v Saudi Arabia bank
The court determine that a claim cannot be upheld unless the claimant retains an ongoing proprietary interest. Held the test might have been recognised and considered it was clear on sufficiency and liability.
Re. Rothko
Paintings for Bromley transferred to 3rd parties third parties disposed of these paintings. Held the parties reliable for the market value of the paintings.
Measure of loss is the beneficial receipt of the defendant gained
Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan
C the airline appointed BLT to sell tickets he was the managing director of BLT who helped the money interest account and then pass it onto the airlines so they can deduct commission beforehand. B-L financial team taking money out of the trust account to keep the company the airlines suit for the breach of trust there is no money in insolvency, held: if you use trust money to gamble with or save a company you are dishonest and will be held liable.
This established the dishonesty test
The dishonesty test
Liability and equity to make good resulting loss attached to a person who dishonestly secures or assist in a breach of trust or a fiduciary obligation
Twinsectra ltd v Yardley
Alone from tea to Y by property ONLY. T paid the money to solicitors to hold on quistclose trust the money was released the oddly for another purpose (a breach of trust). The solicitor that assisted in this transaction was an accessory. The question was whether he was dishonest. Held: yes he was dishonest in the sense that tips of breach of trust, but he was not dishonest through his subjective belief as he didn’t believe he was doing anything wrong. The court applied both (hybrid tes) can be an objective approach and applying to the subjective knowledge of the defendant.
Barned v Addy
Solicitor assisted a rogue in the transfer of money from two family trust. Held: but the solicitors were not liable for the breach only liable as accessories.
Brinks Ltd v Abu-saleh
A woman travelling alongside the man to keep him company with stolen gold was not held being an assistant in the legal sense.
Barlow Closes v Eurotrust
Reclaim was defrauding investors by attracting investment using the trust bank to hold the fraudulent money. Hanworth was the director of your trust. They were the trustee and he was the accessory. H strongly suspected that the money was investors money and knew that b for his own purposes the question was wealthy dishonest. Argued that he wasn’t dishonest as he was just following his clients instructions. Held: the court rejected the hybrid and subjective test and applied just the objective test stating that he was dishonest and also he put too much emphasis on his duties to his client.
Group Seven v Notable Service
3 modes of dishonest assistance
1. Breach of trust or fiduciary duty
2. Assisting or procuring by the accessory
3. Knowledge / fault condition
Ivey v Genting Casinos
The defendant used a technique called an edge sorting technique when it casinos winning £7.7 million. The defendant refused to pay the claimants winnings as they found out about the technique stating that it was cheating. The claim that he did not believe he cheated he couldn’t complete the second limb of the Ghosh test held: he cheated – cheating does not have to include dishonesty. This replaced the Ghosh test.
Novoship v mikhaykuka
The accessory was the instigator bribing a director to hire out ships to the accessory. The accessory made a profit from this and they were forced to give up their profits as a remedy.
