Interactive Technology Corporation Ltd v Ferster [2021] WTLR 561

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2021 #183

Judgment was handed down following a trial of a claim against a former director for breach of fiduciary duty through unauthorised remuneration. The claim was found to be established in judgment given on 15 November 2016. On 19 December 2016 there was a hearing to deal with consequential matters including the terms of order. The order made provided for judgment for equitable compensation in respect of the unauthorised remuneration.

The claimant then applied for an interim payment. The defendant objected on the basis that it was far from certain that the claimant had suffered any lo...

Auden McKenzie (Pharma Division) Ltd v Patel [2020] WTLR 1133

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2020 #181

This was an appeal against summary judgment on a claim for equitable compensation for £13,149,479 plus interest at 2.5% pa compounded annually.

A was a director of R. A and his sister (Ms Patel) had founded R and had been sole directors and (directly and indirectly) owned all of the shares. Between 2009 and 2014, A had caused R to pay £13,763,452 against sham invoices to Dubai companies. The Dubai companies had retained 5-10% of the invoiced sums and paid the balance to A (and Ms Patel’s) personal bank accounts, to them in cash, and to third parties for the purchase of a New York ...

Group Seven v Notable Services [2019] EWCA Civ 614

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2019 #176

These appeals arose from the a ‘brazen fraud’ by which Allseas Group SA was defrauded of €100 million. After the fraud took place, there was an attempt to launder the proceeds through the client account of a London firm of solicitors, Notable Services LLP, whose partners included Mr Landman. Police intervention secured the return of €88 million – the present proceedings concerned attempts to recover the remainder of this sum from Notable, Mr Landman, Mr Louanjli (a bank employee who provided information to Notable) and LLB Verwaltung, the bank who employed him (”the Bank”).

In add...

Remedies: A costly error

Failure to advise clients of risk can have serious financial consequences. David Greene and Dominic de Bono consider a recent equitable compensation claim ‘Jackson LJ held that this was a category 2 advice case, noting that this was not a “conventional conveyancing situation“. While the purchasers had taken the decision to purchase a property in …
This post is only available to members.

Daniel v Tee [2016] EWHC 1538 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2018 #173

The defendants were professional solicitor trustees of a trust established by the will of the claimants’ father. The claimants were the beneficiaries of the will trust, who were minors when their father died. The deceased’s will provided that the claimants’ shares would be held on trust for them until they turned 25, so the defendants invested the trust fund with the assistance of professional investment advice given by Taylor Young Investment Management Ltd (Taylor Young).

The claimants subsequently sought compensation from the trustees in the sum of £1,476,076 on the basis that ...

O’Keefe v Caner [2017] EWHC 1105 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2017 #168

This was a trial of the preliminary issue of whether claims made by the joint liquidators of two Jersey-incorporated companies against the respondents were time-barred as a matter of Jersey law.

In the proceedings, the applicants claimed that between 10 April 2007 and 10 June 2008 payments were made of €16m and €18m from ‘Level One’ and ‘Special Opportunity’ respectively, to or for the benefit of the first respondent or companies owned beneficially by him. Those payments were claimed not to have been made in good faith for a legitimate commercial purpose of the companies, and the ...

Fraud: Who is on the hook?

Should a vendor’s solicitor be under the same scrutiny as those representing the purchaser? Mary Young and Ben Hillman discuss ‘The Law Society Property and Registration Fraud Practice Note asserts the need for caution, as criminals will always attempt to exploit weaknesses in lending and conveyancing systems.’ Victims of identity theft or modern scams frequently …
This post is only available to members.

Trusts: Consequences of non-compliance

Paul Marshall discusses a case which explores relief from liability for breach of trust under the Trustee Act 1925 ‘Where a vendor’s solicitor has not complied with the requirements of the AML Regulations it will be difficult to escape strict liability for the consequences of breach of trust where their client is a fraudster, however …
This post is only available to members.

Purrunsing v A’Court [2016] EWHC 789 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2016 #161

The claim arose from a purported sale of a property to the claimant by a fraudster who purported to be, but was not in fact, the registered owner of the property. By the time the fraud was discovered the whole of the purchase price had been paid by the claimant to the second defendant (the claimant’s conveyancer), by the second defendant to the first defendant (the fraudster’s solicitor) and by the first defendant to an account in Dubai upon the fraudster’s instructions.

The fraudster’s instructions to the first defendant were that the property had been given to him by his father,...