Joseph de Lacey and Natasha Molson analyse the Supreme Court’s decision in Crown Prosecution Service v Aquila Advisory Ltd The court confirmed the approach as set out in Jetivia, namely that in proceedings by a company against its directors for breach of fiduciary duty, the fraud of the directors could not be attributed to the …
Continue reading "Fiduciary obligations and constructive trusts: Attribution of illegality"
This post is only available to members.
Andrew Burnette looks at liability and the unknown: can the provider of a reference be responsible if it doesn’t know who will rely on it? ‘Taking into consideration the principles set out in both Hedley Byrne and Caparo, the Supreme Court found that in the circumstances of the Playboy case it simply was not possible …
Continue reading "Negligent misstatement: Bouncing bunnies"
This post is only available to members.
In the first of two articles, Suzanne Chalmers and Jack Macaulay explore the current law relating to claimants’ illegality and dishonesty ‘The essential rationale of the doctrine of illegality was that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would be harmful to the integrity of the …
Continue reading "Conduct: Hoisted by their own petard?"
This post is only available to members.
James Goudkamp explores whether the Supreme Court’s policy-based approach to the illegality doctrine will be followed in tort cases ‘An important question that arises, and one that was not answered by the Supreme Court, is whether Patel applies beyond the field of unjust enrichment.’ The Supreme Court recently handed down judgment in the appeal in …
Continue reading "Illegality: Does Patel v Mirza apply in tort?"
This post is only available to members.
Patel v Mirza [2016] establishes a flexible approach towards the illegality defence. Gareth Keillor and Rosanna Pinker analyse the pros and cons ‘A flexible approach, which disposes of the automatic bar to relief if the claimant has relied on their own illegality, will provide new opportunities for claimants involved in illegality successfully to lodge claims.’ …
Continue reading "Illegality And Trusts: The straight and narrow?"
This post is only available to members.
Tom Henderson reports on a recent Supreme Court decision reformulating the test for when a claim will fail due to illegality ‘The Supreme Court found that, under this new approach, a claimant will not ordinarily be debarred from enforcing a claim for unjust enrichment simply because the money they seek to recover was paid for …
Continue reading "Practice: The long arm of the law"
This post is only available to members.
Gareth Keillor and Rosanna Pinker consider the lack of clarification from the Supreme Court on the illegality defence ‘The mere existence of illegal activity will not be enough to defeat a claim; there must be a sufficiently close connection between that unlawful activity and the claimant’s pleaded case.’ The application of the illegality defence, otherwise …
Continue reading "Illegality And Trusts: Public policy or rule of law?"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2014 #145The claimant Arthur Watts (Arthur) sued his brother James Watts (James) in respect of trust transactions in 1998.
In 1967 Geoffrey Watts, the father of Arthur and James, made a settlement in favour of his children and grandchildren. In 1976 this trust fund was split into separate trust funds for each of Geoffrey’s children. James was one of the trustees of Arthur’s trust fund. The main beneficiaries were Arthur in his lifetime and thereafter his legitimate children. Clause 4 allowed the trustees to pay all the capital to Arthur if they considered it to be to his advantage...
