Equitable proprietary claims against third parties

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Marge, a trustee of a charitable trust, diverts £50,000 of trust funds into a high-risk cryptocurrency scheme run by her friend, Dina. Dina invests a portion of the money in digital tokens, which soon appreciate significantly, and then withdraws some of the profits to purchase new equipment for her separate bakery business. Though Dina initially insists she believed Marge’s transfer was fully authorized, she acknowledges having doubts about the incomplete trust documentation she received. Shortly after the tokens’ value soars, Dina retains a sizeable amount of the proceeds, but halts any further use once she learns of the beneficiaries’ possible objections to the deal. The beneficiaries seek redress, aiming to recover both the transferred principal and any related gain from Dina.


Which of the following best describes how a court is likely to assess Dina’s liability and the potential remedies available to the beneficiaries?

Introduction

In trust law, equitable proprietary claims against third parties arise when trust property is misappropriated and ends up in the hands of others beyond the original trustee. This legal framework includes recipient liability, accessory liability, and tracing mechanisms. Together, they form a system to address breaches of trust involving third parties. Recipient liability holds those responsible who receive trust property with knowledge of the breach. Accessory liability targets those who dishonestly assist in the breach. Tracing is the process of following the trust property's changes, allowing beneficiaries to claim against misapplied assets, even when they've changed form.

Recipient Liability

Recipient liability, often termed "knowing receipt," addresses situations where a third party receives trust property in breach of trust and may be held personally liable if certain conditions are met. The foundational elements are:

  1. Receipt of Trust Property: The third party must have received trust property, or its traceable proceeds, directly or indirectly.
  2. Knowledge of the Breach: The recipient must have had actual or constructive knowledge that the property was transferred in breach of trust at the time of receipt.

The Baden Scale of Knowledge

Assessing the recipient's awareness is detailed and often hinges on the levels of understanding defined in Baden v Société Générale [1992] 4 All ER 161. This scale delineates five categories ranging from actual knowledge to constructive notice:

  1. Actual knowledge.
  2. Wilfully shutting one's eyes to the obvious.
  3. Wilfully and recklessly failing to make inquiries.
  4. Knowledge of circumstances that would indicate the facts to an honest and reasonable person.
  5. Knowledge of circumstances that would put an honest and reasonable person on inquiry.

In Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele [2001] Ch 437, the test was refined to whether the recipient's knowledge makes it unconscionable for them to retain the benefit received.

Practical Illustration

Consider purchasing a luxury car at a fraction of its market value from a seller known for questionable dealings. Tempting as the offer might be, alarm bells should ring. Honestly, who wouldn't question such a bargain? In the eyes of the law, accepting the car under these suspicious circumstances could render you liable under recipient liability. Similarly, if a company acquires assets at an unusually low price without due diligence, it might be considered to have constructive knowledge of a possible breach of trust.

Accessory Liability

Accessory liability, or "dishonest assistance," focuses on third parties who, without receiving trust property themselves, assist in a breach of trust. The essential elements for establishing accessory liability are:

  1. Existence of a Breach of Trust: There must be a breach by a trustee or fiduciary.
  2. Assistance by the Third Party: The third party must have assisted in the breach.
  3. Dishonesty: The assistance must have been given dishonestly, judged objectively.

Objective Standard of Dishonesty

The legal standard for dishonesty in accessory liability has evolved through significant cases:

  • Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378: Established that dishonesty is assessed objectively, based on what a reasonable person would consider dishonest.
  • Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37: Reaffirmed that the subjective understanding of the third party is relevant only to their knowledge of the facts, not to whether their conduct was dishonest.

Real-World Example

Consider an accountant who knowingly falsifies financial statements to help a trustee hide misappropriated funds. Even if the accountant believes they're just helping a client, such conduct is objectively dishonest. Let me explain: assisting in the deception of beneficiaries breaches the standard of honesty expected in such professional roles, and thus, the accountant would be liable for dishonest assistance.

Equitable Proprietary Claims and Tracing

Equitable proprietary claims allow beneficiaries to assert rights over misappropriated trust property that can be traced into its substituted form. Tracing is not a remedy itself but a process used to identify the trust property as it changes form or passes through different hands.

Tracing at Common Law and in Equity

  • Common Law Tracing: Limited to identifying property that has not been mixed with other assets. It falters when the property has been mixed or changed form.
  • Equitable Tracing: More flexible, permitting tracing through mixed funds and substitutions, provided there is a fiduciary relationship.

Think of tracing like following a stream to its source. While common law tracing might lose the trail when tributaries join, equitable tracing allows for following the complexities of financial streams, even when they intertwine.

Doctrines for Tracing Mixed Assets

When trust property has been mixed with other funds, specific equitable rules determine the beneficiaries' claims:

  1. Rule in Clayton’s Case: The "first in, first out" principle, though often criticized for its arbitrary results.
  2. Lowest Intermediate Balance Rule: Caps the beneficiary's claim to the lowest balance in the account between the time of misappropriation and the claim.
  3. Pari Passu Distribution: Distributes the mixed fund proportionally among claimants.

Understanding these doctrines is a bit like untangling a set of earphones pulled from a pocket—complex but manageable with patience and method.

Key Case: Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102

In this landmark case, trust funds were used to pay premiums on a life insurance policy. When the policy matured, the beneficiaries were entitled to a proportionate share of the proceeds. The House of Lords held that tracing could reach substituted assets and profits derived from the original trust property. This case illustrates the capacity of equitable tracing to adjust to the realities of modern financial transactions.

Application Example

Suppose a trustee misappropriates £100,000 from a trust and invests it in stocks, which then appreciate to £150,000. Through equitable tracing, beneficiaries can claim a proprietary interest in the stocks and the profit, rather than being limited to a personal claim against the trustee for the original amount. It's like planting seeds from misappropriated apples—you can claim not just the seeds but also the trees that grow from them.

Interaction Between Recipient and Accessory Liability and Tracing

Recipient liability, accessory liability, and tracing often intersect. A third party may receive misappropriated trust property (engaging recipient liability) and also assist in concealing the breach (raising accessory liability). Tracing allows beneficiaries to follow the trust property into the hands of third parties and assert proprietary claims.

Integrated Scenario

Consider a complex scheme where a trustee diverts trust funds into a business venture operated by a third party. The third party not only receives the trust property but also helps conceal the transaction through falsified records. Beneficiaries have several avenues:

  • Invoke Recipient Liability: If the third party knew or should have known about the breach upon receiving the funds.
  • Assert Accessory Liability: Due to the dishonest assistance provided in accomplishing and hiding the breach.
  • Employ Tracing: To assert proprietary claims over assets acquired with the misappropriated funds.

This comprehensive approach ensures that beneficiaries can effectively seek remedies against those who undermine the integrity of trust arrangements.

Conclusion

Equitable proprietary claims against third parties are a central component of trust law remedies, involving recipient liability, accessory liability, and tracing principles. The interplay of these concepts allows beneficiaries to pursue misappropriated trust assets, whether in their original form or substituted. Authoritative cases like BCCI v Akindele, Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan, and Foskett v McKeown illustrate the application of these principles. Understanding the mechanisms of liability and tracing clarifies the legal avenues available, emphasizing the role of equity in addressing breaches of trust involving third parties. Command of these doctrines is essential for effectively managing complex trust disputes and ensuring that justice is served in the preservation of trust property.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Barbri SQE
One-time Fee
$3,800-6,900
BPP SQE
One-time Fee
$5,400-8,200
College of Legal P...
One-time Fee
$2,300-9,100
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Law Training Centr...
One-time Fee
$500-6,200
QLTS SQE
One-time Fee
$2,500-3,800
University of Law...
One-time Fee
$6,200-22,400

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal