Introduction
Liability of strangers to a trust addresses the legal principles under which individuals who are not trustees can be held accountable for involvement in a breach of trust. The key doctrines in this area are recipient liability and accessory liability. Recipient liability concerns those who receive trust property under circumstances that make it unconscionable for them to retain it. Accessory liability, on the other hand, pertains to individuals who assist in a breach of trust with knowledge or dishonesty. Understanding these principles is key for determining when third parties may be liable in trust law.
Understanding Recipient Liability: Unconscionable Receipt
Recipient liability arises when a person receives trust property in circumstances where it would be unjust for them to keep it. Picture unknowingly buying a stolen bicycle at a market. Once you discover it's stolen, wouldn't it be wrong to hold onto it? Similarly, in trust law, if someone comes into possession of trust assets and learns that they were transferred in breach of trust, they may be liable to return them.
Key Elements
-
Receipt of Trust Property: The individual must have received property originally belonging to a trust.
-
Breach of Trust by Trustee: The transfer occurred due to a trustee's breach of their duties.
-
Knowledge of Breach: The recipient knew, or should have known, about the breach at the time of receipt or retention.
-
Unconscionability: It would be unconscionable for the recipient to retain the property under the circumstances.
Evolution of Knowledge Requirements
In BCCI (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele [2001], the court clarified that the level of knowledge required is such that it would be unconscionable for the recipient to retain the benefit. This means the focus is on whether it is against conscience for the person to keep the property, considering what they knew or ought to have known.
Practical Example
Consider Jane, who receives £50,000 from her friend Tom, a trustee, to invest in a new business. If Jane knows that Tom is misappropriating trust funds, or the situation is such that she should inquire further, she may be liable to return the money to the trust.
Understanding Accessory Liability: Dishonest Assistance
Accessory liability comes into play when someone assists in a breach of trust, acting dishonestly. Picture aiding a friend in hiding something you know they stole—it's not just the theft that's wrong; aiding in the wrongdoing makes you accountable too.
Key Elements
-
Existence of a Breach of Trust: There must be an actual breach committed by a trustee.
-
Assistance in the Breach: The person must have assisted or participated in the breach.
-
Dishonesty: The assistant acted dishonestly, judged by the standards of ordinary decent people.
The Standard of Dishonesty
Over time, courts have shaped the meaning of dishonesty in this context:
-
In Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995], the court established an objective standard for dishonesty.
-
Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] introduced a combined objective and subjective test.
-
Later, Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust [2005] reaffirmed the objective approach, focusing on societal standards.
Practical Example
Suppose Alex, a solicitor, helps a trustee move trust funds into a private account, knowing that the trustee doesn't have the authority to do so. Even if Alex personally believes it's acceptable, if society would view his actions as dishonest, he may be held liable for dishonest assistance.
Remedies and Possible Defenses
When third parties are found liable, the law provides remedies to restore the trust's position, and there are defenses that those parties might raise.
Remedies for Recipient Liability
-
Proprietary Claims: The trust may claim ownership of the specific property or its proceeds. If the property still exists or can be traced, they can recover it.
-
Personal Claims: If the property cannot be recovered, the trust can claim compensation equal to the value of the property received.
Remedies for Accessory Liability
-
Equitable Compensation: The assistant may be ordered to compensate the trust for the losses resulting from the breach.
-
Account of Profits: If the assistant profited from their participation, they may be required to account for those profits and hand them over to the trust.
Defenses
-
Change of Position: If the recipient has changed their position in good faith, relying on the receipt, they may have a defense.
-
Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice: A person who purchases the property in good faith, for value, without knowledge of the breach, is generally protected.
-
Limitation Periods: There are time limits within which claims must be brought. However, in cases of fraud, the limitation period may not apply.
Example Scenario
Think about Sam receiving trust funds and investing them in a venture, unaware of any wrongdoing. If, after learning of the breach, he has already significantly changed his position, he might argue the defense of change of position.
Equitable Compensation and Causation
When it comes to compensation, understanding how causation and the scope of duty affect the amount recoverable is essential.
Key Principles
-
Scope of Duty: Compensation is linked to the specific duties breached by the trustee or accessory.
-
But-For Causation: The loss must be a direct result of the breach. Would the loss have occurred but for the breach?
-
Remoteness: The loss must not be too remote; it should be a foreseeable consequence of the breach.
Relevant Cases
-
In AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014], the Supreme Court emphasized that equitable compensation aims to put the trust in the position it would have been in if the breach had not occurred, within the scope of the duty breached.
-
The decision in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] further clarified the approach to calculating losses.
Practical Illustration
Suppose a trustee misappropriates £1 million of trust funds to invest in high-risk stocks without authorization, leading to significant losses. An accountant fails to detect this during an audit. The trust might claim compensation from the accountant, but their liability would depend on whether detecting such misappropriation was within the scope of their duties and whether their failure directly caused the loss.
Conclusion
Liability of strangers to a trust involves complex interactions between recipient and accessory liability. Recipient liability focuses on whether it is unconscionable for someone to retain trust property they have received, considering their knowledge of the breach. Accessory liability examines the actions of those who assist in a breach, judged by the objective standard of dishonesty established in cases like Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan. These principles work together to hold third parties accountable and protect the integrity of trust property.
Analyzing cases requires careful consideration of the recipient's knowledge, the assistant's conduct, and the causation of loss. For instance, a person who knowingly helps a trustee divert funds may be liable for dishonest assistance, while someone who innocently receives trust assets but then learns of the breach may face recipient liability if retaining the assets would be unconscionable.
Thorough understanding of these doctrines is important for practitioners in trust disputes. Awareness of the requirements and the interplay between recipient and accessory liability allows for effective enforcement of trust obligations and the appropriate application of remedies when breaches occur.