Please find an example of our work below. Remember, should
you find this useful in assisting you with your studies, you must remember to quote its source as having come from this page!
- Still struggling with your law essay?
- Not 100% sure you’ve reached the right conclusion?
- Need a precise example to follow?
Order a custom law essay and you’ll receive an
exact, 100% original answer to your essay question, written by an
LL.B, LL.M, LPC or BVC graduate and delivered confidentially to your
email inbox, in as little as
3 hours. Use this unique example as a model answer to help you write your own work.
Click here to order now in complete confidentiality.
(Equity and Trusts)
Advise one of the senior partners
in your firm of solicitors on the legal issues in ALL of the following
situations:
(a) Horatio & Isabella are the
trustees of the Grant family trust. They ask if they are able to delegate their
trust investment decisions to Kerry & Luis. Luis is a retired landscape
designer & Kerry is a waitress.(500 words)
(b) Marco, aged 18, is a
beneficiary of the foster family trust. His mother asked the trustees to
advance some of the capital fund to Marco ahead of time. Marco consented to
this because his mother who squandered it on her extravagant lifestyle. The
trust instrument provides that the trustees shall not be liable for any breach
of trust howsoever caused.(600 Words)
(c) Quickbuild Ltd is a property
development company. They employ cost-It Ltd as their surveyors. Walter is one
of Cost-It's surveyors. He goes to value a development plot for Quickbuild.
Walter then tells his friend Victoria about the plot. Victoria goes ahead &
successfully outbids Quickbuild for the plot. (500 Words)
(d) Zebedee & Amma are trustees
of the Bowood family trust. Tom Bowood is one of the beneficiaries. Clement is
a solicitor to the trust. The Bowood trust has a 20% shareholding in Dunn
company. Tom & Clement asked the Dunn company for information they both
acquire shares in Dunn company. Tom & Clement are both voted onto board of
directors of Dunn company & earn substantial fees as directors. The
company's profitability increases significantly & a profit is made by all
shareholders.(600 Words)
(e) Paulo took bribes & secret
commissions whilst a trustee of the Quicksliver trust. He spent the bribe money
& commissions on a racehorse which is now worth double the price he paid.
Paulo is insolvent. (600 Words)
(f) Theo is the chief executive of the
Supacash Bank. In 2003 he instructed Selma, a senior executive at the bank, to
transfer £3 million of bank funds into a newly established account entitled
'Theodore Enterprise'. Selma followed the instructions & transferred the
fund. It now appears the £3 million has been used fraudulently by Theo, for his
own purposes, in the following ways: Theo gave his wife £1 million. She spent
£500,00 paying off her mortgage. The remaining money has been sent on holidays,
clothes & luxury lifestyle. Theo put the other £2 million into a company
account. The company business involves selling holiday homes to the public.
Theo took a further £6 million from prospective purchasers & placed it the
same account. No homes were actually built. Theo withdrew £2 million from the
account in January 2004 & purchased property in Australia. In February 2004
Theo withdrew the remaining £6 million & used £1 million to pay a life
insurance premium. The remaining £5 million was then passed to Grabbit
Accountancy Ltd who passed it through a series of accounts & it eventually
ended up in a bank in the Cayman Islands. Theo went to the Cayman Islands in
March 2004 to access the money. He spent £1 million gambling at a casino &
the rest of the money has been dissipated. Theo has made further deposits into
this account & the balance stands at £1 million. Theo died in April 2004.
The beneficiaries of the life insurance policy are Theo's two children's &
his wife. Theo's will leaves all his property to his wife. Advise the Supercash
Bank & the investors who did not receive the holiday homes they thought
they were purchasing. ( 1000 Words)
Horatio
& Isabella
The general duty
of trustees is the maxim “delagatus non potest delegare” – the person to whom responsibility has been
delegated may not delegate the responsibility to another.In other words, a trustee must provide
personal service to the trust. However
in Re Chetwynd’s Settlement.[1]Farewell J stated that “No trustee accepts
the responsibility for the term of his natural life, or for more than a
reasonable period.” It is importantto
note, however, that Horatio and Isabella cannot retire on a whim and in some
circumstances retirement will not be a valid unless a new trustee is appointed
in their place. There are various ways in which Horatio and Isabella could go
about retiring from the trust and appointing Kerry and Luis in there place.
Horatio and
Isabella may retire if the trust instrument entitles them to so and if it does
not then whenever the court approves an application for retirement.The Trustee Act 1925 also details two other
modes of retirement.
Horatio and
Isabella may apply for Kerry and Luis to become trustees under the Trustee Act
1925 s36 which allows for the appointment of a new trustee or trustees “in the
place of” a trustee “desiring to be discharged.”The important point to note is that a retirement purported to be
carried out in pursuance of this section will onlybe valid to discharge the trustee if at least one new trustee has
been appointed in their place as is the case here.This is of course as long as the trust instrument does notcontain instructions to the contrary.
Horatio and
Isabella may also be able to retire under s39 of the Trustees Actand this will permit their retirement
without the appointment of Kerry and Luis.The circumstances in which this can happen are retirement by deed; the
trustee must obtain the consent of the other trustees and any person who is
empowered to appoint new trustees; such consent must be given by deed and most
approve of the retirement and of the vesting of the propertyin the remaining trustees alone and the
retirement will only be valid if two trustees remain or a trust corporation
remains after the retirement.
A trustee
continues to be liable for breaches of trust that occur after they have
attempted to retire if their “retirement” was technically defective.If however the retirement was valid then
they will only be liable for breaches of trust which occurred when they were a
trustee.
Horatio and Isabella may also retire from
their position with leave of the court.The court may order the retirement of a trustee when exercising its
power under s41.There is also an inherent
power for the court to allow retirement.The court will not use this inherent power if it would result in the
trust being left with no trustee, and this would not be the case here as there
are two trustees to replace the existing trustees and therefore an order of the
court may be obtained.
It should be
briefly considered whether or not Luis and Kerry can be trustees.The general rule is that anyone who has the
legal capacity to hold property may be a trustee including corporations and
married women .A minor is not capable
of being a trustee so as long as Kerry is other the age of majority then it
should be acceptable for Luis and Kerry to become trustees.
Marco
Marco is entitled
to an advancement of the trust money under the Trustee Act 1925 [2]
which provides t hat trustees may apply
capital money for the advancement or benefit of a beneficiary, regardless of
whether that beneficiary is an infant or an adult.Advancement is “the establishment in life of the beneficiary who
was the object of the power or at any rate some step that would contribute to
the furtherance of his establishment[3]. ”
Section 32(1)(a)
provides that the money paid for the advancement or benefit of the beneficiary
“shall not exceed altogether in amount one-half of the presumptive or vested
share or interest of that person in the trust property .”Therefore the trustees may only advance to
Marco one half of the presumptive (that is the amount that Marco is expected to
receive when t he money becomes vested in him) of his share in the trust
property. Furthermore under section 32(1)(c) the trustees will not be permitted
to make a payment by way of advancement if to do so would prejudice any person
with a prior interest in the fund , unless the person with the prior interest
gives their consent in writing to the advancement.Itis assumed that all
the factors listed have been satisfied in this scenario apart from the issue of
advancement- can the money forwarded to Marco be considered to be “the
establishment in life of the beneficiary who was the object of the power or at
any rate some step that would contribute to the furtherance of his
establishment?” The following factors
should be considered by the trustees when considering whether or not to advance
the money.The first factor is the
benefit to the beneficiaries; the trustees should ask themselves when
considering an exercise under s32 “will the application of capital moneys be
for the benefit of the beneficiary[4].” However, the most important thing to
consider as in this scenario is that the power to make advancementis a fiduciary power and therefore the
trustees must weigh, against the benefit to the advance, the interests of other
persons entitled under the trust.[5]
The trustees must
make sure the capital moneys paid to the advancee are used by the advancee for
the use intended by the trustees.“They
[the trustees] cannot…. Prescribea
particular purpose, and then raise and pay the money over to the advancee
leaving him or her entirely free, legally and morally, to apply it for the
purpose or to spend it in any way he orshe chooses, without any responsibility on the trustee even to inquire
as to its application.[6]”
Therefore the
trustees cannot simply hand over the money to Marco and then washtheir hands of the affair. They have a duty
to make enquiries as to how the moneys are actually spent.They have a duty to supervise and oversee
what Marco does with his money.If the
moneys are not used for the prescribed purpose, and the trustees receive notice
of this fact, they will be under a duty not to make further advances to Marco
in the future without his first satisfying them that the money will be properly
applied.It is unlikely that following
the decision in Re Pauling that the trustees will be able to evade liability
for this breach of trust despite a clause to the contrary.
Victoria,
Walter and Quickbuild
Quickbuild may
have a claim against Walter for unauthorised profits. [7]It may be that Walter will be treated as a
constructive trustee “by reason of the fiduciary position in which [he] stood.”
[8]
It must first be
established whether or not Walter had a fiduciary relationship with
Quickbuild. This can be established as
Walter is working for Quickbuild on behalf of his company Cost-it Limited and
therefore is privy to information which is confidential and to a degree has a
monetary value.
A fiduciary must
not place himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict[9].Similarly a fiduciary must not profit from
his fiduciary position.If this does
occur then any personal gain attributable to the fiduciary position must be
held on constructive trustfor the
persons to whom the fiduciary relationship is owed, in this case Quickbuild[10].
This is because
a fiduciary owes clear and strict duties to administer the assets for the
benefit of those entitled to equity to that property or assets.In order to ensure that these duties are
honoured in full, there is virtually an absolute bar against the trustee using
his position for personal gain.Liability will be imposed on Walter irrespective of any intentional
deceit, recklessness, or negligence on his part.[11]It will be enough that Walter has placed
himself in a position where his duty to the trust has conflicted with his own
interest.
It is useful to
look at similar situations where the court has imposed a constructive trust on
a fiduciary because of a conflict of interest and duty in a business
context. Examples include where fees
werepaid to company directors who hold
those directorships because of their legal ownership of trust shares must be
held on trust for the beneficiaries[12] andwhere an army sergeant was held constructive
trustee of monies received for escorting vehicles unsearched through army
checkpoints.[13]
If there exists
a good motive this may mean that a fiduciary is entitled to receive equitable
remuneration for her skill in achieving a profit, even though the profit itself
must be held on trust for the beneficiaries.[14] This is not
the case here andtherefore as
Lord-Browne Wilkinson stated:
“The court may
by way of remedy impose a constructive trust on a defendant who knowingly
retains the property of which the plaintiff has been unjustly deprived.Since the remedy can be tailored to the
circumstances of the particular case, innocent third parties would not be prejudiced
and restitutionary defences, such as a change of position, are capable of being
given effect.”[15]
In conclusion
this information was held on a constructive trust by Walter and Victoria may be
liable to Quickbuild to account for profits.
Zebedee
& Amma
It hasbeen made clear in a line of cases that if a
trustee is appointed a director of a company by reason of the fact that he is
the legal owner of the shares, that is, he holds the shares on trust for
others, any fees thereby received by way of remuneration must be held on the
same trusts for the beneficiaries[16].The trustee is under an obligation to
account as a constructive trustees for any profits received by virtue of the
trusteeship.
A trustee is
under an obligation to account as constructive trustee for any profits received
by virtue of the trusteeship.[17]
However a director trustee is not
bound automatically to hold any person profits on trust for the beneficiaries,
but only after proper enquiry as to the facts of the particular case. Thus, if
Tom and Clement became directors without reliance on the trust shares, they may
maintain their substantial fees, even if the shares thereafter help them to
maintain their position.
[18]
In addition to
this point it would seem that Tom and Clement obtained their shareholding from
information supplied to them by Zebedee and Amma If this private purchase was made because of their position as
trustees (or in Clement’s case as a result of his fiduciary relationship as
solicitor to the trust) thenthere is a
possibility that they will be deemed to be constructive trustee of the shares
themselves, in a similar fashion as the result in Boardman v Phipps[19] In this case, a solicitor was held to be
constructive trustee of profits made in certain share transactions because he
had acquired the knowledge and opportunity to buy the shares by virtue of his
fiduciary position.If this is the case
with Tom and Clement then not only will he hold his directors remuneration on
trust for Zebedee and Amma, but any dividends will also pass to the
beneficiaries also, as income from the trust property. However if there is a
provision in the trust instrument authorising Tom and Clements to receive
remuneration for the performance of their duties[20] as trustee
and solicitor of the trust respectively then they may be able to retain some of
the fees and if they are acting “in a professional capacity” they may be able
to claim “reasonable remuneration” under s29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000, if the
other trustees agrees and in writing.Similarly if they have behaved honestly and fairly throughout, the court
might exercise its inherent jurisdiction to award them a sum by way of equitable
compensation.
Paulo
& Quicksilver
The
beneficiaries of Quicksilver may have a claim against Paulofor unauthorised profits.[21]
A trustee must
not place himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict [22]
.Similarly a fiduciary must not profit
from his fiduciary position.If this
does occur then any personal gain attributable to the fiduciary position must
be held on constructive trust for the beneficiaries of the Quicksilver trust [23] .
This is because
a trustee owes clear and strict duties to administer the assets for the benefit
of those entitled to equity to that property or assets.In order to ensure that these duties are
honoured in full, there is virtually an absolute bar against the trustee using
his position for personal gain.Liability will be imposed on Paulo irrespective of any intentional
deceit, recklessness, or negligence on his part[24].It will be enough that Paulo has placed
himself in a position where his duty to the trust has conflicted with his own
interest. Therefore as Lord-Browne Wilkinson stated:
“The court may
by way of remedy impose a constructive trust on a defendant who knowingly
retains the property of which the plaintiff has been unjustly deprived.Since the remedy can be tailored to the
circumstances of the particular case, innocent third parties would not be
prejudiced and restitutionary defences, such as a change of position, are
capable of being given effect.[25]” It is clear from the case law that where a
person who is a trustee or who holds a fiduciary relations takes a bribethe money will be held on constructive trust
for the person(s) to whom the fiduciary duty is owed[26]
Therefore the
money thatPaulo misappropriated from
the fund will be held on constructive trust for the Quicksilver trust. As Paulo
is insolvent it will be difficult for Quicksilver to recover their money.However it may be that t he beneficiaries of
the quicksilver trusthave a claim on
the racehorse through the equitable remedy of tracing. The trigger for a claim of equitable
tracing is that the Claimant must have an equitable proprietary interest in
property and only an equitable proprietary interest,[1] therefore
beneficiaries under the Quicksilver trust will have such a right.Quicksilver beneficiaries must also show
that there was in existence a fiduciary relationship.[28]This will occur of course as they are
beneficiaries and Paulo a trustee and a trustee –beneficiary relationship is a
fiduciary relationship.Thirdly it must
be shown that the property of the beneficiaries has been transferred to another
person wrongfully as it has here.Fourthly, being a claim in equity, equitable tracingis not possible against a person who is a
bona fide purchaser for value of the property[29] , Paulo will
not be a bona fide purchaser as he knew that the money he used to purchase the
property was not his.In conclusion
therefore it is likely that the beneficiaries will be able to trace the money
held on constructive trust for them into the race horse that has been purchased
by Paulo and this will be very useful to them in light of the fact that Paulo
is now insolvent.
Theo
It is evident
that Theo is in breach of trust, however it may be difficult to recover the
trust property for the beneficiary as Theo is now deceased.Theo held the money for Super Cash and the
prospective purchasers on trust, as this is not his money.However now Theo has died it may be that the
strangers to the trust owe a duty to these beneficiaries.
Strangers to the
trust are persons who are not themselves express trustees of it.While the rule that a trustee or other
fiduciary may not profit from that position, the position of strangers is more
complex.Only those strangers who inter
meddle in the trust will become liable and much depends upon their state of
mind when doing so. The stranger to
the trust may become a constructive trustee because he or she has assumed the
duties of a trustee.[30]
In other words, if a stranger takes it
upon himself to meddle with the trust property as it he were a trustee, equity
will treat him as such a trustee.This
is trusteeship de son tort and the essential point is that the person fixed
with the liability as a constructive trustee has stepped willing into the shoes
of the original trustees or fiduciaries. [31]
There are two
ways in which a stranger may become liable and it is necessary to distinguish
between personal and proprietary remedies.A person may receive trust property into his hands and may then be
required to hold that property on trust and beneficiaries thus acquire a
proprietary right against him In
addition a stranger may be made personally liable for his involvement in a
breach of trust the specific issue in relation to strangers which must concern
us here is the state of mind of the stranger necessary to giver rise to such
personal liability.
In all of the
situations referred to in this scenario the strangers to the trust have
received the trust property in their possession and therefore will be liable if
at all for receipt and dealing.If they
actually receive the property into their hands they will be subject to a
proprietary remedy; the beneficiaries will be able to recover the property
itself from the stranger unless any of the strangers to the trust can show that
they are bona fide purchasers without notice[32]. Notice will be one of the following, actual
notice, wilfully shutting one’ s eyes to the obvious; wilfully and recklessly
failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make;
knowledge of circumstances which would indicate the facts to an honest man; and
knowledge which would put an honest and reasonable man on inquiry.
The persons whom
Theo purchases the property from in Australia can be said to be bona fide
purchasers without notice however his Wife, accountants and bank cannot be said
to be.
Liability is
strict and will be based upon the mere fact of possession of the trust fund,
past or present, not upon intentional wrongdoing [33]. Therefore if the property has disappeared
the beneficiaries will not be able to recover anything and therefore the
beneficiaries will have no claim on the £500,000 that Theo’ s wife used to pay
off her mortgage or the holidays etc and therefore they will have no claim
against Theo’s wife[34].However the trustees may have a personal
right against Theo’s wife as she would have known or at least should have know
that the property was wrongly received [35]
In relation to
the money that was sent to the accounts who placed Theo’ s money in various
bank accounts it is not clear whether or not the claim will lie in knowing
receipt or dishonest assistance.It
seems clear that the money was passed to the accounts for Theo’s own personal
use.This seems to be a case of
dishonest assistance[36].The authorities were fully explored and analysed in the
case of Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson (1992) and then explained clearly by the Privy
Council in Tan.It is now relatively
clear that the accountants will be liable as constructive trustees for
knowingly assisting in a breach of trust if they were “dishonest” and their
actions did indeed facilitate the breach.Of course there are difficulties over the meaning of dishonesty.It is however established only where the defendant
knows that the property was trust property or perhaps if he knows that the
property belonged to someone else or that he was merely engaged in some
dishonest design. It would seem that
the accountants would have had to have known where the money had come from and
indeed they would have known that some of the money came from uncompleted
properties.Undoubtedly, the accountant
will attempt to plead that he was merely carrying out his contract with Theo in
much the same way as the bank claimed to avoid liability in Lipkin Gorman v
Karpnale[37],
but this will not be enough and if the court establishes that the accountants
were materially involved in the fraud or at least did not care about the
possibility that fraud was being perpetrated then they will be liable.
Therefore the
prospective purchasers will have a claim against the wife and the accountants
and may be able to recover some of their money.
Plan
General
Considering
general this assignment and the best approach and relevant sources to use, plan
of action: -
1. To
review all books on Equity and Trusts Available
2. Read
relevant cases following review of books
3. Do
Journal Article search and case search on keywords extracted from findings in
books. Search will be carried out on Lexis Nexis; Lawtel; Westlaw.
4. Consider
rule in each area and apply to problem question.
Question
(a)
This is a
general question on Retirement of trustees.Will need to research the office of trustee appointment, retirement and
removal – how can a trustee retire?
Consider if
there are any express powers contained within the trust itself.
Consider the Trustee’s
Act 1925 s36(1) and S39
Consider the
powers of the court?Do the court has
to improve the retirement of one trustee and the removal of the others.
Question
(b)
This is a
question dealing with breach of trust. Note that liability for breach of trust
is generally strict in the sense that it is enough that the trustee has
committed the act or omission which amounts to a breach of trust.It is irrelevant for liability whether the
trustee knew he was committing a breach of trust and did so for his own
benefit, was reckless as to the possibility of a breach occurring, was
negligent of the same or was entirely innocent or honest.
Remains a breach
of trust even if he believed he was acting in conformity of the trust – as in
Re Diplock (1948) or if he did so in the belief that his action was in the best
interests of beneficiaries – Harrison v Randall (1852)
But see S61 of
the Trustee Act 1925
Consider next
the power of advancement (as this is what the question refers to and this is
where the breach has occurred)
Section 32(1)(a)
provides that the money paid for the advancement or benefit of the beneficiary
“shall not exceed altogether in amount one-half of the presumptive or vested
share or interest of that person in the trust property.”
Consider also
the statement of Wilmer J in Re Paulings Settlement Trusts [1963] 3 ALL ER 1
“They [the trustees] cannot…. Prescribe a particular purpose, and then raise
and pay the money over to the advancee leaving him or her entirely free,
legally and morally, to apply it for the purpose or to spend it in any way he
or she chooses, without any responsibility on the trustee even to inquire as to
its application.”
Question
(c)
This question
deals with the trustees duty not to make unauthorised profits
A fiduciary must
not place himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict.If this does occur then any personal gain
attributable to the fiduciary position must be held on constructive trust for
the persons to whom the fiduciary relationship is owed. [38]
Note that .Liability will be imposed irrespective of
any intentional deceit, recklessness, or negligence on the trustees part.[39]
Question
(d)
Constructive
trusts imposed on persons already in fiduciary position in order to ensure that
any profit made by virtue of that position is not retained
There is a duty
to the trust but a self-interest to keep the profits, thus merits of trustees
action are not determinative of their right to keep a profit
Consider the
various circumstances in which liability can arise
Consider cases
that clearly establish thatif a
trustee is appointed a director of a company by reason of the fact that he is
the legal owner of the shares, that is, he holds the shares on trust for
others, any fees thereby received by way of remuneration must be held on the
same trusts for the beneficiaries .[40]
Trustee Act 2000
Section 69
Question
(e)
Consider the
following key points that:-
A trustee must
not place himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict[41].
A fiduciary must
not profit from his fiduciary position.If this does occur then any personal gain attributable to the fiduciary
position must be held on constructive trust for the beneficiaries.[42]
Important obiter
dictum:
“The court may
by way of remedy impose a constructive trust on a defendant who knowingly
retains the property of which the plaintiff has been unjustly deprived.Since the remedy can be tailored to the
circumstances of the particular case, innocent third parties would not be
prejudiced and restitutionary defences, such as a change of position, are
capable of being given effect. [43]”
Then consider
the remedy of tracing – equitable in particular – what needs to be shown?
The trigger for
a claim of equitable tracing is that the Claimant must have an equitable
proprietary interest in property and only an equitable proprietary interest .[44]
Secondly
beneficiaries must also show that there was in existence a fiduciary
relationship[45]
Thirdly it must
be shown that the property of the beneficiaries has been transferred to another
person wrongfully as it has here.
Fourthly, being
a claim in equity, equitable tracing is not possible against a person who is a
bona fide purchaser for value of the property.[46]
Question
(f)
This question is
concerned primarily with the stranger to the trust and any liabilities that
they may have.
Stranger to the
trust may become a constructive trustee in four situations:
1.
by honestly assisting the trustee in breach of trust;
2.
by receiving trust property for his own use in the knowledge
that it was transferred in breach of trust;
3.
after having received trust property in conformity with the
terms ofthe trust, by knowingly
dealing with that property in breach of the terms of the trust; and
4.
by inducing the trustee to commit a breach of trust
Only those
strangers who inter meddle in the trust will become liable and much depends
upon their state of mind when doing so.
Consider the two
different ways in which a stranger may become liable andthe difference betweenpersonal and proprietary remedies.
A person may
receive trust property into his hands and may then be required to hold that
property on trust and beneficiaries thus acquire a proprietary right against him.In addition a stranger may be made
personally liable for his involvement in a breach of trust the specific issue
in relation to strangers which must concern us here is the state of mind of the
stranger necessary to giver rise to such personal liability.
The stranger to
the trust may become a constructive trustee because he or she has assumed the
duties of a trustee. [47] In other words, if a stranger takes it upon
himself to meddle with the trust property as it he were a trustee, equity will
treat him as such a trustee.This is
trusteeship de son tort and the essential point is that the person fixed with
the liability as a constructive trustee has stepped willing into the shoes of
the original trustees or fiduciaries.[48]
Consider the
differences between knowing receipt or dealing
Dishonest
assistance and the lack of clarity in this area of law, very fine line
sometimes and most decisions appear to turn on own merits rather than providing
clarity on the law.
Consider the
basis of the liability for knowing assistance and dishonest receipt
Confirmation
that some degree of fault is required: Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan
Inconsistent
dealing – consider the level of knowledge that is required and the meaning of
dishonest – what degree of awareness is needed for dishonesty?
Bibliography
Cases
Aberdeen Town
Council v Aberdeen University (1877) 2 App Cas 544
Brink’s-Mat v
Elcombe [1988] 3 ALL ER 188
James v Williams
[1999] 3 WLR 451
Statutes
Trustee Act
1925
Trustee Act
2000
Books
Andrews G,
(2003), The Redundancy of Dishonest Assistance, Sweet and Maxwell
Chang C, (2003),
Equity and Trusts, Sweet and Maxwell, Third Edition
Edwards R &
Stockwell N, (2004), Trusts and Equity, Longman Press, Sixth Edition
Hayley M (2004),
Equity and Trusts, Sweet and Maxwell, Sixth Edition
Pearce R,
(2002), The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations, Butterworths, Third
Edition
Ramjohn M,
(2004), Cases and Materials on Trusts, Cavendish, Third Edition
Watt G, (2003),
Textbook: Trusts, Oxford University Press
