Ads
related to: breach of trust vs tort claims case lookup
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
This was not in the position as if a breach had not occurred. Mummery LJ and Hobhouse LJ, held that Target Holdings applies to all breaches of trust, whatever the nature of the duty breached or the manner of its breach, so limiting claims for compensation or restitution when the loss or gain is caused by the breach.
AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58 is an English trust law case, concerning the applicable principles of causation for a breach of trust. It held that a "but for" test of causation applies for equitable compensation (although remoteness principles, e.g. from the Wagon Mound do not apply).
It is a common belief that dishonest or knowing assistance originates from Lord Selbourne's judgment in Barnes v Addy: [1] [S]trangers are not to be made constructive trustees merely because they act as the agents of trustees in transactions, … unless those agents received and become chargeable with some part of the trust property, or unless they assist with knowledge in a dishonest and ...
Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1996] EWCA Civ 533 is a leading English fiduciary law and professional negligence case, concerning a solicitor's duty of care and skill, and the nature of fiduciary duties. The case is globally cited for its definition of a fiduciary and the circumstances in which a fiduciary relationship arises.
The Court of Appeal confirmed in Byers v Saudi National Bank [2022] EWCA Civ 43 that in order to sustain a claim in knowing receipt against a third party, then the claimants must have had a beneficial interest in the property at some point when it was in the defendant's hands and they had knowledge of the breach of trust. If the claimant's ...
Cobell v. Salazar (previously Cobell v.Kempthorne and Cobell v.Norton and Cobell v.Babbitt) is a class-action lawsuit brought by Elouise Cobell and other Native American representatives in 1996 against two departments of the United States government: the Department of Interior and the Department of the Treasury for mismanagement of Indian trust funds.
Head v Gould [5] was a case in English trust law concerning the indemnity of trustees inter se for a breach of a trust. Where a trustee has committed a breach of trust relying on the professional advice of a fellow solicitor trustee they were entitled to be indemnified by virtue of that reliance .
The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. In its decision Central and Eastern Trust Co v Irving Oil Ltd, [2] the mortgage was invalidated. Having lost the case, Central Trust brought an action against the lawyers for negligence and breach of contract. In their defence, Rafuse and Cordon claimed: