Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The contrary view is that knowing receipt is, or ought to be, part of a broader doctrine of ignorance triggering a claim for unjust enrichment. On this view, anyone who receives property that was given away in breach of trust has a strict duty to repay the value, unless they have committed a wrong, or have changed their position after the receipt.
Breach of trust, accessory liability, knowing receipt, knowing assistance Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 [ 1 ] was a decision of the Court of Appeal in Chancery . It established that, in English trusts law , third parties could be liable for a breach of trust in two circumstances, referred to as the two 'limbs' of Barnes v Addy : knowing ...
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 ...
BCCI, in fact, gave him $16.679m to do this, thus leaving $6.679m over. Akindele did not know this was part of a fraud scheme to enable BCCI Holdings to buy its own shares. The liquidator argued he was a constructive trustee, for both knowing receipt and knowing assistance.
However, Agip Ltd could not succeed for receipt of the money at common law (which did not allow electronic rather than physical tracing) or in equity (because the money was not transferred for the accountants' benefit). Banks can be liable in knowing receipt only if they receive and apply trust money to reduce or discharge a customer's ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts.The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.
Of the questions that remain in dispute in this case, the most important is whether, for the purposes of establishing a company's liability under the knowing receipt head of constructive trust, the knowledge of one of its directors can be treated as having been the knowledge of the company. [7] Lord Justice Hoffman commenced his judgment: