Quistclose Trust - Lord Milett Judgement

2445 words 10 pages
Essay Question:
“My Lords, there are two issues in this appeal. The first is concerned with the nature of the so-called “Quistclose trust” and the requirements for its creation. The second arises only if the first is answered adversely to the appellant. It is whether his conduct renders him liable for having assisted in a breach of trust.”

Lord Millett in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and Others [2002] 2 AC 164 at paragraph 52.

Critically analyse Lord Millett’s views on the two issues referred to above indicating the extent to which you agree with him.

Lord Millet recognised two key issues within this case that offers a complete purpose of authority in the area of Quistclose trust and dishonest assistance. The court
…show more content…

The latter can never grasp them, even if claim bankruptcy . Similarly, the property will not return either in the Heritage managing trustee, and; therefore, the same rule fully implemented by compared to its creditors, even in cases of personal bankruptcy or companies which are connected. Moreover, according to a bound duty of ‘continuation’, the giving and beneficiaries will maintain the right tangible compared to third party purchasers, even free of charge, the assets of the Trust. In fact, in the worst case, if the Trustee Heritage is in violation of its obligations, the new owner automatically becomes a Trustee himself at the service of giving from, and shall hold the assets in accordance with the terms of reference originally (Principle of ‘overreach’).

Dishonest Assistance
The court came to the decision that Mr Leach was not dishonest as the ruling judge believed that the undertaking did not run with money. He deliberately closed his eyes to the implications of the undertakings and the money being misapplied . Lord Millet delivered a strong dissenting judgement with support taken from the principle of the Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] case, where it was decided that the test of dishonesty is an objective, and that an explanation must be taken of the subjective considerations, such as the experience of the defendant and intelligence as well as the defendants actual state of knowledge at the