Quistclose Trust - Lord Milett Judgement
“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  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 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  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