Knowing Receipt
1. Introduction:
Knowing Receipt = refers to the personal liability of non-trustees for losses arising
to trusts.
Liability in such cases arises where the non-trustee receives trust property (or
continues to hold trust property) in the knowledge that it is in breach of trust.
The elements of a knowing receipt claim are well established:
There must be rights received in breach of trust, they must be received for the
recipient’s own benefit, the recipient must know that it was in breach of trust,
and the beneficiary’s rights cannot have been distinguished by receipt (Byers
v Saudi National Bank).
BUT – the explanation behind the knowing receipt claim is more contested.
To characterise the recipient as a trustee is a mistake.
Explanations:
- Unjust enrichment
- Wrongs
- Constructive trustee
2. Unjust Enrichment:
Put forward by Lord Nicholls and Birks.
Bank Financier – there are three requirements of an unjust enrichment claim.
(1) Enrichment of D
(2) At C’s expense
(3) Unjust factor.
Just not present on the case law.
Beneficial receipt requirement in Agip –
The only explanation that comes close to explaining this.
At C’s expense requirement:
This requires direct transfer of value from C to D.
BUT – in a knowing receipt claim, the transfer comes from the trustee or a 3 rd
party, definitely not from the beneficiary.
Unjust factor:
Birks states that this is ignorance.
BUT – as Swadling points out, there is no case that says this is an unjust
factor.
Especially considering how long the doctrines of unjust enrichment
and knowing receipt have been around for.
3. Wrongs:
Smith – knowing receipt is equity’s analogue of conversion.
Conversion = about protection of title over chattels.
BUT – say that both involve wrongful interference with property.
Is very controversial as to whether B has a property right.
Conversion = strict.
Knowing receipt requires knowledge.
Conversion requires an action.
Knowing receipt is not like that – e.g., if money is transferred into a
bank account.
Swadling – ‘Inconsistent Dealing’
Immediately on receipt, D has an obligation to reconvey rights – BUT – not
trustee.
SO – if then transfer them to different third party, this is then inconsistently
dealing with this.
Cause of action arises at different points.
All others – at receipt
1. Introduction:
Knowing Receipt = refers to the personal liability of non-trustees for losses arising
to trusts.
Liability in such cases arises where the non-trustee receives trust property (or
continues to hold trust property) in the knowledge that it is in breach of trust.
The elements of a knowing receipt claim are well established:
There must be rights received in breach of trust, they must be received for the
recipient’s own benefit, the recipient must know that it was in breach of trust,
and the beneficiary’s rights cannot have been distinguished by receipt (Byers
v Saudi National Bank).
BUT – the explanation behind the knowing receipt claim is more contested.
To characterise the recipient as a trustee is a mistake.
Explanations:
- Unjust enrichment
- Wrongs
- Constructive trustee
2. Unjust Enrichment:
Put forward by Lord Nicholls and Birks.
Bank Financier – there are three requirements of an unjust enrichment claim.
(1) Enrichment of D
(2) At C’s expense
(3) Unjust factor.
Just not present on the case law.
Beneficial receipt requirement in Agip –
The only explanation that comes close to explaining this.
At C’s expense requirement:
This requires direct transfer of value from C to D.
BUT – in a knowing receipt claim, the transfer comes from the trustee or a 3 rd
party, definitely not from the beneficiary.
Unjust factor:
Birks states that this is ignorance.
BUT – as Swadling points out, there is no case that says this is an unjust
factor.
Especially considering how long the doctrines of unjust enrichment
and knowing receipt have been around for.
3. Wrongs:
Smith – knowing receipt is equity’s analogue of conversion.
Conversion = about protection of title over chattels.
BUT – say that both involve wrongful interference with property.
Is very controversial as to whether B has a property right.
Conversion = strict.
Knowing receipt requires knowledge.
Conversion requires an action.
Knowing receipt is not like that – e.g., if money is transferred into a
bank account.
Swadling – ‘Inconsistent Dealing’
Immediately on receipt, D has an obligation to reconvey rights – BUT – not
trustee.
SO – if then transfer them to different third party, this is then inconsistently
dealing with this.
Cause of action arises at different points.
All others – at receipt
