Quistclose Trust - Lord Milett Judgement Essay Example
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.
Introduction
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 recognised Mr Paul Leach was a lawyer in Godalming, that was acting as solicitor on behalf the defendant Mr Yardley whom was purchasing a property for which funding was required. Barclays Bank had initially agreed to provide Mr Yardley with the funding he required for purchasing the property through his bank loan application.
However there were delays in the process of obtaining the loan via the bank, therefore as a result of this alternative means of requiring funding where obtained from Twinsectra Ltd. Mr Leach refused to accept the terms and conditions of the loan with Twinsectra as they required him to provide a commitment that he would guarantee the repayment of the loan.
But in fact it was decided later that the loan would be paid to Mr Sims another solicitor associated with Mr Yardley, however Mr Sims was not acting as the solicitor to Mr Yardly in acquiring the purchase of the property. This in fact was the role that fell to Mr Lech, ultimately both Mr Sims and Mr Yardly agreed to the terms of the loan and that Mr Sims would take primary liability of the loan. This was unknown to the parties of Twinsectra and Mr Lech , later on in due course the Barclays Bank loan finally came through, and it was recognised that the
“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.
Introduction
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 recognised Mr Paul Leach was a lawyer in Godalming, that was acting as solicitor on behalf the defendant Mr Yardley whom was purchasing a property for which funding was required. Barclays Bank had initially agreed to provide Mr Yardley with the funding he required for purchasing the property through his bank loan application.
However there were delays in the process of obtaining the loan via the bank, therefore as a result of this alternative means of requiring funding where obtained from Twinsectra Ltd. Mr Leach refused to accept the terms and conditions of the loan with Twinsectra as they required him to provide a commitment that he would guarantee the repayment of the loan.
But in fact it was decided later that the loan would be paid to Mr Sims another solicitor associated with Mr Yardley, however Mr Sims was not acting as the solicitor to Mr Yardly in acquiring the purchase of the property. This in fact was the role that fell to Mr Lech, ultimately both Mr Sims and Mr Yardly agreed to the terms of the loan and that Mr Sims would take primary liability of the loan. This was unknown to the parties of Twinsectra and Mr Lech , later on in due course the Barclays Bank loan finally came through, and it was recognised that the