- Published on
Equity and Trust – Common Law Tracing
Introduction
Common law tracing is a legal process that allows a legal owner of property to identify and recover property, or its substitute, after it has been wrongfully transferred or converted into another form. The purpose of tracing is to preserve ownership rights by following property through transactions and substitutions.
At common law, tracing is closely linked with another concept called:
following.
Following simply means locating the same asset as it physically moves from one person to another. Tracing, however, goes further because it allows the claimant to identify property that has been substituted for the original asset.
Although common law tracing remains an important doctrine, it has major limitations. It is rigid, requires identifiable property, and generally fails once funds become mixed. Because of these restrictions, equitable tracing developed as a more flexible alternative.
Following v Tracing
Following
Following refers to:
locating the same property as it moves from hand to hand.
Example
Suppose Daniel steals Emma’s painting and gives it to Sarah.
Emma may:
✅ follow the painting
into Sarah’s possession because it remains the same identifiable asset.
Tracing
Tracing refers to:
identifying substitute property representing the original asset.
Example
Suppose Daniel sells Emma’s painting and uses the money to buy shares.
Emma may attempt to:
✅ trace
her ownership interest into the shares because the shares represent substitute property.
Main Characteristics of Common Law Tracing
Common law tracing:
Requirement of Legal Ownership
A claimant using common law tracing must possess:
✅ legal title.
This is a major limitation.
Why Beneficiaries Usually Cannot Use Common Law Tracing
Beneficiaries under a trust possess:
❌ equitable ownership,
not legal ownership.
The trustee holds legal title to trust property.
Therefore beneficiaries generally cannot rely upon common law tracing and instead must use:
✅ equitable tracing.
This principle was confirmed in:
MCC Proceeds Inc v Lehman Brothers International (Europe).
Tracing Into Substitute Property
At common law, tracing remains possible where property changes form but remains identifiable.
Example
Suppose Daniel steals:
£50,000
and purchases jewellery.
The claimant may trace:
Taylor v Plumer
The leading historical authority is Taylor v Plumer.
Facts
Plumer gave money to a broker to purchase government bonds.
Instead, the broker improperly used the money to buy:
Plumer recovered the gold and investment certificates before the broker became bankrupt.
Issue
Did the assets belong to:
Decision
The court held that:
✅ Plumer could retain the assets.
The gold and investments were:
ascertainable products
of Plumer’s money.
The substitute property therefore remained identifiable and traceable.
Importance of Taylor v Plumer
The case established the principle that tracing may continue into substitute property where the substituted asset remains identifiable.
Intangible Property and Common Law Tracing
Historically, tracing focused mainly upon physical property.
However, modern courts expanded common law tracing to include:
✅ intangible assets.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale
In Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd, the House of Lords confirmed that common law tracing could apply to:
✅ choses in action,
such as debts and bank balances.
Facts
A solicitor stole money from his law firm and gambled it at a casino.
The law firm sought recovery.
Importance
The case confirmed that common law tracing was not confined solely to physical assets and could extend to intangible forms of property.
Modern Application
The principle was later applied in:
London Clubs Management Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners,
where tracing issues arose involving gambling chips and prizes.
Major Limitation: Mixing
The greatest weakness of common law tracing is that it generally fails once property becomes:
❌ mixed with other property.
Why?
Common law requires property to remain specifically identifiable.
Once mixing occurs, separate identity is lost.
Re Diplock
In Re Diplock, Lord Greene famously stated:
“If two sums are mixed … their identity is lost to the eye of the common law.”
This illustrates the rigidity of common law tracing.
Example of Mixing
Suppose Daniel deposits:
£100,000
of stolen money into a bank account already containing:
£200,000
of his own money.
The funds become mixed.
At common law:
❌ tracing generally fails,
because the specific money can no longer be separately identified.
Agip (Africa) v Jackson
The problem of mixing was clearly demonstrated in:
Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson.
Facts
Money obtained through fraud was transferred electronically through banking systems and interbank clearing accounts.
The claimant attempted to trace the funds.
Decision
The Court of Appeal held that:
❌ common law tracing failed.
Once the money passed through clearing accounts and mixed with other funds, it ceased to be identifiable as the claimant’s property.
Fox LJ explained that tracing at common law remains possible only:
provided the money does not cease to be identifiable by being mixed with other money.
Why Common Law Tracing Is Rarely Used
Common law tracing is now relatively limited because modern financial systems involve:
Emergence of Equitable Tracing
Because common law tracing proved too rigid, equity developed:
✅ equitable tracing.
Equitable tracing is much more flexible and permits tracing through:
✅ equitable owners,
including trust beneficiaries.
Common Law v Equitable Tracing
Common Law Tracing
Equitable Tracing
Practical Importance
Common law tracing remains important in cases where:
Key SQE Principles
Common law tracing allows legal owners to:
✅ identify and recover substitute property.
However, it generally:
❌ fails upon mixing.
Beneficiaries under trusts usually cannot use common law tracing because they possess:
❌ equitable ownership,
not legal ownership.
Conclusion
Common law tracing is a traditional legal mechanism allowing legal owners to follow property and identify substitute assets after wrongful transfers. Although tracing may continue into converted forms of property, common law tracing remains highly restrictive because it depends upon identifiable legal property and generally fails once funds become mixed. Modern financial complexity therefore exposed significant weaknesses in common law tracing and led to the development of the more flexible doctrine of equitable tracing, which better protects beneficiaries and equitable owners in contemporary trust and fraud litigation.
Sources of Reference
Taylor v Plumer (1815) 3 M & S 562.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 (HL).
Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465.
Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson [1991] Ch 547 (CA).
MCC Proceeds Inc v Lehman Brothers International (Europe) [1998] 4 All ER 675.
Alastair Hudson, Equity and Trusts (11th edn, Routledge 2022).
James Penner, The Law of Trusts (12th edn, OUP 2020).
Graham Virgo, The Principles of Equity and Trusts (5th edn, OUP 2024).
John McGhee (ed), Snell’s Equity (35th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024).
Introduction
Common law tracing is a legal process that allows a legal owner of property to identify and recover property, or its substitute, after it has been wrongfully transferred or converted into another form. The purpose of tracing is to preserve ownership rights by following property through transactions and substitutions.
At common law, tracing is closely linked with another concept called:
following.
Following simply means locating the same asset as it physically moves from one person to another. Tracing, however, goes further because it allows the claimant to identify property that has been substituted for the original asset.
Although common law tracing remains an important doctrine, it has major limitations. It is rigid, requires identifiable property, and generally fails once funds become mixed. Because of these restrictions, equitable tracing developed as a more flexible alternative.
Following v Tracing
Following
Following refers to:
locating the same property as it moves from hand to hand.
Example
Suppose Daniel steals Emma’s painting and gives it to Sarah.
Emma may:
✅ follow the painting
into Sarah’s possession because it remains the same identifiable asset.
Tracing
Tracing refers to:
identifying substitute property representing the original asset.
Example
Suppose Daniel sells Emma’s painting and uses the money to buy shares.
Emma may attempt to:
✅ trace
her ownership interest into the shares because the shares represent substitute property.
Main Characteristics of Common Law Tracing
Common law tracing:
- protects legal ownership;
- requires identifiable property;
- permits tracing into substitute assets;
- but generally fails upon mixing.
Requirement of Legal Ownership
A claimant using common law tracing must possess:
✅ legal title.
This is a major limitation.
Why Beneficiaries Usually Cannot Use Common Law Tracing
Beneficiaries under a trust possess:
❌ equitable ownership,
not legal ownership.
The trustee holds legal title to trust property.
Therefore beneficiaries generally cannot rely upon common law tracing and instead must use:
✅ equitable tracing.
This principle was confirmed in:
MCC Proceeds Inc v Lehman Brothers International (Europe).
Tracing Into Substitute Property
At common law, tracing remains possible where property changes form but remains identifiable.
Example
Suppose Daniel steals:
£50,000
and purchases jewellery.
The claimant may trace:
- from the cash;
into - the jewellery.
Taylor v Plumer
The leading historical authority is Taylor v Plumer.
Facts
Plumer gave money to a broker to purchase government bonds.
Instead, the broker improperly used the money to buy:
- gold;
- and American investments.
Plumer recovered the gold and investment certificates before the broker became bankrupt.
Issue
Did the assets belong to:
- Plumer;
or - the broker’s creditors?
Decision
The court held that:
✅ Plumer could retain the assets.
The gold and investments were:
ascertainable products
of Plumer’s money.
The substitute property therefore remained identifiable and traceable.
Importance of Taylor v Plumer
The case established the principle that tracing may continue into substitute property where the substituted asset remains identifiable.
Intangible Property and Common Law Tracing
Historically, tracing focused mainly upon physical property.
However, modern courts expanded common law tracing to include:
✅ intangible assets.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale
In Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd, the House of Lords confirmed that common law tracing could apply to:
✅ choses in action,
such as debts and bank balances.
Facts
A solicitor stole money from his law firm and gambled it at a casino.
The law firm sought recovery.
Importance
The case confirmed that common law tracing was not confined solely to physical assets and could extend to intangible forms of property.
Modern Application
The principle was later applied in:
London Clubs Management Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners,
where tracing issues arose involving gambling chips and prizes.
Major Limitation: Mixing
The greatest weakness of common law tracing is that it generally fails once property becomes:
❌ mixed with other property.
Why?
Common law requires property to remain specifically identifiable.
Once mixing occurs, separate identity is lost.
Re Diplock
In Re Diplock, Lord Greene famously stated:
“If two sums are mixed … their identity is lost to the eye of the common law.”
This illustrates the rigidity of common law tracing.
Example of Mixing
Suppose Daniel deposits:
£100,000
of stolen money into a bank account already containing:
£200,000
of his own money.
The funds become mixed.
At common law:
❌ tracing generally fails,
because the specific money can no longer be separately identified.
Agip (Africa) v Jackson
The problem of mixing was clearly demonstrated in:
Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson.
Facts
Money obtained through fraud was transferred electronically through banking systems and interbank clearing accounts.
The claimant attempted to trace the funds.
Decision
The Court of Appeal held that:
❌ common law tracing failed.
Once the money passed through clearing accounts and mixed with other funds, it ceased to be identifiable as the claimant’s property.
Fox LJ explained that tracing at common law remains possible only:
provided the money does not cease to be identifiable by being mixed with other money.
Why Common Law Tracing Is Rarely Used
Common law tracing is now relatively limited because modern financial systems involve:
- electronic transfers;
- bank accounts;
- mixed funds;
- and rapid movement of money.
Emergence of Equitable Tracing
Because common law tracing proved too rigid, equity developed:
✅ equitable tracing.
Equitable tracing is much more flexible and permits tracing through:
- mixed accounts;
- substitute assets;
- and complex financial transactions.
✅ equitable owners,
including trust beneficiaries.
Common Law v Equitable Tracing
Common Law Tracing
- requires legal ownership;
- requires identifiable property;
- fails upon mixing.
Equitable Tracing
- protects equitable ownership;
- permits tracing through mixed funds;
- and provides broader proprietary remedies.
Practical Importance
Common law tracing remains important in cases where:
- property remains identifiable;
- no mixing occurs;
- and legal ownership exists.
Key SQE Principles
Common law tracing allows legal owners to:
✅ identify and recover substitute property.
However, it generally:
❌ fails upon mixing.
Beneficiaries under trusts usually cannot use common law tracing because they possess:
❌ equitable ownership,
not legal ownership.
Conclusion
Common law tracing is a traditional legal mechanism allowing legal owners to follow property and identify substitute assets after wrongful transfers. Although tracing may continue into converted forms of property, common law tracing remains highly restrictive because it depends upon identifiable legal property and generally fails once funds become mixed. Modern financial complexity therefore exposed significant weaknesses in common law tracing and led to the development of the more flexible doctrine of equitable tracing, which better protects beneficiaries and equitable owners in contemporary trust and fraud litigation.
Sources of Reference
Taylor v Plumer (1815) 3 M & S 562.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 (HL).
Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465.
Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson [1991] Ch 547 (CA).
MCC Proceeds Inc v Lehman Brothers International (Europe) [1998] 4 All ER 675.
Alastair Hudson, Equity and Trusts (11th edn, Routledge 2022).
James Penner, The Law of Trusts (12th edn, OUP 2020).
Graham Virgo, The Principles of Equity and Trusts (5th edn, OUP 2024).
John McGhee (ed), Snell’s Equity (35th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024).
0 Comments