- Published on
SQE – Equity and Trust – Causation in Breach of Trust Claims
Introduction
Establishing that a trustee has committed a breach of trust does not automatically result in liability. A beneficiary must also demonstrate that the breach caused a loss to the trust fund or enabled the trustee to obtain an unauthorised profit. This requirement is known as causation.
Causation serves as an important limitation on trustee liability because it ensures that trustees are only held responsible for losses that are actually connected to their wrongdoing. If the same loss would have occurred regardless of the breach, then the trustee will generally not be liable to compensate the beneficiaries.
The law of trusts adopts a similar approach to other areas of private law by requiring a causal link between the wrongful act and the loss suffered. However, the principles have developed within equity and are applied in a manner consistent with the objectives of trust law.
The Requirement of a Causal Link
Before equitable compensation can be awarded, the court must be satisfied that there is a sufficient connection between the breach of trust and the loss suffered by the trust.
The court therefore asks whether the trustee’s conduct actually caused the loss complained of by the beneficiary.
If the breach had no impact on the outcome and the loss would have occurred in any event, the trustee will not be liable despite having committed a breach of trust.
This principle reflects the broader equitable objective of restoring the trust fund rather than punishing trustees for technical breaches that have caused no damage.
The “But For” Test
The primary test for causation in breach of trust claims is the “but for” test.
The court asks:
Would the loss have occurred but for the trustee’s breach of trust?
If the answer is no, the breach caused the loss and liability will generally follow.
If the answer is yes, the trustee’s conduct was not the cause of the loss and compensation will not be awarded.
The “but for” test therefore focuses on factual causation rather than simply identifying wrongdoing.
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] AC 421
The leading authority on causation in breach of trust claims is Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns.
The claimant lender agreed to advance approximately £1.5 million to finance the purchase of two properties. The defendants were solicitors acting for both the lender and the purchasers. The lender transferred the mortgage funds to the solicitors before completion of the transaction.
Under the terms of the arrangement, the solicitors were not authorised to release the money until completion. However, they released the funds several days early, thereby committing a breach of trust.
The property transaction subsequently completed as planned. Unfortunately, the purchasers later defaulted on the mortgage. When the lender enforced its security, it discovered that the properties were worth only £775,000 rather than the £2 million previously represented. As a result, the lender suffered a substantial shortfall.
The lender argued that because the solicitors had committed a breach of trust by releasing the money prematurely, they should compensate the lender for the entire loss.
Decision in Target Holdings
The House of Lords rejected the lender’s claim.
Although the solicitors had clearly acted in breach of trust, the court held that the breach did not cause the loss suffered by the lender.
The evidence demonstrated that even if the solicitors had complied with their instructions and released the money only upon completion, the transaction would still have completed in exactly the same way. The lender would still have received inadequate security and would still have suffered the same loss when the borrowers defaulted.
Consequently, the loss would have occurred regardless of the breach.
Applying the “but for” test, the court concluded that the breach was not the cause of the claimant’s loss.
Significance of Target Holdings
Target Holdings established that trustees are liable only for losses that are actually caused by their breach of trust.
The case marked an important shift away from the older view that trustees might be strictly liable for all losses associated with trust property once a breach had occurred.
Instead, equitable compensation became more closely linked to causation and the actual consequences of the trustee’s misconduct.
Example of Successful Causation
Suppose a trustee is instructed not to release £500,000 of trust funds until certain contractual conditions have been satisfied.
Ignoring those instructions, the trustee transfers the money immediately to a purchaser who subsequently disappears with the funds.
Had the trustee retained the money as required, the loss would never have occurred.
Applying the “but for” test, the trustee’s breach clearly caused the loss and equitable compensation would likely be awarded.
Example Where Causation Is Not Established
Suppose a trustee releases trust funds one day earlier than authorised.
However, the transaction completes successfully the following day exactly as intended.
Several years later, an economic recession causes the investment to fail.
The beneficiaries argue that the early release constituted a breach of trust.
Although a breach occurred, the loss resulted from the recession rather than the premature transfer of funds. The loss would have occurred regardless of the breach.
Applying the “but for” test, causation is not established and the trustee is unlikely to be liable for the loss.
AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2015] AC 1503
The principles established in Target Holdings were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors.
The case involved solicitors acting as trustees who incorrectly distributed mortgage funds during a refinancing transaction. The claimant argued that the solicitors should be liable for the entirety of the lender’s losses.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument and emphasised that equitable compensation should reflect only the loss actually caused by the breach.
Lord Toulson stated that, absent fraud, it would be wrong to require a trustee to compensate beneficiaries for losses that would have been suffered even if the trustee had properly performed their duties.
The court therefore confirmed the continuing authority of Target Holdings and the central importance of causation in breach of trust claims.
Causation and Equitable Compensation
The requirement of causation plays a crucial role in determining the amount of equitable compensation.
The objective of equitable compensation is to restore the trust fund to the position it would have occupied had the breach not occurred.
Accordingly, compensation should correspond to the actual loss caused by the trustee’s misconduct rather than losses arising from unrelated events.
This ensures that beneficiaries are fairly compensated without imposing disproportionate liability upon trustees.
Relationship with Remoteness
Although causation and remoteness are closely related concepts, they are distinct.
Causation asks whether the breach caused the loss.
Remoteness asks whether the loss is sufficiently connected to the breach to justify recovery.
Following Target Holdings and AIB Group, the courts have generally focused on causation rather than importing complex common law rules of remoteness into equitable compensation claims.
The key question remains whether the loss would have occurred but for the breach.
Comprehensive Case Study
Facts
Daniel is trustee of a trust worth £5 million.
The trust deed requires him to retain trust funds until all contractual conditions have been satisfied. Instead, Daniel releases £1 million to a purchaser two weeks early.
The purchaser subsequently completes the transaction exactly as anticipated.
Five years later, a collapse in the property market causes the investment to lose £700,000 in value.
The beneficiaries bring a claim against Daniel.
Analysis
Daniel has committed a breach of trust by releasing the money prematurely.
However, the court must determine whether the breach caused the loss.
The evidence shows that the transaction would have completed regardless of whether the funds had been released early or on the correct date. The subsequent loss arose from market conditions rather than the premature transfer.
Applying the “but for” test established in Target Holdings, the beneficiaries cannot demonstrate that the breach caused the loss.
Outcome
Although Daniel committed a breach of trust, he is unlikely to be liable for the £700,000 loss because causation has not been established.
Conclusion
Causation is a fundamental requirement in breach of trust claims. Beneficiaries must demonstrate not only that a breach occurred but also that the breach caused the loss suffered by the trust. The leading decisions in Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns and AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors confirm that the appropriate test is the “but for” test. If the loss would have occurred regardless of the trustee’s breach, liability will not arise. Consequently, modern trust law seeks to ensure that equitable compensation reflects actual loss caused by wrongdoing rather than imposing liability for losses that would have occurred in any event.
References
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] AC 421.
AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2015] AC 1503.
Nestle v National Westminster Bank Plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260.
Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd (No 2) [1980] Ch 515.
Alastair Hudson, Equity and Trusts (11th edn, Routledge 2022).
James Penner, The Law of Trusts (12th edn, Oxford University Press 2020).
Graham Virgo, The Principles of Equity and Trusts (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2024).
John McGhee (ed), Snell’s Equity (35th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024).
Introduction
Establishing that a trustee has committed a breach of trust does not automatically result in liability. A beneficiary must also demonstrate that the breach caused a loss to the trust fund or enabled the trustee to obtain an unauthorised profit. This requirement is known as causation.
Causation serves as an important limitation on trustee liability because it ensures that trustees are only held responsible for losses that are actually connected to their wrongdoing. If the same loss would have occurred regardless of the breach, then the trustee will generally not be liable to compensate the beneficiaries.
The law of trusts adopts a similar approach to other areas of private law by requiring a causal link between the wrongful act and the loss suffered. However, the principles have developed within equity and are applied in a manner consistent with the objectives of trust law.
The Requirement of a Causal Link
Before equitable compensation can be awarded, the court must be satisfied that there is a sufficient connection between the breach of trust and the loss suffered by the trust.
The court therefore asks whether the trustee’s conduct actually caused the loss complained of by the beneficiary.
If the breach had no impact on the outcome and the loss would have occurred in any event, the trustee will not be liable despite having committed a breach of trust.
This principle reflects the broader equitable objective of restoring the trust fund rather than punishing trustees for technical breaches that have caused no damage.
The “But For” Test
The primary test for causation in breach of trust claims is the “but for” test.
The court asks:
Would the loss have occurred but for the trustee’s breach of trust?
If the answer is no, the breach caused the loss and liability will generally follow.
If the answer is yes, the trustee’s conduct was not the cause of the loss and compensation will not be awarded.
The “but for” test therefore focuses on factual causation rather than simply identifying wrongdoing.
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] AC 421
The leading authority on causation in breach of trust claims is Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns.
The claimant lender agreed to advance approximately £1.5 million to finance the purchase of two properties. The defendants were solicitors acting for both the lender and the purchasers. The lender transferred the mortgage funds to the solicitors before completion of the transaction.
Under the terms of the arrangement, the solicitors were not authorised to release the money until completion. However, they released the funds several days early, thereby committing a breach of trust.
The property transaction subsequently completed as planned. Unfortunately, the purchasers later defaulted on the mortgage. When the lender enforced its security, it discovered that the properties were worth only £775,000 rather than the £2 million previously represented. As a result, the lender suffered a substantial shortfall.
The lender argued that because the solicitors had committed a breach of trust by releasing the money prematurely, they should compensate the lender for the entire loss.
Decision in Target Holdings
The House of Lords rejected the lender’s claim.
Although the solicitors had clearly acted in breach of trust, the court held that the breach did not cause the loss suffered by the lender.
The evidence demonstrated that even if the solicitors had complied with their instructions and released the money only upon completion, the transaction would still have completed in exactly the same way. The lender would still have received inadequate security and would still have suffered the same loss when the borrowers defaulted.
Consequently, the loss would have occurred regardless of the breach.
Applying the “but for” test, the court concluded that the breach was not the cause of the claimant’s loss.
Significance of Target Holdings
Target Holdings established that trustees are liable only for losses that are actually caused by their breach of trust.
The case marked an important shift away from the older view that trustees might be strictly liable for all losses associated with trust property once a breach had occurred.
Instead, equitable compensation became more closely linked to causation and the actual consequences of the trustee’s misconduct.
Example of Successful Causation
Suppose a trustee is instructed not to release £500,000 of trust funds until certain contractual conditions have been satisfied.
Ignoring those instructions, the trustee transfers the money immediately to a purchaser who subsequently disappears with the funds.
Had the trustee retained the money as required, the loss would never have occurred.
Applying the “but for” test, the trustee’s breach clearly caused the loss and equitable compensation would likely be awarded.
Example Where Causation Is Not Established
Suppose a trustee releases trust funds one day earlier than authorised.
However, the transaction completes successfully the following day exactly as intended.
Several years later, an economic recession causes the investment to fail.
The beneficiaries argue that the early release constituted a breach of trust.
Although a breach occurred, the loss resulted from the recession rather than the premature transfer of funds. The loss would have occurred regardless of the breach.
Applying the “but for” test, causation is not established and the trustee is unlikely to be liable for the loss.
AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2015] AC 1503
The principles established in Target Holdings were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors.
The case involved solicitors acting as trustees who incorrectly distributed mortgage funds during a refinancing transaction. The claimant argued that the solicitors should be liable for the entirety of the lender’s losses.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument and emphasised that equitable compensation should reflect only the loss actually caused by the breach.
Lord Toulson stated that, absent fraud, it would be wrong to require a trustee to compensate beneficiaries for losses that would have been suffered even if the trustee had properly performed their duties.
The court therefore confirmed the continuing authority of Target Holdings and the central importance of causation in breach of trust claims.
Causation and Equitable Compensation
The requirement of causation plays a crucial role in determining the amount of equitable compensation.
The objective of equitable compensation is to restore the trust fund to the position it would have occupied had the breach not occurred.
Accordingly, compensation should correspond to the actual loss caused by the trustee’s misconduct rather than losses arising from unrelated events.
This ensures that beneficiaries are fairly compensated without imposing disproportionate liability upon trustees.
Relationship with Remoteness
Although causation and remoteness are closely related concepts, they are distinct.
Causation asks whether the breach caused the loss.
Remoteness asks whether the loss is sufficiently connected to the breach to justify recovery.
Following Target Holdings and AIB Group, the courts have generally focused on causation rather than importing complex common law rules of remoteness into equitable compensation claims.
The key question remains whether the loss would have occurred but for the breach.
Comprehensive Case Study
Facts
Daniel is trustee of a trust worth £5 million.
The trust deed requires him to retain trust funds until all contractual conditions have been satisfied. Instead, Daniel releases £1 million to a purchaser two weeks early.
The purchaser subsequently completes the transaction exactly as anticipated.
Five years later, a collapse in the property market causes the investment to lose £700,000 in value.
The beneficiaries bring a claim against Daniel.
Analysis
Daniel has committed a breach of trust by releasing the money prematurely.
However, the court must determine whether the breach caused the loss.
The evidence shows that the transaction would have completed regardless of whether the funds had been released early or on the correct date. The subsequent loss arose from market conditions rather than the premature transfer.
Applying the “but for” test established in Target Holdings, the beneficiaries cannot demonstrate that the breach caused the loss.
Outcome
Although Daniel committed a breach of trust, he is unlikely to be liable for the £700,000 loss because causation has not been established.
Conclusion
Causation is a fundamental requirement in breach of trust claims. Beneficiaries must demonstrate not only that a breach occurred but also that the breach caused the loss suffered by the trust. The leading decisions in Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns and AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors confirm that the appropriate test is the “but for” test. If the loss would have occurred regardless of the trustee’s breach, liability will not arise. Consequently, modern trust law seeks to ensure that equitable compensation reflects actual loss caused by wrongdoing rather than imposing liability for losses that would have occurred in any event.
References
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] AC 421.
AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2015] AC 1503.
Nestle v National Westminster Bank Plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260.
Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd (No 2) [1980] Ch 515.
Alastair Hudson, Equity and Trusts (11th edn, Routledge 2022).
James Penner, The Law of Trusts (12th edn, Oxford University Press 2020).
Graham Virgo, The Principles of Equity and Trusts (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2024).
John McGhee (ed), Snell’s Equity (35th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024).
0 Comments