SQE – Equity and Trust – Claiming Proprietary Remedies Together
Case Scenario
The trustees of the Lawson Family Trust hold:
£3 million
for several beneficiaries.
One trustee, Daniel, improperly transfers:
£600,000
from the trust in breach of trust.
The money is used in different ways:

• £300,000 is used to purchase property;
• £200,000 is invested into shares;
• £100,000 is mixed into a personal bank account and later dissipated.

The property later increases in value to:
£500,000
The shares increase in value to:
£350,000
The beneficiaries want to know:

• whether they may claim several proprietary remedies together;
• whether they must choose one remedy only;
• and how tracing, constructive trusts, and equitable liens operate.

Short Answer
Yes — beneficiaries may sometimes claim multiple proprietary remedies together.
However:

• courts prevent double recovery;
• overlapping proprietary claims cannot produce duplicate compensation;
• beneficiaries may need to elect between inconsistent remedies.

Main Principle
Proprietary remedies focus on:
recovery of property itself or its traceable substitutes.
Claimants may combine remedies such as:

• tracing;
• constructive trusts;
• equitable liens;
• subrogation.

But courts ensure:
✅ full recovery of trust assets
❌ no overcompensation


1. Tracing
Definition
Tracing identifies substitute property representing the original trust asset.
Tracing is not itself a remedy but a process allowing claimants to follow assets into new forms.


Application to the Scenario
The beneficiaries trace:

• £300,000 into the property;
• £200,000 into the shares.

2. Constructive Trust
Definition
A constructive trust gives beneficiaries a proprietary ownership interest in the substitute asset.


Application to the Property
The property purchased for:
£300,000
is now worth:
£500,000
The beneficiaries may claim the property itself under a constructive trust.


Result
The beneficiaries may recover:
£500,000
because the increase in value belongs to the trust property.


Application to the Shares
The shares purchased for:
£200,000
are now worth:
£350,000
The beneficiaries may claim the shares themselves.


Result
The beneficiaries may recover:
£350,000
through proprietary tracing and constructive trust principles.


3. Equitable Lien
Definition
An equitable lien gives security over property for the amount contributed by the claimant.
Unlike a constructive trust:

• ownership is not claimed;
• only a secured charge is asserted.

Example
Suppose the property purchased with trust money later falls in value.


Revised Figures
Property purchased:
£300,000
Current value:
£220,000


Beneficiaries’ Choice
The beneficiaries may choose:
Constructive Trust
Recover ownership of property worth:
£220,000


Equitable Lien
Claim secured repayment of:
£300,000
against the property.


Which Would Be Better?
Usually:

• if the asset increased in value → constructive trust preferred;
• if the asset decreased in value → equitable lien preferred.

Important Principle
The claimant may choose the remedy producing the more favourable result.
But they cannot recover both simultaneously if this duplicates recovery.


Can Proprietary Remedies Be Claimed Together?
Yes — Sometimes
The beneficiaries may simultaneously claim:

• tracing;
• constructive trusts;
• equitable liens;
• proprietary recovery against multiple assets.

Example
Property Claim
Recover:
£500,000 property.


Shares Claim
Recover:
£350,000 shares.


Total Proprietary Recovery
£850,000
because these are separate traceable assets.


But Double Recovery Is Prohibited
The beneficiaries cannot:
❌ recover the property worth £500,000
PLUS
❌ separately recover another £300,000 representing the same money.
That would duplicate the original contribution.


Mixed Fund Problem
Scenario
The remaining:
£100,000
was mixed into Daniel’s personal bank account and spent.


Possible Result
If the money cannot be traced into identifiable property:

• proprietary recovery may fail;
• beneficiaries may instead rely on personal remedies such as equitable compensation.

Election Between Proprietary Remedies
Sometimes claimants must choose between inconsistent remedies.


Example
Constructive Trust
Gives ownership and profit increases.


Equitable Lien
Gives secured repayment of contribution only.


Practical Illustration
Initial Trust Money
£300,000


Property Value Rises to
£500,000


Best Remedy
✅ Constructive trust
because beneficiaries obtain increase in value.


Alternative Scenario
Property Falls to
£220,000


Best Remedy
✅ Equitable lien
because beneficiaries preserve claim for original contribution.


Key SQE Principle
Proprietary remedies may coexist where they address different assets or different aspects of recovery.
However:

• courts prevent duplicate proprietary recovery;
• beneficiaries may need to elect between inconsistent proprietary claims.

​
Conclusion
Beneficiaries may often claim several proprietary remedies together, including tracing, constructive trusts, and equitable liens. However, equity prevents double recovery and may require claimants to elect between inconsistent remedies. Constructive trusts usually favour claimants where assets increase in value, while equitable liens may be preferable where assets decrease in value. These principles raise important doctrinal questions concerning proprietary rights, tracing theory, remedial coherence, and equitable fairness.

Equity and Trust – Equitable Remedies
Case Scenario
Sophia enters into a contract to purchase a rare historic property from Daniel for £4 million. After contracts are exchanged, Daniel refuses to complete the sale because another buyer offers a higher price.
At the same time, trustees of the Harper Family Trust improperly transfer trust assets into risky investments without authority, causing substantial financial loss to the beneficiaries.
Separately, a celebrity couple seeks to prevent publication of private photographs taken without consent at their wedding.
Meanwhile, a solicitor drafting a will accidentally omits one of the intended beneficiaries from the document.
Each dispute raises the possibility of equitable remedies.
The court must determine:

• which remedy is appropriate;
• whether equity should intervene;
• and whether the claimant deserves equitable relief.

Equitable Remedies
Definition
Equitable remedies are remedies developed by the courts of equity to achieve fairness where common law remedies are inadequate.
They are flexible remedies designed to prevent injustice.


Main Feature of Equitable Remedies
The key feature is that equitable remedies are:
discretionary.
This means the claimant is not automatically entitled to the remedy even if they succeed in proving the claim.
The court decides whether it is fair and appropriate to grant relief.


Difference Between Common Law and Equity
Common Law Remedies
Common law remedies, such as damages for breach of contract, are generally awarded automatically once liability is proven.
Example:
If a valid contract is breached and loss is established, damages normally follow.


Equitable Remedies
Equitable remedies are not automatic.
The court considers:

• fairness;
• conduct of the parties;
• practicality of enforcement;
• equitable principles;
• and the maxims of equity.

Types of Equitable Remedies
Common equitable remedies include:

• injunctions;
• specific performance;
• rescission;
• rectification;
• account of profits;
• equitable compensation;
• declarations;
• tracing;
• constructive trusts.

1. Specific Performance
Definition
An order compelling a party to perform contractual obligations.


Application to the Scenario
Daniel refuses to transfer the unique historic property.
Because land is unique and damages may be inadequate, the court may grant specific performance ordering completion of the sale.


2. Injunctions
Definition
Orders requiring a party:

• to stop doing something; or
• to perform a positive act.

Application to the Scenario
The celebrity couple may seek an injunction preventing publication of private photographs.
This protects privacy and confidentiality before irreversible harm occurs.


3. Equitable Compensation
Definition
Monetary remedy restoring beneficiaries to the position they would have occupied absent breach of trust.


Application to the Scenario
The trustees improperly invested trust assets and caused losses.
The beneficiaries may seek equitable compensation restoring the lost trust funds.


4. Account of Profits
Definition
Requires fiduciaries to surrender unauthorised profits.


Example
If trustees personally benefited from misuse of trust property, the court may require them to surrender all profits made.


5. Rescission
Definition
Sets aside a transaction and restores parties to their original position.


Example
A trust or contract entered into because of serious mistake or misrepresentation may be rescinded.


6. Rectification
Definition
Corrects written documents failing to reflect true intentions.


Application to the Scenario
The solicitor omitted an intended beneficiary from the will.
The court may rectify the will to reflect the testator’s true intentions.


7. Declarations
Definition
Court statements clarifying legal rights or duties.


Example
Trustees uncertain about investment powers may seek a declaration from the court.


Discretion of the Court
Why Equitable Remedies Are Discretionary
Equity developed to soften the rigidity of common law.
The court therefore examines whether granting relief would be fair and just.


Important Limitation
Although discretionary, the court’s decision is not arbitrary.
Courts are guided by:

• precedent;
• equitable principles;
• maxims of equity.

Maxims of Equity
Some important maxims include:
“He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.”
A claimant acting dishonestly or unfairly may be denied equitable relief.


“Delay defeats equity.”
Unreasonable delay may bar equitable remedies.


“Equity acts in personam.”
Equity traditionally operates against the conscience of individuals.


“Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy.”
Equity aims to prevent injustice where common law is inadequate.


Practical Application to the Scenario
Historic Property
Specific performance may be granted because damages are inadequate.


Trust Losses
Beneficiaries may obtain equitable compensation or an account of profits.


Wedding Photographs
An injunction may prevent publication.


Mistaken Will
Rectification may correct the drafting error.


Why Equitable Remedies Matter
Equitable remedies provide flexibility where rigid monetary compensation is insufficient.
They are especially important where:

• property is unique;
• fiduciary duties exist;
• trust relationships are involved;
• confidentiality must be protected;
• documents contain mistakes.

Key SQE Principles
Equitable remedies are:

• discretionary;
• flexible;
• fairness-based;
• guided by equitable maxims;
• available across many areas of law.

They are not confined solely to trust law and may arise in:

• contract law;
• family law;
• property law;
• intellectual property;
• commercial disputes.

Conclusion
Equitable remedies are an essential part of English law, allowing courts to achieve fairness where common law remedies alone are inadequate. Unlike automatic common law damages, equitable remedies are discretionary and governed by equitable principles and maxims. Remedies such as injunctions, specific performance, rescission, rectification, declarations, equitable compensation, and account of profits enable courts to respond flexibly to breaches of trust, contractual disputes, fiduciary wrongdoing, and other forms of injustice.

​

Equity and Trust – Innocent Volunteer
Case Scenario
The trustees of the King Family Trust hold:
£4 million
for the benefit of several beneficiaries.
One trustee, Frank, improperly removes:
£500,000
from the trust in breach of trust.
Frank gives:

• £100,000 cash;
• and a valuable painting worth £200,000

to his fiancée Alice as gifts.
Alice:

• pays nothing for the gifts;
• has no knowledge of the breach;
• genuinely believes Frank owns the assets personally.

Alice later:

• spends £60,000 renovating her home using the trust money;
• sells the painting and uses the proceeds to buy a holiday apartment.

The beneficiaries seek recovery of the trust property from Alice.
The court must determine:

• whether Alice is an innocent volunteer;
• whether tracing is available;
• whether tracing would be inequitable;
• and whether Alice may rely on change of position.

Innocent Volunteer
Definition
An innocent volunteer is:
a third party who receives trust property without providing consideration and without knowledge of the breach of trust.
The recipient must lack:

• actual notice;
• implied notice;
• constructive notice.

Important Distinction
The innocent volunteer differs from:
Bona Fide Purchaser for Value
because the innocent volunteer:
❌ gives no consideration.


Knowing Recipient
because the innocent volunteer:
❌ has no knowledge of the breach.


Application to the Scenario
Alice:

• received gifts;
• paid nothing;
• had no knowledge of the breach.

Therefore, Alice is likely an innocent volunteer.


Tracing Rule
General Rule
Trust property may generally be traced into the hands of an innocent volunteer.
This allows beneficiaries to recover:

• the original property;
• substitute assets;
• or traceable proceeds.

Example From the Scenario
The painting worth:
£200,000
was sold by Alice.
She used the proceeds to purchase a holiday apartment.
The beneficiaries may trace into:

• the holiday apartment as substitute property.

Limitation on Recovery
Against an innocent volunteer, recovery is generally limited to:
✅ the original value transferred
PLUS
✅ interest.
Usually:
❌ no account of profits.


Example
Suppose the holiday apartment increases in value to:
£350,000
The beneficiaries may not necessarily claim all profits generated because Alice acted innocently.


Inequitable Results Exception
Tracing may be refused where recovery would produce:
an inequitable result.


Re Diplock
Facts
Executors wrongly distributed estate funds to charities.
The charities innocently spent the money improving their buildings.


Problem
The improvements:

• may not have increased property value;
• became integrated into the buildings.

If tracing were allowed:

• the charities might be forced to sell their land;
• despite complete innocence.

Principle
The court recognised that tracing may be denied where recovery would unfairly prejudice innocent recipients.


Application to the Scenario
Alice used:
£60,000
to renovate her home.
The renovations:

• may not increase value proportionately;
• may be inseparable from the property.

If tracing forced sale of Alice’s home, this could produce a harsh and inequitable result.
The court may therefore limit or refuse tracing regarding the renovations.


Important Principle
The innocent volunteer must demonstrate:

• why tracing would be inequitable on the facts.

The defence is not automatic.


Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council
The House of Lords confirmed:

• inequity must be demonstrated specifically on the facts.

Change of Position Defence
Modern Development
The modern defence of:
change of position
may protect innocent recipients.


Principle
The defence applies where:

• the recipient changed position;
• relied upon receipt of the property;
• and restitution would now be inequitable.

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
Lord Goff explained:
the defence applies where:
it would be inequitable to require full restitution.


Application to the Scenario
Alice received:
£100,000
innocently.
Believing the money was hers, she:

• spent £60,000 renovating her home;
• changed her financial position in reliance upon the gift.

This may support a change of position defence.


Example With Figures
Original Gift
£100,000


Amount Spent Reliantly
£60,000


Remaining Traceable Value
£40,000


Likely Recovery
The court may allow beneficiaries to recover only:
£40,000
rather than the full £100,000.


Why?
Because Alice changed her position innocently in reliance on the gift.
Requiring full repayment may now be inequitable.


Connection Between Diplock and Change of Position
Modern courts often view:

• change of position

as a broader modern development of the inequitable-results reasoning from Re Diplock.


Boscawen v Bajwa
The case suggests:

• change of position reflects logical development of Diplock principles.

Important Limitation
The defence only protects:
✅ innocent recipients.
If Alice knew about the breach:
❌ the defence would likely fail.


Key SQE Principles
An innocent volunteer:

• gives no consideration;
• lacks knowledge of the breach;
• may still face tracing claims.

However:

• tracing may be refused if inequitable;
• change of position may reduce liability.

Example Summary With Figures
Trust Money Wrongfully Given
£100,000


Innocent Reliance Expenditure
£60,000


Likely Recoverable Amount
£40,000
subject to tracing and equitable considerations.


Conclusion
An innocent volunteer is a recipient of trust property who provides no consideration and lacks knowledge of the breach of trust. Although beneficiaries may generally trace trust property into the hands of innocent volunteers, equity recognises important limitations where recovery would produce unfair or inequitable outcomes. Modern courts increasingly rely on the defence of change of position to balance the property rights of beneficiaries against fairness to innocent recipients who have altered their position in reliance upon the property received.

​

 Equity and Trust – Knowing Recipient
Case Scenario
The trustees of the Harrison Family Trust manage:
£10 million
for the benefit of several beneficiaries.
One trustee, Daniel, improperly transfers:
£1 million
from the trust in breach of trust.
The money is transferred to Michael, a businessman, who receives the funds through a property transaction.
Michael:

• receives the trust assets directly;
• knows the transaction appears suspicious;
• deliberately avoids asking questions;
• later uses the money to purchase commercial property.

The commercial property later increases in value to:
£1.8 million
The beneficiaries bring proceedings alleging that Michael is a knowing recipient.
The court must determine:

• whether Michael received trust property;
• whether the property remains traceable;
• whether Michael possessed the required knowledge;
• and whether proprietary and personal remedies are available.

Knowing Recipient
Definition
A knowing recipient is:
a third party who receives trust property with knowledge that the property was transferred in breach of trust or fiduciary duty.
The recipient may:

• provide value;
  or
• receive the property voluntarily.

What transforms the person into a knowing recipient is:
knowledge of the breach.


Nature of Liability
Unlike dishonest assistance, knowing receipt may give rise to:
✅ proprietary remedies
AND
✅ personal remedies.
This dual liability makes knowing receipt highly attractive to claimants.


Why?
Because the recipient becomes:
a constructive trustee over the property received.
The claimant may therefore:

• trace the property;
• recover substitute assets;
• and sue personally for compensation.

Tracing Rule
The claimant may trace trust property into the hands of the knowing recipient.
This allows recovery of:

• original property;
• substitute assets;
• profits derived from the property.

Example From the Scenario
Michael receives:
£1 million
of trust money.
He purchases property now worth:
£1.8 million
The beneficiaries may potentially claim:

• the property itself;
• the increase in value;
• personal liability against Michael.

Criteria for Knowing Receipt
El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Plc
Three elements must generally be established:


1. Disposal of Assets in Breach of Fiduciary Duty
The trustee must improperly transfer trust property.


2. Receipt of Traceable Assets
The defendant must receive property traceable to the claimant’s assets.


3. Knowledge
The defendant must possess knowledge linking the property to the breach.


Receipt
Meaning
The defendant must actually receive the property.
Mere contractual entitlement is insufficient.


Criterion Properties Plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC
The House of Lords confirmed:

• actual receipt is required;
• the asset must pass to the defendant.

Direct Consequence Requirement
The receipt must result directly from the breach.


Example
Daniel transfers trust money directly into Michael’s account.
Michael purchases property with the funds.
This satisfies receipt.


Byers v Saudi National Bank
Byers v Saudi National Bank
The Supreme Court clarified:
✅ a continuing proprietary interest is necessary.
If trust property passes to a bona fide purchaser for value:

• the proprietary interest is extinguished;
• knowing receipt claims cannot later revive.

Example
Suppose Michael later sells the property to Emma:

• Emma pays full value;
• Emma has no knowledge of the breach.

Emma becomes a bona fide purchaser for value.
The beneficiaries cannot later revive proprietary claims against Emma even if she later discovers the breach.


Meaning of Knowledge
Core Difficulty
The meaning of “knowledge” remains uncertain and controversial.
Unlike dishonest assistance:
❌ dishonesty is not required.
The defendant may be liable without fraud or moral wrongdoing.


Types of Knowledge
Knowledge may broadly include:
1. Actual Knowledge
Direct awareness of the breach.


2. Implied Knowledge
Knowledge attributed through agents.


3. Constructive Knowledge
Knowledge the defendant ought reasonably to have possessed.


Baden Categories
Baden v Société Générale
The court identified five categories of knowledge.


Actual Knowledge Categories
Category 1
Actual knowledge.


Category 2
Wilfully shutting one’s eyes to the obvious.


Category 3
Wilfully or recklessly failing to make enquiries.


Constructive Knowledge Categories
Category 4
Knowledge indicating facts to an honest reasonable person.


Category 5
Knowledge putting an honest reasonable person on enquiry.


Application to the Scenario
Michael:

• noticed suspicious circumstances;
• deliberately avoided further investigation;
• proceeded with the transaction anyway.

This may amount to:

• wilful blindness;
• or reckless failure to enquire.

Potentially categories 2 or 3 under Baden.


Actual v Constructive Knowledge Debate
The courts disagree whether constructive knowledge alone is sufficient.


Narrow Approach
Re Montagu’s Settlement Trust
Megarry VC suggested:

• only actual knowledge categories should suffice;
• carelessness alone should not impose constructive trusteeship.

Broad Approach
Other cases accepted constructive knowledge as sufficient.
Examples include:

• Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)
• Agip (Africa) v Jackson

Unconscionability Approach
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele
Nourse LJ rejected rigid categorisation.
Instead, he proposed a broader test:
whether the recipient’s knowledge makes retention of the benefit unconscionable.


Modern Position
The current law remains uncertain.
Courts still refer to:

• Baden categories;
• unconscionability;
• actual versus constructive knowledge.

The doctrines overlap and remain flexible.


Application to the Scenario
Michael:

• recognised suspicious circumstances;
• consciously avoided proper enquiry;
• benefited from the transaction.

The court may conclude that retaining the property would be:
unconscionable.
Therefore, Michael may be liable as a knowing recipient.


Remedies
Proprietary Remedies
The beneficiaries may:

• trace the trust property;
• recover the commercial property worth £1.8 million;
• claim substitute assets.

Personal Remedies
The beneficiaries may also sue Michael personally for compensation.


Example With Figures
Original Trust Money
£1 million


Current Property Value
£1.8 million


Possible Recovery
Proprietary Claim
Recover property worth:
£1.8 million


Personal Claim
Compensation for losses if tracing partially fails.


Important Limitation
The beneficiaries cannot recover:
❌ £1.8 million property
PLUS
❌ another identical £1 million compensation for the same asset.
Double recovery is prohibited.


Key SQE Principles
Knowing receipt requires:

• receipt of trust property;
• traceability;
• sufficient knowledge.

The remedy may be both:

• proprietary;
• and personal.

Modern law focuses heavily on:

• unconscionability;
• recipient knowledge;
• fiduciary protection.

Conclusion
Knowing receipt is a significant equitable doctrine imposing liability on recipients of trust property transferred in breach of trust. Unlike dishonest assistance, knowing receipt may generate both proprietary and personal remedies because the recipient becomes a constructive trustee of the property received. The doctrine remains controversial due to continuing uncertainty surrounding the meaning of “knowledge,” particularly the relationship between actual knowledge, constructive knowledge, and unconscionability.

​

Equity and Trust – Can Multiple Personal Remedies Be Claimed Together?
Case Scenario
The trustees of the Morgan Family Trust hold:
£2 million
for the benefit of several beneficiaries.
One trustee, Daniel, improperly transfers:
£500,000
from the trust into an overseas investment account in breach of trust.
Daniel works together with:

• Michael, who knowingly receives part of the trust money;
• and a solicitor, Sarah, who dishonestly helps conceal the transaction.

Michael receives:
£300,000
knowing it came from a breach of trust.
Michael invests the money and later earns:
£120,000 profit.
The remaining:
£200,000
is lost completely in a failed investment and cannot be traced.
The beneficiaries want to know:

• whether they can claim several remedies together;
• whether they must choose only one;
• and how equitable compensation, account of profits, and other personal remedies operate.

Short Answer
Yes — beneficiaries may often claim multiple personal remedies together.
However:

• they cannot recover the same loss twice;
• courts prevent double recovery;
• remedies may overlap but serve different purposes.

Main Principle
A claimant may simultaneously plead:

• equitable compensation;
• account of profits;
• knowing receipt;
• dishonest assistance;
• proprietary claims.

But the court ensures:
✅ full restoration of the trust
❌ no overcompensation


1. Equitable Compensation
Definition
Equitable compensation is a personal remedy designed to restore beneficiaries to the position they would have occupied had the breach not occurred.
It focuses on:
the claimant’s loss.


Application to the Scenario
The trust lost:
£500,000
However:

• £200,000 cannot be traced or recovered because it disappeared in the failed investment.

The beneficiaries may therefore seek equitable compensation against Daniel for:
£200,000
because that portion of the trust fund is permanently lost.


Purpose of Equitable Compensation
The aim is to:

• restore the trust fund;
• compensate beneficiaries for loss caused by breach of trust.

2. Knowing Receipt
Definition
Knowing receipt arises where a third party receives trust property knowing it was transferred in breach of trust.


Application to the Scenario
Michael knowingly received:
£300,000
from the trust.
The beneficiaries may sue Michael personally for knowing receipt.


Possible Recovery
Michael may be personally liable to restore:
£300,000
to the trust.


3. Account of Profits
Definition
An account of profits strips profits made from misuse of trust property.
It focuses on:
the defendant’s gain.


Application to the Scenario
Michael used the trust money to earn:
£120,000 profit.
The beneficiaries may claim:

• the original £300,000;
  PLUS
• the £120,000 profit.

Why?
Because the profit arose entirely from misuse of trust assets.
Equity prevents fiduciaries and knowing recipients from retaining unauthorised gains.


4. Dishonest Assistance
Definition
Dishonest assistance arises where a third party dishonestly assists a breach of trust.


Application to the Scenario
Sarah, the solicitor, helped conceal the breach.
Even though she never received the money personally, she may still be personally liable for dishonest assistance.


Can All These Remedies Be Claimed Together?
Yes — Procedurally
The beneficiaries may plead all claims together:

• equitable compensation;
• knowing receipt;
• account of profits;
• dishonest assistance.

But Recovery Is Controlled
The court prevents duplicate recovery.
The beneficiaries cannot recover:
❌ £300,000 twice from different defendants.


Practical Calculation
Trust Loss
Total improperly transferred:
£500,000


Amount Recoverable From Michael
Knowing Receipt
£300,000


Account of Profits
£120,000


Total From Michael
£420,000
because:

• £300,000 restores trust property;
• £120,000 removes wrongful profit.

These are different recoveries.


Amount Recoverable From Daniel
Equitable Compensation
£200,000
for the irrecoverable portion of the trust fund.


Possible Liability of Sarah
Sarah may also be personally liable for dishonest assistance regarding the losses caused.
However:

• beneficiaries cannot recover the same £200,000 twice.

If Daniel already restores the full amount, Sarah’s liability may become contribution-based between defendants.


Why These Remedies Can Operate Together
The remedies address different wrongs:


Equitable Compensation
Restores loss suffered by the trust.


Account of Profits
Strips wrongful gains from the defendant.


Knowing Receipt
Imposes liability for receiving trust property knowingly.


Dishonest Assistance
Imposes liability for dishonest participation in breach.


Example of Double Recovery Not Allowed
Suppose beneficiaries recover:
£300,000
from Michael.
They cannot then recover another identical:
£300,000
from Daniel for the exact same loss.
That would overcompensate the trust.


Simple Rule
Claimants May:
✅ combine remedies
✅ sue multiple defendants
✅ recover losses and profits


Claimants Cannot:
❌ recover identical sums twice
❌ obtain double compensation
❌ profit from the litigation


Key SQE Principle
Equity distinguishes between:
Compensation for Loss
and
Disgorgement of Profit.
These remedies may coexist where they remedy different consequences of wrongdoing.



Conclusion
Multiple personal remedies may often be claimed together in equity, including equitable compensation, account of profits, knowing receipt, and dishonest assistance. However, although several remedies may coexist, courts carefully prevent double recovery. Equitable compensation restores losses suffered by the trust, while account of profits strips wrongful gains obtained from misuse of trust property. Together, these remedies ensure both restoration of trust assets and fiduciary accountability without overcompensating beneficiaries.

​

SQE – Equity and Trust – Dishonest Assistance
Case Scenario
The trustees of the Hamilton Family Trust manage:
£5 million
for the benefit of several beneficiaries.
One trustee, Daniel, improperly transfers:
£800,000
from the trust into offshore accounts in breach of trust.
Daniel works closely with a solicitor, Sarah, who helps structure the transfers and conceal the movement of funds.
Sarah does not personally receive any trust money. However, she:

• prepares misleading documentation;
• assists in transferring the funds overseas;
• knows the transaction is suspicious;
• deliberately avoids asking further questions.

Eventually, the trust suffers losses because:

• £500,000 disappears permanently;
• the remaining funds become unrecoverable due to insolvency.

The beneficiaries bring a claim against Sarah for dishonest assistance.
The court must determine:

• whether Sarah dishonestly assisted the breach of trust;
• whether dishonesty exists;
• whether her conduct amounts to “assistance”;
• and what remedies are available.

Dishonest Assistance
Definition
Dishonest assistance arises where a third party dishonestly assists or procures a breach of trust or fiduciary duty.
Unlike knowing receipt:

• the dishonest assistant does not need to receive trust property;
• liability arises because of participation in wrongdoing.

Nature of the Remedy
Dishonest assistance gives rise to:
✅ a personal remedy
❌ not a proprietary remedy.
The dishonest assistant is personally liable to compensate the claimant for losses caused by the breach.


Important Principle
The dishonest assistant is:
not a constructive trustee.
Liability is fault-based rather than receipt-based.


Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley
Lord Millett explained:
dishonest assistance is fault-based, not receipt-based.
The claim focuses on:

• wrongful participation;
• not receipt of trust property.

The claimant seeks:

• compensation for wrongdoing;
• not restitution of property.

Application to the Scenario
Sarah never personally received the £800,000.
However, she actively helped facilitate the breach by:

• preparing misleading documents;
• helping conceal transfers;
• assisting movement of funds offshore.

Therefore, liability may arise despite absence of personal receipt.


Elements of Dishonest Assistance
The claimant must generally prove:
1. Existence of a Trust or Fiduciary Duty
A trust relationship must exist.


2. Breach of Trust or Fiduciary Duty
The trustee must commit a breach.


3. Assistance by the Defendant
The third party must actively assist the breach.


4. Dishonesty
The assistance must be dishonest.


The Meaning of Dishonesty
Dishonesty has been heavily debated in equity.


Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan
Facts
A travel agency held airline ticket proceeds on trust for the airline.
The money was improperly used for business purposes.
Tan, the managing director, was sued for dishonest assistance.


Principle
Lord Nicholls held that dishonesty involved:

• an objective standard;
• but assessed against the defendant’s actual knowledge and circumstances.

Objective Standard
The court asks:
Would ordinary honest people regard the conduct as dishonest?


Subjective Factors
The court may consider:

• defendant’s experience;
• intelligence;
• knowledge;
• professional background.

However, the defendant’s personal belief that they acted honestly is not decisive.


Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley
Lord Hutton described dishonesty as a:
“combined test”
involving objective and subjective elements.
The conduct had to be:

• dishonest by ordinary standards;
  AND
• appreciated as dishonest by the defendant.

Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd
Lord Hoffmann clarified that:

• the defendant need not consciously reflect on honesty standards;
• it is enough that participation was contrary to ordinary standards of honest conduct.

Modern Position
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd
The Supreme Court confirmed:
✅ dishonesty is primarily objective.
The court assesses:

• the defendant’s actual knowledge and circumstances;
• but not whether the defendant personally believed the conduct was dishonest.

Application to the Scenario
Sarah is an experienced solicitor.
She:

• understood the suspicious nature of the transfers;
• deliberately assisted concealment;
• ignored obvious warning signs.

The court would likely conclude that her conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards.


State of Mind of Trustee Is Irrelevant
Dishonest assistance focuses on:
the third party’s dishonesty.


Important Principle From Tan
Lord Nicholls explained:
“What matters is the state of mind of the third party.”
Therefore:

• even if the trustee acted innocently,
• a third party may still be dishonest.

Meaning of Assistance
Assistance requires:
✅ active participation
There must be:

• helping;
• procuring;
• facilitating;
• or participating in the breach.

A causal connection must exist between:

• the assistance;
• and the breach itself.

Brown v Bennett
The court confirmed:

• assistance must relate to the breach in question.

Example of Insufficient Assistance
Brinks Ltd v Abu-Saleh (No 1)
Facts
Mrs Elscombe accompanied her husband on trips transporting stolen money.
She suspected wrongdoing but merely accompanied him for holidays.


Decision
The court held:
❌ no dishonest assistance.
Why?
Because she did not actively participate in the laundering arrangement itself.
Mere association was insufficient.


Application to the Scenario
Sarah actively:

• prepared documents;
• organised transfers;
• facilitated concealment.

Unlike Mrs Elscombe, Sarah directly participated in the breach.
Therefore, the assistance element is likely satisfied.


Remedy
The beneficiaries may seek:
Personal Compensation
Suppose trust losses equal:
£500,000
Sarah may be personally liable to compensate the trust for losses caused by her dishonest assistance.


Important Distinction
Dishonest Assistant

• personal liability only.

Knowing Recipient

• personal liability;
• sometimes proprietary liability.

Why No Proprietary Remedy?
Because the dishonest assistant may never possess trust property.
Liability arises from:

• participation in wrongdoing;
• not ownership or receipt.

Key SQE Principles
Dishonest assistance is:

• fault-based;
• personal in nature;
• dependent on active assistance;
• dependent on objective dishonesty.

Receipt of trust property is unnecessary.
The focus is on:

• participation;
• conduct;
• and honesty standards.

Conclusion
Dishonest assistance is an important equitable doctrine imposing personal liability on third parties who dishonestly participate in breaches of trust or fiduciary duty. Liability does not depend on receipt of trust property but on fault-based participation in wrongdoing. Modern courts apply an objective standard of dishonesty assessed in light of the defendant’s actual knowledge and circumstances. The doctrine plays a crucial role in ensuring fiduciary accountability and preventing third parties from facilitating breaches of trust.

​

Equity and Trust – Specific Performance
Case Scenario
Harper agrees to sell a rare countryside estate known as Greenacre Manor to Olivia for £5 million. Contracts are exchanged, and Olivia pays a substantial deposit. Before completion, Harper receives a higher offer from another buyer and refuses to transfer the property to Olivia.
At the same time, trustees of the Lawson Family Trust hold valuable trust documents proving the beneficiaries’ entitlement to income distributions. Despite repeated requests, the trustees refuse to provide the documents or distribute trust assets that are due.
One beneficiary, Ethan, asks the court to compel the trustees to perform their obligations under the trust.
Separately, Maya enters into an employment contract with a theatre company as its lead performer. After disputes arise, the company asks the court to force Maya to continue performing under the contract.
The court must determine whether the equitable remedy of specific performance should be granted in each situation.


Questions and Answers
1. What is specific performance?
Specific performance is an equitable remedy in which the court orders a party to carry out their obligations under a contract or trust arrangement.
Unlike damages, which provide financial compensation, specific performance requires actual performance of the obligation promised.
Failure to comply with such an order amounts to contempt of court and may result in fines or imprisonment.


2. When is specific performance usually granted?
Specific performance is usually granted where damages would be inadequate.
The remedy is most commonly awarded in contracts involving unique property, especially land, because every parcel of land is regarded as unique.
In the scenario, Olivia seeks specific performance because money alone may not compensate her for losing Greenacre Manor.


Practical Application
3. Why would the court likely grant specific performance for the sale of Greenacre Manor?
The court would likely grant specific performance because:

• there is a valid contract for sale;
• Olivia has fulfilled her obligations;
• Harper is refusing to complete the transfer;
• land is considered unique;
• damages may not adequately compensate Olivia.

Therefore, the court may order Harper to transfer the estate in accordance with the contract.


4. Why is land treated differently from ordinary goods?
Equity treats land as unique because:

• no two parcels of land are identical;
• location and characteristics cannot truly be replicated;
• replacement may be impossible.

For this reason, damages are often regarded as insufficient in land sale contracts.


5. Can specific performance be refused?
Yes. The remedy is discretionary and may be refused where:

• the order would be inequitable;
• supervision by the court would be impractical;
• the contract lacks certainty;
• enforcement would be impossible;
• damages provide an adequate remedy.

The court will also refuse relief where the claimant has acted unfairly.


6. Why would the court refuse to enforce Maya’s employment contract?
Courts generally refuse to compel performance of employment contracts because:

• forcing personal service may resemble involuntary labour;
• supervision would be difficult;
• mutual trust and confidence may have broken down;
• enforcement is impractical.

Therefore, the theatre company would likely be denied specific performance against Maya.


Specific Performance in Trust Law
7. How can specific performance apply in trusts?
In trust law, courts may use specific performance to compel trustees to perform their duties.
This may include orders requiring trustees to:

• transfer trust property;
• provide documents;
• distribute trust assets;
• comply with trust terms.

8. Why might the trustees in the scenario be ordered to hand over documents?
The beneficiaries are entitled to proper administration of the trust and access to relevant trust information.
The court may therefore compel production of documents where trustees are wrongfully withholding them.
This principle is illustrated in Re Tillott, where trustees were ordered to hand over documents to beneficiaries.


9. Can trustees be compelled to distribute trust assets?
Yes. Trustees may be ordered to distribute trust funds if they have improperly failed to do so.
In the scenario, Ethan may successfully apply for specific performance requiring the trustees to distribute assets due under the trust.


10. Are there limits on court intervention in discretionary trusts?
Yes. Courts generally will not interfere with trustees’ discretionary powers, provided those powers are exercised properly.
In discretionary trusts, trustees usually retain discretion regarding which beneficiaries receive benefits and in what amounts.
The court will not normally substitute its own decision for that of the trustees.
This principle is reflected in Re Blake.


Solving the Scenario
Greenacre Manor
The court would likely grant specific performance ordering Harper to transfer the property because:

• the contract is valid;
• Olivia is ready and willing to perform;
• land is unique;
• damages are inadequate.

Trustees and Trust Documents
The court would likely compel the trustees to provide the documents because beneficiaries are entitled to proper trust administration.
The order may resemble the relief granted in Re Tillott.


Distribution of Trust Assets
If the trustees are improperly withholding distributions required under the trust, the court may order performance of those obligations.
However, the court will not interfere merely because beneficiaries disagree with discretionary decisions properly made by trustees.


Employment Contract
The court would probably refuse specific performance against Maya because:

• employment relationships require personal cooperation;
• supervision is impractical;
• equitable enforcement would be inappropriate.

Damages would instead be the likely remedy.


Conclusion
Specific performance is an equitable remedy compelling actual performance of legal obligations. It is most commonly granted where damages are inadequate, particularly in contracts involving land or trust obligations.
The remedy remains discretionary, and courts will refuse it where enforcement would be unfair, impractical, or contrary to public policy. In trust law, specific performance may compel trustees to perform duties such as handing over documents or distributing trust assets, while courts remain cautious about interfering with discretionary powers.

​

Equity and Trust – Account of Profits
Case Scenario
Emma is a trustee of the Carter Family Trust. The trust contains £500,000 intended for the benefit of several minor beneficiaries.
Without authorisation, Emma secretly uses £200,000 of trust money to purchase an investment property in Manchester in her own name. Over the next three years, the property market rises significantly and the property increases in value to £450,000. Emma also receives rental income from tenants during that period.
The beneficiaries discover the misuse of trust money and bring a claim against Emma.
The issue is whether the beneficiaries can recover only the original £200,000 or whether they are entitled to the profits Emma made from using trust property.


Account of Profits
Definition
An account of profits is an equitable remedy requiring a defendant to surrender profits improperly obtained through breach of fiduciary duty.
The remedy commonly arises where:

• trustees make unauthorised profits;
• trustees misuse trust property;
• trustees obtain secret benefits;
• fiduciaries profit from their position without consent.

The purpose is to prevent trustees from benefiting personally from breaches of trust.


Key Principle
A trustee must not profit from their fiduciary position unless fully authorised by:

• the trust instrument;
• the beneficiaries;
• or the court.

If a trustee improperly profits, equity requires the profit to be handed over to the beneficiaries.


Practical Application
Why is repayment of the original sum sometimes insufficient?
Simply repaying the original money may still leave the trustee with a personal gain obtained through breach of trust.
In the scenario:

• Emma used £200,000 of trust money;
• the property later became worth £450,000;
• Emma also earned rental income.

If Emma only repaid £200,000, she would keep the increase in value and rental profits generated using trust assets.
That would unfairly benefit Emma at the beneficiaries’ expense.


What Can the Beneficiaries Claim?
The beneficiaries may seek:

• repayment of the original trust money;
• profits generated from the property;
• increase in property value;
• rental income earned;
• any additional financial benefit linked to the breach.

The court may therefore require Emma to account for the full profits obtained from misuse of trust assets.


Why Equity Imposes This Remedy
Equity imposes strict fiduciary duties on trustees because trustees occupy positions of trust and confidence.
The remedy aims to:

• deter fiduciary misconduct;
• prevent unjust enrichment;
• protect beneficiaries;
• ensure trustees act loyally and honestly.

The trustee’s intention is often irrelevant.
Even if Emma acted in good faith, she may still be required to surrender the profits.


Difference Between Compensation and Account of Profits
Compensation
Compensation focuses on the beneficiaries’ loss.
The court asks:

• “How much has the trust lost?”

Account of Profits
Account of profits focuses on the trustee’s gain.
The court asks:

• “How much profit did the trustee make from the breach?”

The remedies therefore serve different purposes.


Practical Example
Example 1 – Account of Profits Granted
A trustee secretly uses trust funds to buy shares.
The shares double in value.
The beneficiaries may claim:

• the original trust money;
• the increase in share value;
• dividends received.

The trustee cannot retain profits arising from misuse of trust property.


Example 2 – Secret Commission
A trustee receives a hidden payment from a company in exchange for investing trust money with that company.
Even if the trust itself suffers no loss, the trustee may still have to surrender the commission because it was obtained through fiduciary position.


Remedies the Court May Grant
The court may order:

• repayment of profits;
• transfer of property acquired with trust money;
• tracing into substitute assets;
• constructive trust over profits;
• equitable compensation.

In some cases, beneficiaries may choose the remedy most advantageous to them.


Solving the Scenario
Emma clearly breached her fiduciary duties because she:

• used trust money without authority;
• placed herself in conflict with beneficiaries’ interests;
• personally profited from trust property.

The beneficiaries would likely succeed in claiming:

• the original £200,000;
• the increase in property value;
• rental income generated from the property.

The court may also impose a constructive trust over the property itself.
Emma would not be allowed to retain any profit obtained through misuse of trust assets.


Key SQE Principles
An account of profits:

• is an equitable remedy;
• applies mainly to fiduciaries and trustees;
• prevents unauthorised personal gain;
• focuses on defendant’s profit rather than claimant’s loss;
• may exceed the original amount misappropriated.

Trustees are strictly prohibited from profiting from their fiduciary position without proper authority.


Conclusion
An account of profits ensures trustees and fiduciaries do not benefit from breaches of trust or misuse of trust property. Where trustees make unauthorised gains, equity requires them to surrender both the original assets and any profits derived from those assets.
The remedy protects beneficiaries, enforces fiduciary loyalty, and prevents unjust enrichment arising from abuse of trust.

​

Equity and Trust – What Can Beneficiaries Recover in an Account of Profits?


Short Answer


The beneficiaries are not limited to recovering only one item.


Under an account of profits claim, the court may require the trustee to surrender all gains obtained from the misuse of trust property.


Therefore, in the scenario, the beneficiaries could potentially recover:

• the original £200,000;

• the increase in the property’s value;

• the rental income earned from the property.

The aim is to strip the trustee of every unauthorised benefit connected to the breach of trust.


⸻


How This Works in Practice


Scenario


Emma improperly uses £200,000 of trust money to buy a property.


Later:

• the property value rises to £450,000;

• Emma earns rental income from tenants.

⸻


What Are the Beneficiaries Actually Claiming?


The beneficiaries are effectively saying:


“That property and its profits were generated using trust money, so the trustee should not keep any of the benefits.”


Equity therefore treats the profits as belonging to the trust.


⸻


Option 1 – Recovery of the Property Itself


The court may treat the property as held on constructive trust for the beneficiaries.


This means the beneficiaries may claim:

• ownership of the property itself;

• including its increased value.

So if the property is now worth £450,000, the trust may recover the full property worth £450,000.


⸻


Option 2 – Rental Income


Because the rental income was generated from property purchased with trust money, the beneficiaries may also claim:

• all net rental profits earned from the property.

Example:


If Emma received £60,000 in rent, the beneficiaries may claim that too.


⸻


Is the Original £200,000 Claimed Separately?


Usually, the beneficiaries do not recover:

• the £450,000 property value;

• PLUS another separate £200,000.

That would amount to double recovery.


Instead, the court normally gives a remedy representing the total value of the misused asset and profits.


⸻


Practical Understanding


If the Property Still Exists


The beneficiaries will usually prefer:

• the property itself;

• including all appreciation in value.

That already includes the original £200,000 invested.


They may additionally claim rental profits.


⸻


If the Property Has Been Sold


Suppose Emma sold the property for £450,000.


The beneficiaries may claim:

• the sale proceeds;

• plus any rental profits retained.

⸻


Main Principle


The trustee cannot keep any profit resulting from misuse of trust property.


Equity aims to remove the entire unauthorised gain.


The court focuses on:

• what the trustee gained;

    not merely

• what the beneficiaries lost.

Example Calculation


Initial Misuse


Trust money taken:
£200,000




Later Position


Property value:
£450,000


Rental income:
£60,000



Possible Recovery


The beneficiaries may recover:

• the property worth £450,000 (or sale proceeds);

• plus £60,000 rental profits.

Total possible recovery:
£510,000


The trustee does not get credit for the fact only £200,000 was originally taken because the profits arose entirely from misuse of trust assets.


⸻


Key SQE Principle


An account of profits is designed to:

• prevent fiduciaries from benefiting from breaches of trust;

• strip all unauthorised profits;

• prevent unjust enrichment.

The remedy may therefore exceed the original amount misappropriated.



Conclusion


The beneficiaries are generally entitled to recover the full benefit obtained through misuse of trust property, not merely the original sum taken. In the scenario, that could include:

• the property and its increased value; and

• rental income generated from it.

However, the beneficiaries cannot usually recover duplicate amounts that would overcompensate them. Equity seeks full restitution of unauthorised gains, not double recovery.