Breach of trust meaning

Flowchart This Flowchart outlines the prerequisites that need to be met to prove a fraudulent trading claim...

Existence and validity of trusts Provincial Equity Finance Ltd v Dines (née Breda) [2023] EWHC 103 (Ch) News Analysis: A literary epigraph—‘By prosperous voyages I often made… and the great care of goods at random left’—introduces a consideration of resulting trusts and the scope of express trusts. The decision underscores the practical obstacles in proving a resulting trust where a disorganised deceased ran bank accounts for mixed ends, and confirms that an express trust can override the presumption of a resulting trust even if the contributor of funds is not a party to the express trust. Author: Nicholas Holland, McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP Jurisdiction: England & Wales Attorney General v Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 102 (Ch) News Analysis: The court sanctioned a cy près scheme for a £600m charitable trust to be used towards reducing the National Debt, addressing the suitable application of the National Fund. The judgment considers...

Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and others [2022] EWCA Civ 12 What are the practical implications of this case? Before Paul, pinning down when a claimant could recover for a shocking event was problematic, as two Court of Appeal authorities—Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1792 and Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194—were difficult to reconcile. In Paul, the Court of Appeal determined that Taylor is controlling and that it requires the shocking event to be linked to the defendant’s breach of duty. That stance produces such manifest unfairness that the Court of Appeal has indicated it is minded to grant permission to appeal. Consequently, any claimant advancing a secondary victim claim affected by Paul would be well advised to defer issuing their...

On 22 January 2024, Employment Judge Jennifer Young concluded that Open University academics instigated a 'call to discriminate' against Professor Jo Phoenix by issuing an open letter opposing her gender-critical research network. That discriminatory letter in turn also triggered a 'pile-on' directed at Phoenix, Judge Young expressly observed. Phoenix v The Open University (ET/3322700/2021 & 3323841/2021) The judge found the university failed to secure an appropriate working environment for Phoenix, leaving her to weather the backlash within the institution. This failure amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in her contract and ultimately prompted her resignation. According to Judge Young, the Open University did not shield Phoenix from the 'negative campaign' that followed thereafter the launch of her research network because it 'did not want to be seen to give any kind of support to academics with gender critical beliefs'. Phoenix had been employed as a professor from 2016 until she stepped down in December 2021, following what she described as an 'exceptionally...

In this issue: International Arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information International Arbitration Hong Kong—court orders stay of court proceedings in dispute involving non-signatory to arbitration agreement The Hong Kong Court of First Instance, in Techteryx Ltd v Legacy Trust Company Ltd, ordered a stay of Hong Kong proceedings in favour of arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). Her Ladyship, Madam Justice Mimmie Chan, found that the criteria for a stay under section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) were fulfilled. On a prima facie assessment, there was a sufficient basis for the non-signatory defendant to invoke the arbitration agreements, relying on the doctrines of agency and equitable estoppel under Delaware law, which governed those agreements. For detailed commentary, refer to News Analysis: Hong Kong—court orders stay of court proceedings in dispute involving non-signatory to arbitration agreement (Techteryx Ltd v Legacy...

A glossary of frequently used terms and phrases in Scottish Private Client law, with the closest England and Wales equivalents (where applicable) and links to helpful websites Ab intestato Meaning From someone who dies without a will; describes property taken under the laws of intestate succession. Nearest English equivalent None Action of specific implement Meaning A court action seeking an order compelling a party to carry out a particular act. In Scotland there is no division between equitable and legal remedies, unlike England and Wales. Nearest English equivalent Specific performance (an equitable remedy for breach of contract that can be ordered alongside, or in place of, damages) Advance notice Meaning An entry in the relevant property register that protects the grantee of a deed intended for registration in the Land Register of Scotland. The protected period of 35 days begins on the day after registration....

There are statutory rules governing a company’s auditor liability and the extent to which it can be curtailed. Before 6 April 2008, a company was prohibited from excusing or indemnifying its auditors for any negligence, default, breach of duty, or breach of trust connected with the company that arose in carrying out the audit of the accounts. That prohibition has since changed, and such protection is now allowed, so long as it is either an indemnity covering the costs of successfully defending proceedings or a liability limitation agreement. Furthermore, additional requirements concerning an auditor’s liability and its caps may apply to a listed company, an AIM company, or a company whose securities are listed on the AQSE Main Market, AQSE Growth Market, or AQSE Trading (previously the NEX Exchange Main Board, NEX Exchange Growth Market, and NEX Exchange Secondary Market), though those matters fall outside the ambit of this Practice Note. Some or all of the statutory measures addressing auditors and liability limitation agreements may equally extend to other companies...

This Practice Note examines the mediator’s potential exposure for failing to uphold duties owed to the parties. It also identifies any applicable codes of conduct and reviews the mediator’s function across the mediation, including drafting any settlement terms. As a central figure in the process, the mediator must earn the parties’ trust and inspire confidence if the mediation is to succeed. For guidance on appointing a mediator, see Practice Note: Choosing a mediator. Basis of mediator liability—contract and/or negligence Typically, a mediation agreement will be in place, and the mediator may incur liability to the contracting parties for breach, subject to any contractual limits. Confidentiality clauses commonly appear in such agreements, and a breach by the mediator could give rise to liability. For assistance with preparing the mediation agreement, see Practice Note: Organising a mediation. For discussion of limiting the mediator’s liability, see: Mediation agreement—limiting mediator’s liability. For an overview of breach of contract and remedies, see: Contractual breach damages and remedies—overview...

Deed of indemnity dated [ date ] Parties [ beneficiaries ] of [ addresses ] (Beneficiaries) [ trustees ] of [ addresses ] (Trustees) Background (A) The Trustees act as trustees of a trust dated [ date ] between [ parties ] (the Trust). (B) It is considered that [ detail breach of trust ] may amount to a breach of trust (the Breach of Trust), and the Beneficiaries agree to release and indemnify the Trustees against it. This Deed provides: The Beneficiaries, jointly and severally, covenant with the Trustees that they and their personal representatives will at all times keep the Trustees fully and effectively indemnified against all actions, proceedings, accounts, claims and demands arising in respect of the Breach of Trust. Executed as a deed by the parties on the date at the start of this deed. SIGNED AND DELIVERED AS A DEED by [ insert name ] in presence of: ...

This Deed is made on [ insert day and month ] 20[ insert year ] Parties [ Insert name of Chargor ], being a company incorporated in England and Wales, with registered number [ insert company number ], and whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the “ Chargor ”); and 1 [ Insert name of Security Agent ], acting as security agent and trustee for the Finance Parties pursuant to the terms and conditions set out in the [ Facilities Agreement OR Intercreditor Agreement OR Security Trust Deed ] (the “ Security Agent ”). Recitals: (A) The Finance Parties have consented to provide loan facilities subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Facilities Agreement (as defined below). (B) As a condition precedent to the loan facilities becoming available, the Chargor must execute this Deed for the purpose of granting security in favour of the Security Agent in relation to the Secured Obligations (as defined below)...

I give my freehold house and land at [ insert full address of house and land ] [ and called [ insert house and land name(s) if relevant ] ] to my trustees, on trust that, if my [ spouse OR civil partner [ insert full name of spouse or civil partner ] ] wishes, they shall let on a yearly tenancy at £[ insert amount of rent ] per annum, without right to assign, sublet, or part with possession [ save furnished lettings up to [ insert period in months ] months yearly ], provided my [ spouse OR civil partner ] keeps the premises in good tenantable repair and insured against fire. While my [ spouse shall not marry or form a civil partnership OR civil partner shall not form another civil partnership or marry ] and complies, any notice to end the tenancy is ineffective unless signed by all trustees; but after the [ remarriage or forming of a civil partnership by my spouse OR forming of...

This Q&A assumes that the trust corporation is a company incorporated and registered in the UK under the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) CA 2006 sets the framework for how a company formed under that Act allots and issues its shares. The exact process varies by the nature of the company proposing the allotment and factors such as whether it has a single share class or several classes already in issue. For further detail, see the sub-topic: Allotment, issue and pre-emption—overview, with particular reference to the Practice Note: Allotment and issue of shares—introductory points. For guidance on the consequences of breaching the CA 2006 provisions on allotting and issuing shares, consult Practice Note: Allotment and issue of shares—penalties...