Quistclose Trust - Lord Milett Judgement Essay example

2445 Words Mar 26th, 2012 10 Pages
Essay Question:
“My Lords, there are two issues in this appeal. The first is concerned with the nature of the so-called “Quistclose trust” and the requirements for its creation. The second arises only if the first is answered adversely to the appellant. It is whether his conduct renders him liable for having assisted in a breach of trust.”

Lord Millett in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and Others [2002] 2 AC 164 at paragraph 52.

Critically analyse Lord Millett’s views on the two issues referred to above indicating the extent to which you agree with him.

Introduction
Lord Millet recognised two key issues within this case that offers a complete purpose of authority in the area of Quistclose trust and dishonest assistance. The court
…show more content…
Millet used this to determine that the lender shall retain the beneficial interest in moneys advanced and the moneys advanced shall constitute a fund separate from the assets of the borrower until the purpose has been fulfilled .

Quistclose Trust
When a person holds fiduciary duty it is a sensible exercise for the benefit of another person to achieve a particular purpose, that he holds those rights in Trust for giving / recipient, and is Trustee so called. “In practice, therefore, that constitutes a Trust ‘gives’ a fiduciary management mandate, all or part of its own property as a Trustee, so that the latter holds in the administer for the benefit of or more beneficiaries, who may be the rightful heirs, other heirs, or, for special measures and delicate, the giving itself, if the Trust would have only have a temporary function of guardianship and Heritage Preservation (the Trust guarantees complete anonymity property)” .

The Trust is not a company, it has the recipients and not shareholders, and the difference is not just a question of terminology. Indeed the Trust, in its original English perspective, is not a contract, for reasons both historical and practical. Above all, the Trust is subject to the Tribunal Special Registry, said the ‘Court of Equity’, while the contract is a concept associated with the Courts 'Common Law'. A difference in the common law, the Registrar, having hosted the canonical principle of respect for the trust granted (Pacta