145:
where money has been transferred by mistake rather than malicious intent. Where the money has been mixed with the money of a trustee, the court's decision depends on the motive of the trustee. Because a trustee is expected to invest trust property and behave honestly, the courts may choose to find that the trustee transferred the money to further the goal of the trust. Since the trustee is assumed to behave honestly, any profits made may be assumed (by this "convenient fiction") to be made by the trust money, and any losses from the trustee's personal funds.
77:
hand to hand. Tracing is the process of identifying a new asset as the substitute for the old". Following, therefore, is simply establishing who the original owner of property is, where that property is, and returning it to the original owner. Tracing arises when the property cannot be returned and the court is asked to recognise an interest in new property, such as whatever the defendant received in exchange for the claimant's original property. Tracing can occur at both the
239:, however, the Court of Appeal decided that the defendant was only allowed to retain property equal to his losses due to the claimant's representation. Another defence similar to "change of position" is that of passing on, where the defendant has passed the property on to a third person without any benefit for the defendant; it is thus impossible to trace the property as the defendant has neither the property nor any proceeds from transferring it.
64:, or mistake. Tracing also shows any proceeds of sale or property purchased using trust property in the hands of the trustee or third parties. Owners can recover their property and perhaps also any profits made from it, or in situations where the property cannot be recovered (as it has been mixed in with other property, or cannot be found), substitute property. If goods sold commercially have not been paid for and the contract of sale included a
254:, a large amount of money was thought to be held on charitable trust. That charitable trust was invalid, but by the time that was established, a lot of money had been given to charities. The Court of Appeal looked at how much of that money could be traced into the hands of the charities that received it as innocent volunteers. It was held that any charity that had used the money that it received to improve their land, the tracing claim failed
124:, Millett justified this by saying that "equity's power to charge a mixed fund with the repayment of trust moneys enables the claimant to follow the money, not because it is his, but because it is derived from a fund which is treated as if it were subject to a charge in his favour". A limitation is that where the property has been put into a bank account that no longer contains enough money to repay it, it cannot be traced.
153:, Millett said that "The primary rule in regard to a mixed fund, therefore, is that gains and losses are borne by the contributors rateably. The beneficiary's right to elect instead to enforce a lien to obtain repayment is an exception to the primary rule, exercisable where the fund is deficient and the claim is made against the wrongdoer and those claiming through him".
178:; that the money deposited first is deemed to be spent on the first property purchased. The problem with this is that if the first property becomes less valuable than the second property purchased, the first claimant loses some of their money while the second claimant is able to claim their money in its entirety. The alternate approach is the previously mentioned
136:
purchaser in good faith), even if they did not previously have a fiduciary relationship with the claimant. Historically, the courts have been willing to be "generous in finding that the necessary fiduciary relationship existed", even going so far as to recognise relationships that did not exist at the time of the transfer.
223:, and has limitations. Any bad faith on the part of the defendant will invalidate the defence, such as if the recipient of the property has encouraged the payer to transfer it or has received it by mistake and then used it without making enquiries. The defence is also not available to people who act illegally, as in
144:
Equitable tracing's greatest strength is its ability to trace into mixtures of money. Different rules apply in different situations; where the money has been mixed with the money of a trustee, where a trust fund has been mixed with another trust fund (or money belonging to an innocent volunteer), and
173:
to that of the volunteer; each has an equal claim to their funds. Whether the fund decreases or increases in value, each party can claim a percentage equal to their contribution. The problem here comes if the mixed funds are used in unequal chunks to acquire other property. The long-standing rule is
135:
relationship between the claimant and the defendant. If the property was transferred through breach of trust, it will not be necessary to establish such a relationship, because it already exists. In addition, property transferred through breach of trust may be traced to any third party (other than a
76:
defined them by saying that " are both exercises in locating assets which may or may be taken to represent an asset belonging to the and to which they assert ownership. The process of following and tracing are, however, distinct. Following is the process of following the same asset as it moves from
267:
it was held that backwards tracing is not allowed where the trustee uses the money to pay off a loan, and thereby acquires unencumbered title to whatever was bought with the loan. You cannot backwards trace an asset which was acquired before the breach of trust unless there is co-ordination between
247:
Tracing can be barred in three types of situations. One is where property is in the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. This is when someone buys trust property with good faith not knowing that it is trust property, and provides value for it, then it cannot be traced into their
46:
Defences to tracing are possible, particularly if returning the property would harm an innocent defendant, where the claimant has made false representations that the defendant relied on to his detriment, or where the property has been transferred to an innocent third party without anything given to
148:
The alternate approach taken is the "beneficiary election" approach. This is that where trust funds are wrongly mixed with the trustee's personal funds, used for an investment, and the money is thus not recoverable, the beneficiaries are allowed to "elect" whether the investment is to be held as a
38:
Tracing is divided into two forms, common law tracing and equitable tracing. Common law tracing relies on the claimant having legal ownership of the property, and will fail if the property has been mixed with other property, the legal title has been transferred to the defendant, or the legal title
262:
Backwards tracing applies where the asset was acquired before the breach of trust, and trust money is used to pay off a loan used to buy the asset. It is only allowed if there is 'co-ordination' between the acquisition of the asset and the breach of trust. The trustee must have borrowed the money
102:
there as no mixing of property (In a bank account or otherwise) with any other property, so the property was reclaimed. It is also essential that the involuntary transfer did not also transfer the legal title, nor any succeeding transfer. If this has happened, the property is also not recoverable
97:
Common law tracing is where the claimant seeks to identify property that belongs to him at common law. This is where physical possession of the property passes, but not legal ownership. The problem with common law tracing is that the property must be identifiable; if it has been mixed with other
234:
by representation". This is similar to "change of position", and comes about when the defendant can show that the claimant made some false representation to him, which he acted upon to his detriment. Traditionally, the entire property would be the defendant's if the defence was successful. In
248:
hands. Another is where the property has been dissipated or destroyed, for example when money has all been spent on living expenses. Lastly, if the money has been used to improve the land; in that case, it is inequitable to trace, and the beneficiaries cannot assert any property claim. In
209:
The right to trace may be lost if the property cannot be found, or no longer exists. Defences to tracing are possible. The "change of position" defence is where the defendant has received property and giving it back would change his personal circumstances. This was concisely defined by
218:
as "Where an innocent defendant's position is so changed that he will suffer an injustice if called upon to repay or to repay in full, the injustice of requiring him so to repay outweighs the injustice of denying the plaintiff restitution". Such a defence is closely linked with
200:
declared that a constructive trust would be created when the recipient of the funds became aware of the mistaken transfer. As such, ignorance of the mistake would not create a fiduciary relationship, therefore not a trust, and the property would be untraceable.
182:
idea; whatever the total property is worth, the claimants get a share proportionate to their input, without assuming that the first claimant's money is tied to the first property purchased and the second claimant's money to the second property. In
22:
used to identify property (such as money) which has been taken from the claimant involuntarily or which the claimant wishes to recover. It is not in itself a way to recover the property, but rather to identify it so that the courts can decide what
227:. Activity which constitutes a "change of position" can be broadly defined as taking steps which would not otherwise have been taken, or not taking steps which otherwise would have been taken, as a result of receiving the property.
119:
Equitable tracing is based not on legal ownership but on the claimant's possession of an equitable interest. There are several advantages to equitable tracing; first, it can trace property now mixed with other property. In
55:
Tracing is a process that allows for the recovery of original property (such as land or money) by the owner if it is taken involuntarily, and the owner has not consented to the transfer of title. This can be through
111:, cannot recover the money under common law. Due to these limitations, "many leading academics and judges" have suggested that common law tracing should be completely merged with equitable tracing.
187:, the Court of Appeal applied a similar set of principles, holding that the size of the contribution and the amount of time the money was part of the mixed fund were the factors to be considered.
149:
security for the amounts owed to them, or whether to take the unauthorised investment as part of the trust fund. This is considered the exception, rather than the rule; in
127:
For equitable tracing to be valid, several things must be demonstrated. First, the equitable title must exist; it can be brought into existence by the courts, such as in
192:
161:
Where funds are mixed with those of another trust, or mixed with the funds of an "innocent volunteer", certain general principles apply. As laid out in
39:
has been transferred by the defendant to any further recipient of the property. Equitable tracing, on the other hand, relies on the claimant having an
89:
for breach of trust; tracing is merely the process of identifying the property. It is then up to the courts to decide what will happen to it.
432:
27:
to apply. The procedure is used in several situations, broadly demarcated by whether the property has been transferred because of
98:
property, such as money paid into an account with other money from a different source, it cannot be successfully recovered. In
671:
128:
32:
287:
190:
Where payments have been made by mistake claimants may or may not be able to recoup their losses. The leading case is
693:
719:
724:
729:
175:
65:
68:, tracing by the seller may be required. The process has two steps, following and tracing. In
714:
197:
734:
57:
28:
8:
43:
in the property, and can succeed where the property has been mixed with other property.
104:
40:
689:
667:
220:
681:
290:, last updated 9 April 1999, archived 26 April 2005, accessed 18 November 2022
708:
86:
82:
73:
24:
263:
with the intention, at the time, of using trust money to discharge it. In
61:
250:
169:
163:
78:
211:
132:
231:
167:, the principle applied is that the claimant's entitlement ranks
47:
the defendant in return that the claimant could recover in lieu.
139:
647:
Federal
Republic of Brazil v Durant International Corporation
265:
Federal
Republic of Brazil v Durant International Corporation
204:
661:
193:
Westdeutsche
Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC
16:
Procedure to identify property taken from a claimant
237:
268:the acquisition of asset and the breach of trust.
706:
156:
433:Trustee of FC Jones and Son (a firm) v Jones
288:Reservation of Title: Can the Seller Trace?
140:Mixture of trust funds with trustee's funds
662:Edwards, Richard; Nigel Stockwell (2007).
107:in the property but no legal title, as in
316:
314:
92:
282:
280:
205:Loss of the right to trace and defences
131:. Secondly, there must be some kind of
707:
680:
242:
103:under the common law. Someone with an
688:(6th ed.). Routledge-Cavendish.
311:
185:Barlow Clowes International v Vaughan
20:Tracing is a procedure in English law
277:
114:
13:
14:
746:
666:(8th ed.). Pearson Longman.
655:
640:
628:
619:
610:
601:
592:
583:
574:
565:
556:
547:
538:
529:
520:
511:
502:
493:
484:
475:
466:
457:
448:
439:
425:
416:
407:
398:
389:
380:
371:
362:
350:
341:
332:
323:
302:
293:
225:Barros Mattos v MacDaniels Ltd
109:MCC Proceeds v Lehman Brothers
1:
271:
50:
230:Another defence is that of "
157:Innocent parties and mistake
7:
357:FC Jones & Sons v Jones
100:FC Jones & Sons v Jones
10:
751:
66:retention of title clause
216:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale
198:Lord Browne-Wilkinson
93:Tracing in common law
720:English property law
445:Edwards (2007) p.482
422:Edwards (2007) p.481
377:Edwards (2007) p.479
347:Edwards (2007) p.478
338:Edwards (2007) p.477
174:that established in
625:Hudson (2009) p.864
616:Hudson (2009) p.863
598:Hudson (2009) p.857
580:Hudson (2009) p.855
571:Hudson (2009) p.854
562:Hudson (2009) p.837
553:Hudson (2009) p.835
535:Hudson (2009) p.832
517:Hudson (2009) p.831
499:Hudson (2009) p.828
490:Hudson (2009) p.826
472:Hudson (2009) p.825
463:Hudson (2009) p.824
454:Hudson (2009) p.823
413:Hudson (2009) p.822
404:Hudson (2009) p.819
386:Hudson (2009) p.815
329:Hudson (2009) p.813
320:Hudson (2009) p.812
299:Hudson (2009) p.807
243:Barriers to tracing
129:Constructive trusts
725:English trusts law
105:equitable interest
41:equitable interest
730:Judicial remedies
686:Equity and Trusts
673:978-1-4058-4684-4
664:Trusts and Equity
286:Parry, R. M. A.,
258:Backwards tracing
221:unjust enrichment
151:Foskett v McKeown
115:Tracing in equity
70:Foskett v McKeown
742:
699:
682:Hudson, Alastair
677:
650:
644:
638:
632:
626:
623:
617:
614:
608:
605:
599:
596:
590:
587:
581:
578:
572:
569:
563:
560:
554:
551:
545:
542:
536:
533:
527:
524:
518:
515:
509:
508:(1816) 1 Mer 572
506:
500:
497:
491:
488:
482:
479:
473:
470:
464:
461:
455:
452:
446:
443:
437:
429:
423:
420:
414:
411:
405:
402:
396:
393:
387:
384:
378:
375:
369:
366:
360:
354:
348:
345:
339:
336:
330:
327:
321:
318:
309:
306:
300:
297:
291:
284:
122:Boscawen v Bajwa
750:
749:
745:
744:
743:
741:
740:
739:
705:
704:
696:
674:
658:
653:
645:
641:
633:
629:
624:
620:
615:
611:
606:
602:
597:
593:
588:
584:
579:
575:
570:
566:
561:
557:
552:
548:
543:
539:
534:
530:
525:
521:
516:
512:
507:
503:
498:
494:
489:
485:
480:
476:
471:
467:
462:
458:
453:
449:
444:
440:
430:
426:
421:
417:
412:
408:
403:
399:
394:
390:
385:
381:
376:
372:
367:
363:
355:
351:
346:
342:
337:
333:
328:
324:
319:
312:
307:
303:
298:
294:
285:
278:
274:
245:
207:
159:
142:
117:
95:
62:breach of trust
53:
33:breach of trust
17:
12:
11:
5:
748:
738:
737:
732:
727:
722:
717:
701:
700:
694:
678:
672:
657:
654:
652:
651:
639:
627:
618:
609:
600:
591:
582:
573:
564:
555:
546:
537:
528:
519:
510:
501:
492:
483:
474:
465:
456:
447:
438:
424:
415:
406:
397:
388:
379:
370:
361:
349:
340:
331:
322:
310:
301:
292:
275:
273:
270:
244:
241:
206:
203:
176:Clayton's Case
158:
155:
141:
138:
116:
113:
94:
91:
85:. It is not a
52:
49:
35:, or mistake.
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
747:
736:
733:
731:
728:
726:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
712:
710:
703:
697:
695:0-415-49771-X
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
669:
665:
660:
659:
648:
643:
637:Ch 465, 546-8
636:
631:
622:
613:
604:
595:
586:
577:
568:
559:
550:
541:
532:
523:
514:
505:
496:
487:
478:
469:
460:
451:
442:
436:EWCA Civ 1324
435:
434:
428:
419:
410:
401:
392:
383:
374:
365:
358:
353:
344:
335:
326:
317:
315:
305:
296:
289:
283:
281:
276:
269:
266:
260:
259:
255:
253:
252:
240:
238:
233:
228:
226:
222:
217:
213:
202:
199:
195:
194:
188:
186:
181:
177:
172:
171:
166:
165:
154:
152:
146:
137:
134:
130:
125:
123:
112:
110:
106:
101:
90:
88:
84:
80:
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
48:
44:
42:
36:
34:
30:
26:
21:
715:Equity (law)
702:
685:
663:
656:Bibliography
646:
642:
634:
630:
621:
612:
603:
594:
589:3 All ER 299
585:
576:
567:
558:
549:
540:
531:
522:
513:
504:
495:
486:
477:
468:
459:
450:
441:
431:
427:
418:
409:
400:
391:
382:
373:
368:4 All ER 675
364:
356:
352:
343:
334:
325:
304:
295:
264:
261:
257:
256:
249:
246:
236:
229:
224:
215:
208:
191:
189:
184:
179:
168:
162:
160:
150:
147:
143:
126:
121:
118:
108:
99:
96:
74:Lord Millett
69:
54:
45:
37:
19:
18:
735:Restitution
395:4 Al ER 769
709:Categories
635:Re Diplock
526:4 AllER 22
272:References
251:Re Diplock
180:pari passu
170:pari passu
164:Re Diplock
79:common law
51:Definition
212:Lord Goff
133:fiduciary
684:(2009).
308:1 AC 102
232:estoppel
196:, where
649:UKPC 35
607:QB 1286
692:
670:
544:AC 669
481:Ch 465
359:Ch 159
87:remedy
83:equity
25:remedy
58:theft
29:theft
690:ISBN
668:ISBN
81:and
214:in
711::
313:^
279:^
72:,
60:,
31:,
698:.
676:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.