LLB EQUITY COURSEWORK

LLB Equity Coursework



LLB Equity Coursework

The following paper shall be observing the case of Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd V Tan

Issue

A lawsuit was filed against the director of the company's principal as well as the shareholder stating that he was responsible for knowledgeably assisting on the trustee's part of a fraudulent design.

Later upon appealing again, main concern became to find of the liability of the strangers assisting in the trust breach would be founded in dishonesty of knowledge of the stranger.

Facts

The details of the case were that an airline by the name of Royal Brunei Airlines had permitted a travel agency as their agent. The company had taken the responsibility of selling the tickets for the airline and keep the finances gained from it in a trust for the Royal Brunei. There was a breach of trust by agency because of a failure of using a different account and later the contract was dissolved between them.

Initially, Mr. Tan was found to be guilty by the High Court because he possessed knowledge of the trust of money, which was used thereby being a breach of trust as he had authorized it. This was enough to make him guilty of breach of trust. Later he re-appealed in the Brunei Court of Appeals as well as the Privy Council. Their chief concerns were to find of the liability of the strangers assisting in the trust breach would be founded in dishonesty of knowledge of the stranger.

Rules

Initially, Lord Nicholls, presiding over the Privy Council, observed the case of Barnes v Addy and tried to evaluate the position from this side of the law.

Further cases to be used for the decision in this law were

Fyler v Fyler (1841) 3 Beav 550 at p 568; 49 ER 216 at p 224,

A-G v Leicester Corp (1844) 7 Beav 176 at p 179; 49 ER 1031 at p 1032

Eaves v Hickson (1861) 30 Beav 136; 54 ER 840,

Powell v Thompson [1991] 1 NZLR 597 at pp 610-615

R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053

Hanbury & Martin 1997, p 294

Application

He also analyzed the Fyler v Fyler (1841) 3 Beav 550 at p 568; 49 ER 216 at p 224, Lord Langdale MR and said that in case where trustees invest in investments which are unauthorized, such solicitors who with complete knowledge took it for a personal gain need to be evaluated as someone who has a hand in the trusts' breach in spite of the fact that the investment made shall be advantageous for the tenants' life and not harmful for such beneficiaries who have vested interests in the capital.

The Judge of the last case in the A-G v Leicester Corp (1844) said that in case that it is undisputable if the trustee's agent, corporate or not, with the knowledge of breach being done, assists of interferes in the breach, he becomes answerable personally, even if he is an agent of the breach committing person

Additionally in the case of Eaves v Hickson, such ...