1. The legal place associating to the tracing of financess that are held on trust is complicated and has been the topic of many tribunal instances. As a general regulation, a victim ( in this instance the beneficiaries’ trusts themselves ) will hold to convert the tribunals that there should be a constructive trust over the belongings that the victim ab initio owned. With a trust, there is the demand for certainty of capable affair which can do troubles where the financess have been mixed, either with financess from other people or with the trustee’s himself. This has happened with the financess of both the Valhalla Trust and the Parsifal Trust. Due to this the donees will hold to trust on the regulations of following to set up their right to the financess.

In this instance, the financess from both of the trusts have been mixed with financess belonging to Jack and for this ground the common jurisprudence of following would be uneffective. In order to utilize the regulation of following under common jurisprudence, the financess can non be placed into assorted histories ; hence, this class of action is unavailable to the donees.

Furthermore, both sets of donees will hold to trust on the regulation of equity to claim rights over the financess. It is possible for the donees to claim either proprietorship or personal rights over the financess. Where the financess have increased in value, the donees would make best to choose a proprietary claim as this operates in a manner that means the donees still own the assets and any net incomes deducing from it. A personal claim would let the donees to claim the original sum merely, i.e. the donees of the Valhalla trust would be claiming refund of the ?12,500 and the donees of the Parsifal would be claiming refund of their ?15,000.

In order to follow the financess in equity, there are several points that the donees of both financess will hold to turn out. First, that there was an initial fiduciary relationship which should turn out easy given that an obvious trust relationship exists. Second, the belongings must be in traceable signifier. The state of affairs here is one of assorted financess ( with a little component of net income from the purchase of the portions in X Co, amounting to a entire net income of ?715 ) . Where the trust financess have been mixed with the trustee’s ain money in a bank history with some sums being paid out, the general regulation is that the trustee’s monies are deemed to hold been used first [ 1 ] . Therefore, based on this regulation, it would be deemed that the ?2,488 which Jack originally had in his history would hold been used to buy the portions in X Co. As these portions made a net income, the regulation in Re Oatway [ 2 ] would use which allows the donees to relinquish this right in favor of the trust holding a charge over the bank account’s fund and the traceable belongings ( i.e. the portions ) .

When following belongings in equity, there are two cardinal defense mechanisms which may forestall the donees from following certain parts of the financess. The chief defense mechanism is that the financess have been innocently passed on to another and that it would be unfair to let the donees to obtain damages of the plus. For illustration, in this instance, the financess were used to pay a sedimentation on William’s house and to pay for a broach for Doreen. If William and Doreen were guiltless and did non cognize that the financess used were non financess belonging to Jack, so it would be improbable that the tribunal would let for the damages of these assets. If the ?10,000 sedimentation has non yet been converted into a belongings plus, so the tribunals might hold it just to hold the ?10,000 returned to the bank history.

As Jack has now been deemed belly-up, the donees would take case in point over other unbarred creditors by virtuousness of the trust over the assets. It is besides more likely that the tribunal will see it as just to necessitate the return of the sedimentation paid to William as this is in hard currency signifier and has non been converted to another plus.

The donees of both the trusts will hold to trust on the just regulation of following. This would let the donees to set up a right to all of the hard currency that remains in the bank history ( as it can be argued that Jack used his ain financess foremost to pay for his mortgage, vacation, etc. ) . The donees can besides claim following over the hard currency passed to William for his house sedimentation and Doreen’s broach, if the tribunals deem it just to make so. The net incomes from the portions in X Co will besides be deemed to belong to the donees due to the nature of the fiducial relationship that existed between Jack and the legal guardians. The donees can besides claim an involvement over the portions in X Co under the regulations of following. Although Jack is in bankruptcy, the donees will rank in front of many other creditors ; nevertheless, this may promote them to claim proprietary involvement instead than personal which would ensue in an award of amendss merely.

2. Under Section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925, it would be held that Wendy and Henry had entered into a mortgage with Quick Bank. When a bank forwards a loan in exchange for security over a belongings, it is granted certain rights over the belongings such as the right to take ownership of the belongings and the ability to sell the belongings if the borrower commits certain events of default.

Where the mortgage is on a residential belongings, as is the instance with Quick Bank, there are certain protections put in topographic point to guarantee that borrowers do non automatically lose their place if they default on the refunds. Where a mortgager falls into arrears, every chance is given to them to guarantee that they have the chance to do good the default and that the bank taking ownership is in fact a state of affairs of last resort.

Here, Quick Bank has obtained ownership of the residential belongings by force. There are set processs in topographic point that require Quick Bank to obtain a ownership order from the tribunal in order to take ownership of the belongings. Where it is felt by the tribunal that the mortgager would hold the ability to refund the arrears in relation to a residential belongings, the tribunal will usually prorogue the order of ownership to let for such rectification to happen. Whilst there has been some argument as to whether the mortgagers would hold to be able to pay the whole of the loan in order to detain a ownership order, it has now been established by the 1973 Administration of Justice Act that the tribunal need merely be satisfied that the mortgager can refund the arrears within a sensible period of clip.

Although Quick Bank did inform Wendy and Henry that they intended to take ownership of the belongings, this was non followed up appropriately by obtaining a tribunal order for ownership. It should be noted that whilst it is non indispensable for a loaner to obtain ownership to hold sold the belongings, this would be the normal class of action to let the belongings to gain its full possible inquiring monetary value upon sale, as belongings in vacant ownership will about ever achieve a higher sale monetary value. A power of sale would originate if Quick Bank had given notice of arrears ( which they have done ) and payment had still non been forthcoming after three months. As Wendy and Henry have merely really been off on vacation for four hebdomads, the needed three months have non passed, intending that Quick Bank did non hold the power of sale over the belongings. As Wendy and Henry were in default, the power of sale has in fact arisen. Therefore, the sale would stay valid and they would non be able to obtain the return of their belongings, but they would be able to take action against Quick Bank for breach of their duties.

When selling a belongings the loaner, in this instance Quick Bank, will be required to move with good religion and to obtain a sensible sale monetary value. This does non intend waiting until the market improves or acquiring the absolute best monetary value, simply a sensible monetary value.

In relation to the concern belongings, the place is different. The same rules of mortgage and the rights attached to the mortgage exist. However, in this instance Henry is non in arrears to Grabbit Bank and it can non, hence, lawfully commence orders for ownership. With a concern belongings, the tribunals are much more inclined to publish an order for ownership and, as such, Henry should guarantee that he does non default on any loan secured on his concern belongings. There are perchance other events of default within the loan certification between Grabbit Bank and Henry and these paperss should be analysed carefully to guarantee that this is non the instance.

3. A fiducial relationship exists where one individual has a responsibility to move for the benefit of another. This fiducial relationship is normally seen in the instance of a trust where the legal guardians manage the assets but for the benefit of the donees of the plus. Central to the construct of a fiducial relationship is faith and assurance. A fiducial relationship can be established in a scope of fortunes, although it will ever necessitate both assurance to be given and assurance to be accepted by the fiducial.

The tribunals have non set a conclusive definition of when precisely a fiducial relationship exists. Some relationships are widely accepted as fiducial such as the relationship between agent and principal and between attorney and client. Other relationships are non as obvious, but the tribunals will use the construct of a fiducial relationship widely, wherever the exchange of assurance has occurred.

This is of import as a fiducial is under a responsibility to act in a certain manner and failure to make so will ensue in the wronged party being able to raise a scope of redresss against the fiducial.

One of the common countenances used against fiduciaries is to necessitate the fiducial to account for net incomes. Accounting for net incomes is an just redress that requires the fiducial to pay over any net incomes that he has made as a consequence of transgressing his responsibility as a fiducial. For illustration, if a legal guardian purchases portions with trust money that are against the will of the donees, but these portions so do a net income, it would be unjust to let him to maintain those net incomes. Alternatively, he would be required to account for these net incomes to the donees to forestall unfair enrichment with the net incomes of the breach.

The broad application of when a fiducial relationship exists can do troubles for those who unwittingly find themselves in a place where they are being trusted. This flexibleness can do troubles as the fiduciary has certain duties and must act in a peculiar manner. Therefore, it should be clear to the fiducial when he is set abouting his function as a fiducial.

However, the demand to account for net incomes is purely applied and is based on just rules. This is an of import counter protection for fiduciaries that are required to exert their discretion ; if the liability to account for net incomes were besides purely applied, this might curtail the manner in which the fiduciaries exercise their discretion, therefore holding a restrictive consequence on the direction of the assets. Following just rules allows the right balance of flexibleness and control to be maintained.

4. The rule of undue influence is frequently used as a defense mechanism against the repossession of a belongings. One spouse may claim that the loan or mortgage was taken out based on the undue influence of the other spouse.

This rule was established in the Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge [ 3 ] instance. It was held in this instance that for the defense mechanism of undue influence to be effectual, it is necessary for the party claiming undue influence to turn out that they were influenced and that the influence is undue.

Prior to this instance, there was a given that undue influence existed in the normal class of a bank warrant secured by a mortgage. This has now been removed ; nevertheless, loaners are required to follow certain processs to turn out that the footings have been wholly understood by the borrowers. A farther eroding of the defense mechanism was made in the Glanville instance [ 4 ] where the tribunal held that it was up to the claimant to turn out that there had been undue influence and non for the loaner to demo that there was no undue influence. Where undue influence can be proven, the contract becomes rescindable.

There have been several instances where the tribunals have been required to make up one’s mind on whether or non there has been undue influence. In Allcard V Skinner [ 5 ] , it was held that undue influence had to affect “some signifier of cheating” or “some unjust and improper conduct” .

In certain limited fortunes there is a presumed undue influence ; for illustration, in the relationship of parent and kid [ 6 ] , canvasser and client [ 7 ] and legal guardian and beneficiary [ 8 ] . In these instances, it will be necessary for the suspect to turn out that no undue influence was exercised, i.e. independent advice was sought, otherwise the contract will be automatically considered rescindable.

Certain relationships do non give rise to a given of undue influence such as the relationship between banker and loaner and the relationship of hubby and married woman. This deficiency of given in the instance of a banker and a loaner is a cardinal failing in the defense mechanism of undue influence. In utmost instances where the loaner has put all of his trust in the bank, there may be a given, although this happens merely in utmost instances. By neglecting to assume undue influence automatically in the instance of banker and loaner, it is hard for the vulnerable to turn out undue influence and, hence, derive the necessary protection.

The place as it presently stands is excessively indulgent on the loaners and does non offer the necessary degree of protection to susceptible borrowers.