Anthony Gold

Get in touch

020 7940 4060

  • People
  • Insights
  • What to Expect
  • Contact Us
Anthony Gold
  • Services
    • Housing And Property Disputes
      • Property Disputes
      • Leasehold Services
      • Services For Commercial Landlords, Tenants And Agents
      • Services For Residential Landlords And Agents
      • Housing And Tenancy Issues
      • Judicial Review
    • Injury And Medical Claims
      • Life Changing Injuries
      • Medical Claims
      • Personal Injury
      • Child Abuse
    • Family And Relationships
      • Starting Relationships
      • Ending Relationships
      • After Relationships End
      • Useful Contacts
      • Religious & Cultural Issues
      • Family Law FAQs
      • Family Dispute Resolution
      • Modern Families And Surrogacy Arrangements
    • Conveyancing, Property & Business Services
      • Business Agreements
      • Business Disagreements
      • Commercial Property
      • Commercial Property Disputes
      • Leasehold Services
      • Residential Property
    • Wills, Estates & Court Of Protection
      • Wills, Trusts And Estates
      • Claims Against Trusts And Estates
      • Capacity And Court Of Protection
    • Dispute Resolution & Employment Law
      • Personal Claims
      • Professional Negligence
      • Business Disagreements
      • Claims Against Trusts And Estates
      • Employment
    • People
    • Insights
    • What to Expect
    • Contact Us
  • Get in touch

    020 7940 4060

  • Housing and Property Disputes
  • Injury and Medical Claims
  • Family and Relationships
  • Conveyancing, Property & Business Services
  • Wills, Estates & Court of Protection
  • Dispute Resolution & Employment Law
  • Property disputes
  • Ownership disputes and shares in property
  • Challenging the decisions of councils and public bodies
  • Rights of way, boundaries, covenants and easements
  • Party wall disputes
  • Leasehold services
  • Lease extension
  • Collective enfranchisement
  • Service charge disputes
  • Repairs to leaseholds
  • Right to manage
  • Services for commercial landlords, tenants and agents
  • Breach of covenant
  • Forfeiture and recovery of possession
  • Dilapidations and failing to repair
  • Lease renewals
  • Services for residential landlords and agents
  • Regulatory issues
  • Repossession
  • Agents (including letting agreements)
  • Housing and tenancy issues
  • Repairs
  • Repossession and eviction
  • Rehousing and homelessness
  • Judicial review
  • Life changing injuries
  • Brain injury
  • Spinal cord injury
  • Amputation
  • Psychiatric injury
  • Fatal injuries and inquests
  • Medical claims
  • Surgical claims
  • Non-Surgical Claims
  • Birth injury
  • Child health and paediatrics
  • GP and primary care treatment
  • Private healthcare
  • Personal injury
  • Road traffic accidents
  • Accidents abroad
  • Accidents at work
  • Faulty products
  • Public liability and other accidents
  • Child abuse
  • Child abuse
  • Starting relationships
  • Pre nuptial agreements
  • Pre civil partnership and same sex relationship agreements
  • Cohabitation and living together agreements
  • Property ownership agreements
  • Ending relationships
  • Divorce and separation
  • Ending a civil partnership
  • Ending cohabitation
  • Agreeing child arrangements
  • Agreeing finance and assets
  • International arrangements
  • After relationships end
  • Abduction and leave to remove children
  • Changing and challenging parenting agreements
  • Changing and challenging financial agreements
  • Grandparents’ rights
  • Useful Contacts
  • Financial planners
  • Referral to Pension Actuaries and Pension on Divorce Experts (PODEs)
  • Tax Specialists
  • Financial Neutrals
  • Counselling
  • Conveyancing
  • Wills
  • Religious & cultural issues
  • Jewish family law
  • Islamic family law
  • Family Law FAQs
  • Children FAQs
  • Cohabitation Agreement FAQs
  • No-Fault Divorce and Separation FAQs
  • Financial Issues FAQs
  • Pre-Marital Contracts FAQs
  • Family Dispute Resolution
  • Roundtable Meetings
  • One Solicitor Solution
  • Mediation
  • Collaborative Practice
  • Arbitration
  • Second Opinions
  • Private FDR’s
  • Early Neutral Evaluation (‘ENE’)
  • Modern Families and Surrogacy Arrangements
  • Domestic Surrogacy
  • International Surrogacy
  • Business agreements
  • Business advice
  • Employment
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Supplier contracts
  • Business disagreements
  • Commercial property
  • Commercial Sale and Purchases
  • Commercial loans and mortgages
  • Property Investment: plot developers & plot buyers
  • Auction: sales and purchases
  • Commercial advice for landlords and tenants
  • Planning advice
  • Mortgage debentures and securities
  • Commercial property disputes
  • Breach of covenant
  • Dilapidations and failing to repair
  • Forfeiture and recovery of possession
  • Lease renewals
  • Leasehold services
  • Lease extension
  • Collective enfranchisement
  • Service charge disputes
  • Repairs to leaseholds
  • Right to manage
  • Residential property
  • Residential Sale and Purchases
  • Property Investment: plot developers & plot buyers
  • Remortgages
  • Auction: sales and purchases
  • Ownership matters and transfers
  • Wills, trusts and estates
  • Making a will
  • Applying for probate
  • Distributing the estate
  • Arranging lasting power of attorney
  • Trust advice
  • Tax planning and advice
  • Claims against trusts and estates
  • Contesting a will
  • Losses caused by trustees
  • Capacity and court of protection
  • Appointing a deputy
  • Removing a deputy
  • Arranging lasting power of attorney
  • Gifts and legacies
  • Managing assets under a deputyship
  • Care issues
  • Removing lasting and enduring power of attorney
  • Special educational needs
  • Capacity and court of protection
  • Personal claims
  • Debt recovery
  • Ownership disputes and shares in property
  • Civil and commercial mediation
  • Building disputes
  • Professional negligence
  • Professional Negligence
  • Property Fraud
  • Investment Fraud
  • Business disagreements
  • Building disputes
  • Civil and commercial mediation
  • Claims against directors
  • Contract disputes
  • Debt recovery
  • Directors personal liabilities
  • Employment
  • Professional negligence
  • Claims against trusts and estates
  • Contesting a will
  • Losses caused by trustees
  • Employment
  • Employment
  • Unfair or Wrongful Dismissal
  • Settlement Agreements
Anthony Gold > Blog > Will a limitation defence for fraudulent breach of trust aid an innocent trustee?

Beth Holden

beth.holden@anthonygold.co.uk

Share
  • December 2, 2020
  • Blog
  • By  Beth Holden 
  • 0 comments

Will a limitation defence for fraudulent breach of trust aid an innocent trustee?


The recent High Court judgment in Lord Bishop of Leeds v Dixon Coles & Gill [2020] EWHC 2809 (Ch) deals with several issues that will be of interest to solicitors and insurers faced with liability to account for fraudulent acts of a solicitor in partnership.

But for the purpose of this article, I am looking at the way the judge approached the application of the Limitation Act 1980 to breaches of trust by the fraudulent solicitor over a period of several years.

The solicitor in question was a Mrs Box who was a partner in the (now closed) firm of Dixon Coles & Gill (DCG). Over a period of several years Mrs Box had stolen money from various clients. She successfully covered her tracks so that her partners, Mr Gill and Mrs Wilding, had no knowledge of the fraud on their clients’ money until a shock discovery was made on Christmas Eve in 2015 that client money had been misappropriated by Mrs Box.

The claimants, who were clients of DCG and victims of theft by Mrs Box, applied to the Court for damages from the other partners for breach of trust. On an application for summary judgment for an account for the missing funds and interim payment, the court heard that 4 conveyancing transactions, where funds were misappropriated, took place more than 6 years before the claim was issued. Accordingly, Mr Gill and Mrs Wilding contended that the summary judgment should not be entered as there was a prospect of a limitation defence argument.

The Court considered the provision in section 21 of the Limitation Act 1980 (the Act) which provides that:

“(1) No period of limitation prescribed by this Act shall apply to an action by a beneficiary under a trust, being an action –

(a) in respect of any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was a party or privy; or

(b) to recover from the trustee trust property or the proceeds of trust property in the possession of the trustee, or previously received by him and converted to his use. …

(3) Subject to the preceding provisions of this section, an action by a beneficiary to recover trust property or in respect of any breach of trust, not being an action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by any other provision of this Act, shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the right of action accrued. For the purposes of this subsection, the right of action shall not be treated as having accrued to any beneficiary entitled to a future interest in the property until the interest fell into possession.”

Section 23 Limitation Act 1980 provides that: “An action for an account shall not be brought after the expiration of any time limit under this Act which is applicable to the claim which is the basis of the duty to account”.

The Court found that it was clear that there is no separate limitation period in respect of the remedy of an account; it found that the limitation period is determined by the underlying cause of action.

As to that, the Court considered the position in Lewin on Trusts 20th edition paragraphs 50-009 to the effect that:

“An action against an innocent trustee liable for the fraud of his co-trustee, though not a party or privy to it is not within section 21(1)(a) and accordingly can be barred by lapse of time. The same applies where the fraud is that of the trustee’s solicitor or other agent. But an action against a trustee based on the fraud of the trustee’s employee or partner (Judge’s emphasis) seems to be within the section.”

The Judge found that although the authors of Lewin had probably come to the right decision by the wrong route (in relying on Moore v Knight [1891] 1 Ch 547 which was not actually authority for breach of trust) it was good authority in support of the contention that co-partners fall within the ambit of s21(1)(a) as being “party or privy” to the acts of the fraudulent partner so that no limitation to the claim applies.

The Judge found that Mr Gill and Mrs Wilding were not able to claim the protection of the Act because they are deemed to be “party or privy” to the fraudulent acts of Mrs Box by reason of their partnership status. The Judge had already established earlier in the judgment in connection with the conveyancing transactions in question, that the co-partners were fixed with a direct liability in respect of Mrs Box’s fraud by virtue of the Partnership Act. This deemed them to be “party or privy” to her acts in the context of section 21 and thereby deprived them of the limitation defence within the Act.

It must be remembered that the application before the Court was for summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24 and therefore the question for the Judge was not whether there was in fact a limitation defence, but whether it was sufficiently arguable that there was one. The Judge found that there was no realistic prospect of the co-partners arguing that the limitation defence applied, given the effect of the Partnership Act in fixing them with liability for Mrs Box’s errant acts.

The Judge went on to observe that even if he was wrong about that the provisions of section 32(1)(a) or (b) of the Act allow for an extension of the usual 6 year limitation where the limitation period begins to run from the date on which the claimant discovers the fraud, concealment or mistake could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. The Judge found that had he concluded that the claims were statute barred, he would have concluded that it was arguable that the claimants could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud; counsel for Mr Gill and Mrs Wilding had argued that if one of the claimants had properly analysed the completion statements provided to them, it would have led to a train of enquiry that would have revealed that Mrs Box was up to no good. The Judge commented that this would have given rise to an arguable case in favour of the limitation defence, but as it was the matter was academic because there was no real prospect of establishing a limitation period in any event.

*Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

Beth Holden

beth.holden@anthonygold.co.uk

Get in touch

Call, email or use a contact form – whichever suits you. We’ll let you know the best person to help you get started.

Call or Email

020 7940 4060

mail@anthonygold.co.uk

No comments

Add your comment

We need your name and email address to make sure you’re a real person. We won’t share your email address with anyone else or send you spam. Please complete fields marked with *.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code

Related Services

  • Architect/ contractors

  • Distributing the estate

  • Contesting a will

  • Losses caused by trustees

  • Gifts and legacies

  • Civil and commercial mediation

  • Building disputes

  • Agreeing finance and assets

About the author

  • Beth Holden

Meet the team

  • Business Services

  • Property Services and Estates

  • Dispute Resolution For Individuals

Contact Us

Request a Call Back

About Us

  • Accessibility
  • Compliance
  • Responsible Business
  • Equality & Diversity
  • History
  • Our Beliefs
  • List of LLP members

Careers

  • Trainee Solicitors
  • Vacancies

Social Media

  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on LinkedIn
  • Follow us on Instagram
  • View our YouTube channel

Online Payments

  • Payment page through Worldpay

Accredited by

Lexel Parctice
76000Award

Copyright © Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP. All rights reserved. Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC433560 and is authorised and regulated by the by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration Number 810601