Similarly where trust money or property has been mixed with other funds, the beneficiaries have the right to a proportionate share of the property acquired with the mixed fund or an equitable charge (or lien) over the property mixture, to secure their claim. This was made clear by the House of Lords in [ case ]which rejected Re Hallett’s Estate (1880) 13 Ch D 696 as apparent authority for a claimant only having a charge over property of the defendant fiduciary that had been purchased with mixed money.
Answer
Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102
Tags
#equity #law #tracing
Question
Similarly where trust money or property has been mixed with other funds, the beneficiaries have the right to a proportionate share of the property acquired with the mixed fund or an equitable charge (or lien) over the property mixture, to secure their claim. This was made clear by the House of Lords in [ case ]which rejected Re Hallett’s Estate (1880) 13 Ch D 696 as apparent authority for a claimant only having a charge over property of the defendant fiduciary that had been purchased with mixed money.
Answer
?
Tags
#equity #law #tracing
Question
Similarly where trust money or property has been mixed with other funds, the beneficiaries have the right to a proportionate share of the property acquired with the mixed fund or an equitable charge (or lien) over the property mixture, to secure their claim. This was made clear by the House of Lords in [ case ]which rejected Re Hallett’s Estate (1880) 13 Ch D 696 as apparent authority for a claimant only having a charge over property of the defendant fiduciary that had been purchased with mixed money.
Answer
Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it funds, the beneficiaries have the right to a proportionate share of the property acquired with the mixed fund or an equitable charge (or lien) over the property mixture, to secure their claim. This was made clear by the House of Lords in <span>Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 which rejected Re Hallett’s Estate (1880) 13 Ch D 696 as apparent authority for a claimant only having a charge over property of the defendant fiduciary that had been purchased with mi
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.