Category: Other

Posted on

Legal principles: Mingling trust funds and onus

Mingling trust funds and onus (from [2018] NSWSC 1987)

  1. The fiduciary obligations arising if a trustee mingles or mixes trust funds with non-trust funds were explained in Cook v Addison(1869) LR 7 Eq 466 (at 470):

It is a well-established doctrine in this court, that if a trustee or agent mixes and confuses the property which he holds in a fiduciary character with his own property, so as that they cannot be separated with perfect accuracy, he is liable for the whole.

  1. This was applied by Ungoed-Thomas J in Re Tilley’s Will Trusts; Burgin v Croad [1967] Ch 1179 who said (at 1183) (citations omitted):

The words in that passage “so as that they cannot be separated with perfect accuracy” are an essential part of the Vice-Chancellor’s proposition, and indeed of the principle of Lupton v White. If a trustee mixes trust assets with his own, the onus is on the trustee to distinguish the separate assets, and to the extent that he fails to do so they belong to the trust.

  1. In Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102; [2000] UKHL 29 Millett LJ said (at 133) (citations omitted):

The rule in equity is to the same effect, as Sir William Page Wood V-C observed in Frith v Cartland: “if a man mixes trust funds with his own, the whole will be treated as the trust property, except so far as he may be able to distinguish what is his own”.

  1. Australian courts have accepted these principles: Brady v Stapleton (1952) 88 CLR 322 at 336-9; [1952] HCA 62 (Dixon CJ and Fullagar J) and Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 109-10; [1984] HCA 64 (Mason J).
  2. In Raulfs v Fishy Bite Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 135 Campbell JA (with Meagher and Barrett JJA agreeing) said (at [95]):

Because Mr Chincotta paid various sums of money not derived from Heperu into the Westpac accounts, Allsop P held at [112] that the funds in that account were a mixture of trust funds and personal funds of the effective defaulting fiduciary, Mr Chincotta. Trust money that passes through a mixed fund can be traced into an asset that is still in existence when a court considers the matter. This arises through application of the principle that a defaulting trustee who withdraws from a mixed fund and dissipates the withdrawal is presumed to have dissipated his own money. Thus, it was open to Heperu to trace the trust funds from the mixed fund into any asset that had been purchased from the mixed fund: Scott v Scott (1963) 109 CLR 649 at 664. Further, if a withdrawal from the mixed fund was used to discharge a mortgage over real estate, tracing into that real estate could be effected by reason of Heperu being subrogated to the proprietary right of the mortgagee whose mortgage was paid out: Boscawen v Bajwa [1996] 1 WLR 328 at 340-1; Heperu v Belle at [135].

Posted on

Novel duty of care

An interesting decision of the NSW Court of Appeal on the topic of recognition of a novel duty or care.

Ibrahimi v Commonwealth of Australia [2018] NSWCA 321

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from Mr Ibrahimi, representing a class of persons, against the Commonwealth of Australia concerning an alleged breach of duty of care owed to the plaintiffs during the shipwrecking of the boat on which they were travelling, SIEV 221, off the coast of Christmas Island in December 2010.

The Court (Payne JA, Meagher JA and Simpson AJA agreeing) (consistent with the primary finding at first instance) held that any alleged duty could not arise under the established categories of duty. Rather, any duty would have to arise as a novel duty of care, in which case the application of the salient features test is the correct approach.

On the facts of he case, there was no relevant reliance by the group members on the Commonwealth which would give rise to the relevant vulnerability, nor did the Commonwealth have control over the risk to the the group members in the relevant sense. In addition, there is no expectation placed on public authorities, of which the Commonwealth was one, of general reliance: that an entity will properly perform its public or private function.

It is important to note that this particular case dealt with potential harms flowing from omissions by a public authority, not from positive acts by such public authority. These aspects operate to mitigate against imposing a duty of care of a novel kind.

Finally, a $2 coin to the primary judge, on a difficult legal issue and emotionally charged issue, who was correct to reject case brought by Mr Ibrahimi.

Posted on

How to construe an insurance policy

From: Muriniti; Newell v Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 311 beginning at [39]

Legal principles

The principles governing the construction of insurance policies are well established and were not in dispute. In McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (2000) 203 CLR 579; [2000] HCA 65, Gleeson CJ stated, at [22]:

“A policy of insurance, even one required by statute, is a commercial contract and should be given a businesslike interpretation. Interpreting a commercial document requires attention to the language used by the parties, the commercial circumstances which the document addresses, and the objects which it is intended to secure.” (footnotes omitted)

This statement was cited with approval by the High Court in Wilkie v Gordian Runoff (2005) 221 CLR 522; [2005] HCA 17 at [15], the Court adding, at [16]:

“In construing the policy, as with other instruments, preference is given to a construction supplying a congruent operation to the various components of the whole.” (footnote omitted)

In Zhang v ROC Services (NSW) Pty Ltd; National Transport Insurance by its manager NTI Ltd v Zhang (2016) 93 NSWLR 561; [2016] NSWCA 370 Leeming JA observed, at [86]:

“Where there is more than one available legal meaning, a court looks at the text, context and purpose, with a view to determining which potential meaning best accords with those considerations. Sometimes, text, context and purpose all point in the same direction, and all support the same conclusion as to the legal meaning of the contractual provision; that was the case in Victoria v Tatts Group Ltd (2016) 328 ALR 564; [2016] HCA 5 at [51] and [75]. Sometimes, as here, text, context and purpose point in different directions. But it remains necessary to assess the potentially available legal meanings against those matters.”

Leeming JA found the observations of Mance LJ in Gan Insurance Co v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1047; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 299 of assistance where there is a constructional choice as to the proper meaning of a contract or a term of a contract. In Gan Insurance Co v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (No 2), the concern was with a clause which had at least two possible meanings. Mance LJ stated, at [16]:

“… In these circumstances, it is especially important to undertake the exercise on which the judge declined to embark, that is to consider the implications of each interpretation. In my opinion, a court when construing any document should always have an eye to the consequences of a particular construction, even if they often only serve as a check on an obvious meaning or a restraint upon adoption of a conceivable but unbusinesslike meaning.”

This passage was unanimously approved by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900; [2011] UKSC 50; at [26]. See also the observations to the same effect in Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99; [1973] HCA 36 per Gibbs J at 109, upon which the primary judge relied:

“It is trite law that the primary duty of a court in construing a written contract is to endeavour to discover the intention of the parties from the words of the instrument in which the contract is embodied. Of course the whole of the instrument has to be considered, since the meaning of any one part of it may be revealed by other parts, and the words of every clause must if possible be construed so as to render them all harmonious one with another.”

Posted on

What is an indenture?

We’ve already examined the historical distinction between a deed poll and an deed inter-parties. But here is another!

Whereas a deed poll, made by one party only, had a shaved or “polled” edge, an indenture, which was a deed to which two or more persons are parties and which evidenced some act, bargain, contract, conveyance, covenant or agreement between them other than the mere consent to join in expressing the same active intention (i.e. the joint and several guarantors example above), was a deed with serrated or indented (hence the term “indenture”) edges so that each party had a similar deed with the two parts being supposed to fit together as a sort of a tally.

Oh, one more thing, so as not to confuse. In the United States they call what we call a ‘trust deed’, an indenture.

 

Posted on

Deed poll vs deed inter-parties?

 

The difference between a deed poll and a deed inter partes is absolutely crucial because of the difference as to who may enforce the deed in question.

It is clear that any person named or sufficiently indicated in a deed poll may sue to enforce any obligation undertaken in that deed poll in his favour despite the fact that he is, by definition, not a party to the deed poll and has not executed the deed poll.

By contrast however a person cannot sue on a covenant made in his favour which is contained in a deed inter partes unless he is a party (and named as a party) to the relevant deed. Even if a third party executes a deed inter partes he cannot sue on it unless he is named as a party to the deed. The only way in which a person who is not a party to a deed inter partes can enforce a covenant in his favour contained in that deed is to come within one of the exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity e.g. he would be able to enforce the covenant if he was able to show that there was a completely constituted trust of the covenant in his favour.

Consequently it is vital where you are preparing a deed poll which is to be enforceable by third parties that you do not use language which suggests that there is more than one party to the deed and that it is a deed inter partes. For example avoid phrases such as “this deed is made between”. Conversely, if you are preparing a deed inter parties, make sure that any person who you wish to be able to enforce the deed is named as a party (unless one of the named parties is to be a trustee of the benefit of the deed for a third party beneficiary).

The other historical distinction was between a deed poll and an indenture. Whereas a deed poll, made by one party only, had a shaved or “polled” edge, an indenture, which was a deed to which two or more persons are parties and which evidenced some act, bargain, contract, conveyance, covenant or agreement between them other than the mere consent to join in expressing the same active intention (i.e. the joint and several guarantors example above), was a deed with serrated or indented (hence the term “indenture”) edges so that each party had a similar deed with the two parts being supposed to fit together as a sort of a tally.

The practice of indenting originated in early times when deeds were short; often a deed between parties would be written out two or more times (according to the number of parties) on a single sheet of parchment which was then divided by cutting it with an irregular edge so that each part could be fitted into the other to demonstrate its authenticity.

At first this rule was very strict and a deed executed before 1845 was not an indenture unless it was actually indented, even though it was stated to be an indenture. However in 1845 legislation in the UK was passed providing that a deed between parties has the effect of an indenture even though the parchment on which it is written was not actually indented.

Consequently for all practical purposes the term “indenture” is now a thing of the past and the only real important differentiation nowadays is between deed polls and deeds inter partes.

Posted on

What is a deed inter-parties or indenture?

A deed inter-parties is a deed which expressly states that it is made between two or more named persons.

The difference between a deed poll and a deed inter partes is absolutely crucial because of the difference as to who may enforce the deed in question. It is clear that any person named or sufficiently indicated in a deed poll may sue to enforce any obligation undertaken in that deed poll in his favour despite the fact that he is, by definition, not a party to the deed poll and has not executed the deed poll.

By contrast however a person cannot sue on a covenant made in his favour which is contained in a deed inter partes unless he is a party (and named as a party) to the relevant deed. Even if a third party executes a deed inter partes he cannot sue on it unless he is named as a party to the deed. The only way in which a person who is not a party to a deed inter partes can enforce a covenant in his favour contained in that deed is to come within one of the exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity e.g. he would be able to enforce the covenant if he was able to show that there was a completely constituted trust of the covenant in his favour.

Consequently it is vital where you are preparing a deed poll which is to be enforceable by third parties that you do not use language which suggests that there is more than one party to the deed and that it is a deed inter partes. For example avoid phrases such as “this deed is made between”. Conversely, if you are preparing a deed inter parties, make sure that any person who you wish to be able to enforce the deed is named as a party (unless one of the named parties is to be a trustee of the benefit of the deed for a third party beneficiary).

The other historical distinction was between a deed poll and an indenture. Whereas a deed poll, made by one party only, had a shaved or “polled” edge, an indenture, which was a deed to which two or more persons are parties and which evidenced some act, bargain, contract, conveyance, covenant or agreement between them other than the mere consent to join in expressing the same active intention (i.e. the joint and several guarantors example above), was a deed with serrated or indented (hence the term “indenture”) edges so that each party had a similar deed with the two parts being supposed to fit together as a sort of a tally.

The practice of indenting originated in early times when deeds were short; often a deed between parties would be written out two or more times (according to the number of parties) on a single sheet of parchment which was then divided by cutting it with an irregular edge so that each part could be fitted into the other to demonstrate its authenticity.

At first this rule was very strict and a deed executed before 1845 was not an indenture unless it was actually indented, even though it was stated to be an indenture. However in 1845 legislation in the UK was passed providing that a deed between parties has the effect of an indenture even though the parchment on which it is written was not actually indented.

Consequently for all practical purposes the term “indenture” is now a thing of the past and the only real important differentiation nowadays is between deed polls and deeds inter partes.

Posted on

What is a Deed Poll?

It is a basic rule of Australian contract law that, save for limited exceptions, a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person except the parties to the contract. This basic rule is known as the “Doctrine of Privity” and there are several different aspects of the doctrine namely:

  1. a person cannot enforce rights under a contract to which he is not a party;
  2. a person who is not party to a contract cannot have contractual liabilities imposed on him by that contract; and
  3. contractual remedies are designed to compensate parties to the contract, not third parties

Deed polls constitute one of the limited exceptions to the basic doctrine of privity under Australian law; they are flexible and, provided they are used carefully, can be of great assistance in capital markets and other finance type transactions.

Lets start with a little bit of history. A deed poll is a deed made by and expressing the active intention of one party only, or two or more persons who join together in expressing a common active intention of them all e.g. a deed poll by two or more guarantors whose liability is joint and several.

The name deed poll comes from the fact that historically the parchment required for such deeds had been shaved even or “polled” at the top. This was historically in contrast to an indenture (see below). The most important fact to note in relation to deed polls is that they are the act of one party only (or two or more persons acting together i.e. the joint and several guarantors example above); in essence they are one sided unilateral instruments to which there is only one party not a two sided (bilateral) instrument like a contract.

A deed poll must be distinguished from a deed inter partes and an indenture.

See next Blog deed inter-parties.

Posted on

Actual and Ostensible authority

See the principles in relation to actual and ostensible authority in Junker v Hepburn [2010] NSWSC 88 (Junker) at [39]-[48] (Hammerschlag J)

Agency

39 The authority of an agent may be:

  • actual (either express or implied) where it results from a manifestation of consent that the agent should represent or act for the principal expressly or impliedly made by the principal to himself; or
  • apparent, where it results from such a manifestation made by the principal to third parties: Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency, 17th ed (2001) Sweet & Maxwell at Ch 3, Art 22.

40 The rules concerning actual and apparent authority apply where the principal is a company. They are supplemented by provisions of the Act where companies are concerned. The usual starting point in any consideration of a director’s actual authority is the constitution of the company, which invariably provides for directors’ powers. Express actual authority of a director usually derives from the constitution of the company or from some antecedent act such as a resolution of the board of directors: Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (1990) 170 CLR 146 at 205; Perkins v National Australia Bank Ltd (1999) 30 ACSR 256 at 262.
41 Implied actual authority is the authority which the law regards as having been given to an agent because of the interpretation put by the law on the relationship and dealings of the two parties: Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency, 17th ed (2001) Sweet & Maxwell par 3-003. The Court’s inquiry concerns the intention of the principal in conferring authority on the agent: Gino Evan Dal Pont, Law of Agency, 2nd ed (2008) LexisNexis Butterworths par 8.1.
42 Ordinarily, where a company has more than one director, a single director does not have authority to bind it. A director’s normal power is to bind the company only by joining with other directors in a collective resolution of the board of directors: Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (1990) 170 CLR 146 at 198, 205.
43 An implied grant of actual authority can result from acquiescence in the course of behaviour by persons who have actual authority to delegate. For example, if directors as a board stand by whilst a single director enters into transactions outside his or her authority, the board’s acquiescence in that course of dealing can constitute the grant, by implication, of actual authority to enter into those transactions.
44 In Equiticorp Finance Limited (in liq) v Bank of New Zealand (1993) 32 NSWLR 50 at 134, Clarke JA and Cripps JA said in relation to implied actual authority:

A recent example of the application of the principle in Australia is to be found in Brick and Pipe Industries Ltd v Occidental Life Nominees Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 279, where (at 360-361) the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria applied Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd . In the joint judgment there was a finding of implied actual authority in relation to one Goldberg to manage the business and to hold out a person as secretary who  was in fact not the secretary. The facts and circumstances there relied upon to justify such a finding included the following: Goldberg had actual control over the group of companies and invariably asserted control over each of the companies in the group; Goldberg was known as the alter ego of group companies; Goldberg made decisions for the group companies; there was no evidence that he found it necessary to refer to any board to seek approval for the course of action he proposed; the boards in question had never previously attempted to interfere with his action; Goldberg had obtained board approval of transactions to which he had already committed Brick and Pipe without first seeking authorisation from the board; and that individual directors in evidence confirmed the acquiescence of board members in the activity of Goldberg which culminated in completed transactions for which the board gave no prior approval. One final and, perhaps, decisive element in the scope of the authority the court was prepared to find vested in Goldberg, was that: “… in most, if not all, cases, the transactions committed assets of Brick and Pipe or its subsidiaries as security for borrowings by other Goldberg companies”.

Whether authority is to be implied and, if so, the scope of the authority implied is, in our view, to be found in a close analysis of the evidence before the court which is relied upon to support the implication of actual authority.

45 The authors of Company Directors: Principles of Law and Corporate Governance (2005), LexisNexis Butterworths at par 3.41, citing Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 opine that to confer implied actual authority there would have to be not only the acquiescence of the individual board members but evidence of communication by word or conduct of their respective consents to one another and to the agent.
46 Apparent or ostensible authority is conferred where a principal represents that another has authority. The principal will be bound as against a third party by the acts of that other person within the authority which that person appears to have, though the principal had not in fact given that person such authority or had limited the authority by instructions not made known to the third party: Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451 at 466; Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency, 17th ed (2001) Sweet & Maxwell par 3-005.
47 Ostensible authority often coincides with, but sometimes exceeds, actual authority. For instance, when a board appoints a managing director, they may expressly limit his authority, but his ostensible authority will include all the usual authority of a managing director. The company is bound by his ostensible authority in his dealings with those who do not know of the limitation: Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549 at 583 per Lord Denning M.R.
48 An ordinary individual director of a company does not have ostensible authority to bind it. Directors can act only collectively as a board and the function of an individual director is to participate in decisions of the board. In the absence of some representation made by the company, a director has no ostensible authority to bind it: Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (1990) 170 CLR 146 at 205.

Posted on

WSLSA International Humanitarian Law Moot Competition

Honored to be invited by the Western Sydney Law Students’ Association (WSLSA) to judge the final of the WSLSA International Humanitarian Law Moot Competition on Saturday 20 May 2017 at the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The winner will represent Western Sydney University, and the WSLSA, at the Australian Law Students’ Association Conference to be held in Canberra in July 2017.
Capture