Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

This might be of interest to Quistclose fans:

Patel and others are trustees of a Hindu Charity, who had acquired a plot of land ("the new site") for the construction of a temple. They eventually built on their old site. They intended to sell the new site with planning permission. Such planning permission was granted by Brent, conditional upon entering into a section 106 agreement. This involved money (550 K) being paid into a fund which was to be used for road improvements ("the road works"). The money was conceded by Brent to be held on trust, and found by the Vice Chancellor to be a Quistclose Trust (paras 25 - 28). Amongst other terms, the agreement required

(1) That the money paid by the Charity be kept in a segregated, interest-bearing bank account;

(2) That the money was to be spent on road works, with any excess to be returned to the Charity

In fact, no account (as required by (1)) was ever set up. Instead, the Council speculated with the money on overnight money markets, along with its other accounts, and the Council turned a 300K profit. Only later, and without the knowledge of the Charity, did they restore the 550K, and the interest which would have been earned on that amount, being roughly 160K. The Council said they therefore only owed the "net" profit, being 140K. The Charity argued that this did not sufficiently observe the principle that a trustee must not profit from his own wrong, and that the full 300K had to be disgorged. The Charity argued that the 160K should not be viewed as being disgorged by being paid into the section 106 account. That money was still available to the Council under the terms of the agreement to defray the costs of the traffic works, and accordingly they were still "profiting" in this sense - particularly because there was an incentive to spend the whole fund rather than return the surplus, so that there was a risk of unnecessary road works being carried out.

The Vice-Chancellor found that the correct approach was to apportion the secret profit between the "purpose" under the Quistclose trust on the one hand and the Charity as the residual beneficiary on the other. This meant that the 160K went into the section 106 account, and the balance of the profits, 140 K, passing to the Charity. The V-C found that this did not involve the Council profiting from their wrong, as the 160K was available to them not due to a wrong, but under an agreement.

I think this is one of the first cases where a Quistclose trustee has turned a secret profit. I can see the practical logic of what the V-C says, but the outcome still rankles a bit, in particular there seems to be something to be said for the Charity's argument that, on the facts, there is still a chance of a profit on the part of Brent. Is that too puritanical?