Daniel & Ors v Tee & Ors

Daniel & Ors v Tee & Ors

The trustees breached some duties, particularly in the early stages, by failing to devise a realistic investment strategy and not diversifying sufficiently, but the Claimants failed to prove that these breaches caused them loss. The trustees acted prudently in relying on professional advice, and their actions did not fall below the standard of a reasonable trustee. Even if there was technical breach, the court would have exercised its discretion under section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 to relieve the trustees from liability, as they acted honestly and reasonably.

Parties
Claimant: Glyn Thomas Daniel; Claimant: Amy Louise Daniel; Defendant: James Richard Tee; Defendant: David Ian Redfern; Defendant: Paul Frederick Osborne
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trusts / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed. Judgment for the Defendants.
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Trustee Duties, Delegation by Trustees, Investment of Trust Funds, Equitable Compensation, Section 61 Trustee Act 1925
Trusts Equity Professional Negligence Breach of Trust Trustee Duties Delegation by Trustees Investment of Trust Funds Equitable Compensation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glyn Thomas Daniel

Claimant

Amy Louise Daniel

Claimant

James Richard Tee

Defendant

David Ian Redfern

Defendant

Paul Frederick Osborne

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trusts / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustees breached their duty of care in investment of trust funds
  2. 2 Whether the trustees impermissibly delegated their investment powers
  3. 3 Whether any breach caused loss to the beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

The trustees breached some duties, particularly in the early stages, by failing to devise a realistic investment strategy and not diversifying sufficiently, but the Claimants failed to prove that these breaches caused them loss. The trustees acted prudently in relying on professional advice, and their actions did not fall below the standard of a reasonable trustee. Even if there was technical breach, the court would have exercised its discretion under section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 to relieve the trustees from liability, as they acted honestly and reasonably.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed. Judgment for the Defendants.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed. Judgment for the Defendants.
  • Counsel to agree form of order; court to hear submissions on costs and permission to appeal if not agreed.