Jose Manuel Pitta De Lacerda Aroso v. Coutts & Company [2001] EWHC Ch 443 (30th March, 2001)

Jose Manuel Pitta De Lacerda Aroso v. Coutts & Company [2001] EWHC Ch 443 (30th March, 2001)

There was no breach of trust by Sr Champalimaud, and no evidence or proper pleading of dishonesty by the bank or its officer. The bank, as bare trustee for Sr Champalimaud, was not liable to the estate or its beneficiaries absent dishonesty or knowledge of misapplication, which was not established.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Ch 443
Parties
Respondent: Sr Champalimaud; Respondent: Bank; Claimant: Claimant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Dishonest Assistance, Breach of Trust, Bare Trustee Liability, Notice of Adverse Claim
Trusts Banking Law Dishonest Assistance Breach of Trust Bare Trustee Liability Notice of Adverse Claim

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sr Champalimaud

Respondent

Bank

Respondent

Claimant

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank was liable for dishonest assistance in an alleged breach of trust by Sr Champalimaud
  2. 2 Whether the bank had sufficient knowledge or was wilfully blind to a breach of trust
  3. 3 Whether the bank owed trustee duties to the estate beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

There was no breach of trust by Sr Champalimaud, and no evidence or proper pleading of dishonesty by the bank or its officer. The bank, as bare trustee for Sr Champalimaud, was not liable to the estate or its beneficiaries absent dishonesty or knowledge of misapplication, which was not established.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.