Allan v Rea Brothers Trustees Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 85 (8th February, 2002)

Allan v Rea Brothers Trustees Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 85 (8th February, 2002)

Although the beneficial interest in the pension assets never validly left the EW scheme, the trustee company was not personally liable for breach of trust because it lacked knowledge of the invalidity at the relevant time, and Mr Allan's own complicity and acquiescence barred his claim. The trustee company could rely on the indemnity clause, as no wilful or individual fraud was established.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 85
Parties
Appellant: Stuart Allan; Respondent: Rea Brothers Trustees Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Resulting Trust, Pension Scheme Regulation, Fiduciary Duties, Exemption Clauses, Acquiescence and Estoppel
Trusts Law Pensions Law Breach of Trust Resulting Trust Pension Scheme Regulation Fiduciary Duties Exemption Clauses Acquiescence and Estoppel

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Allan

Appellant

Rea Brothers Trustees Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of pension assets to the Basdring scheme created a resulting trust in favour of the original scheme (EW scheme)
  2. 2 Whether the pensioneer trustee (Rea Brothers Trustees Ltd) was personally liable for breach of trust
  3. 3 Whether the trustee company could rely on an indemnity clause to exclude liability

Ratio Decidendi

Although the beneficial interest in the pension assets never validly left the EW scheme, the trustee company was not personally liable for breach of trust because it lacked knowledge of the invalidity at the relevant time, and Mr Allan's own complicity and acquiescence barred his claim. The trustee company could rely on the indemnity clause, as no wilful or individual fraud was established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal, subject to legal aid assessment