164:
transaction by which
Hambrouck obtained a title to the money until the plaintiffs elected to avoid his title, which they did when they made their claim in this action. The title would then revest in the plaintiffs subject to any title acquired in the meantime by any transferee for value without notice of the fraud. ...I venture to doubt whether the common law ever so restricted the right as to hold that the money became incapable of being traced, merely because paid into the broker’s general account with his banker. The question always was, Had the means of ascertainment failed? But if in 1815 the common law halted outside the bankers’ door, by 1879 equity had had the courage to lift the latch, walk in and examine the books: In re Hallett’s Estate. I see no reason why the means of ascertainment so provided should not now be available both for common law and equity proceedings.
31:
135:, his employer, and was put into his own Farrow’s Bank account. Then Mr Hambrouck took out money and paid his mistress Mlle Spanoghe, who gave no consideration. She paid the money to her account at the London Joint City and Midland Bank, where she had £315 credit. Banque Belge sued Mr Hambrouck, Mlle Spanoghe and the London Bank for the money. The London Bank paid the money into court.
209:
case amounts virtually to saying that there is now no difference between the common law and equitable remedies. Indeed, the common law remedy might be wider because of the absence of any requirement of a fiduciary relationship. There may be a good deal to be said for that view but it goes well beyond
163:
At present it appears to me that the plaintiff Bank intended to pass the property in and the possession of the cash which under the operations of the clearing house they must be taken to have paid to the collecting bank. I will assume therefore that this is a case not of a void but of a voidable
197:
and could not therefore be traced. An equitable claim, although more restrictive in application, was still available against some of the defendants. In distinguishing the case from
557:
270:
been guilty of fraud, cannot bolt the door against him. Owing to his fraud, he is disentitled from relying on the confidential relationship between him and the bank.
329:
153:
noted the argument of
Hambrouck that title could not be asserted because after passing through other bank accounts, it could no longer be identified. But
423:
300:
516:
41:
381:
214:
decision it has not been applied. Whether, short of the House of Lords, it is now open to the courts to adopt it I need not consider.
159:
said that was not a problem because any transfer to an innocent donee would defeat an original owner’s claim. He said the following.
132:
552:
547:
409:
439:
395:
257:
562:
230:
30:
483:
343:
293:
185:
155:
567:
369:
150:
72:
508:
246:
194:
286:
172:
106:
80:
138:
264:
He is entitled, in Atkin LJ’s words, to lift the latch of the bankers’ door....The customer, who has
357:
237:, is that money cannot be traced at common law once it gets mixed or commingled with other funds...
210:
any other case and well beyond the views of Bankes and
Scrutton LJJ. And in the 70 years since the
190:
463:
452:
120:
512:
193:
held that a claim at common law could not succeed, because Agip’s money had been mixed in the
168:
76:
502:
102:
399:
225:
The orthodox position, as reflected in the judgments of Bankes and
Scrutton LJJ in the
488:
385:
347:
541:
317:
443:
429:
413:
131:
Mr
Hambrouck forged cheques so ÂŁ6000 came out of the account of Mr Pelabon at the
266:
278:
123:
case concerning the common law remedies for receipt of trust property.
221:
viewed the two cases as reaching substantially the same conclusion:
175:
gave concurring judgments, although somewhat narrower in scope.
282:
149:
The Court of Appeal held that the money should be repaid.
501:Ellinger, E.P.; Lomnicka, E.; Hare, C.V.M. (2011).
96:
86:
68:
63:
55:
47:
37:
23:
491:, 4 All ER 451, Ch 547 (21 December 1990)
262:
223:
203:
161:
294:
245:has also helped to expand the application of
8:
331:Belmont Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)
301:
287:
279:
29:
20:
558:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
233:, as approved by the Court of Appeal, in
425:Criterion Properties plc v Stratford LLC
116:Banque Belge pour L’Etranger v Hambrouck
24:Banque Belge pour L’Etranger v Hambrouck
484:Agip (Africa) Ltd. v Kingsley & Ors
475:
440:Arthur v AG of Turks and Caicos Islands
7:
42:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
382:El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc
14:
141:held the money should be repaid.
410:Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam
396:BCCI (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele
229:case, and in the reasoning of
1:
504:Ellinger's Modern Banking Law
219:Ellinger's Modern Banking Law
133:Banque Belge pour l'Étranger
344:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson
205:Atkin LJ's approach in the
186:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson
584:
489:[1990] EWCA Civ 2
450:
436:
420:
406:
392:
378:
366:
354:
340:
326:
321:(1873-74) LR 9 Ch App 244
314:
101:
91:
28:
553:English banking case law
370:Baden v Societe Generale
195:New York clearing system
548:English trusts case law
509:Oxford University Press
254:Bankers Trust v Shapira
16:1921 English court case
272:
239:
216:
166:
156:In re Hallett’s Estate
309:Knowing receipt cases
563:1921 in British law
464:English trusts law
453:English trusts law
121:English trusts law
518:978-0-19-923209-3
459:
458:
248:Norwich Pharmacal
241:The reasoning in
112:
111:
575:
568:1921 in case law
532:
529:
523:
522:
507:(5th ed.).
498:
492:
480:
426:
332:
303:
296:
289:
280:
64:Court membership
33:
21:
583:
582:
578:
577:
576:
574:
573:
572:
538:
537:
536:
535:
530:
526:
519:
511:. p. 304.
500:
499:
495:
481:
477:
472:
460:
455:
446:
432:
424:
416:
402:
388:
374:
362:
358:Re Montagu’s ST
350:
336:
330:
322:
310:
307:
277:
181:
147:
129:
119:1 KB 321 is an
103:Knowing receipt
79:
75:
51:5 November 1920
17:
12:
11:
5:
581:
579:
571:
570:
565:
560:
555:
550:
540:
539:
534:
533:
524:
517:
493:
474:
473:
471:
468:
467:
466:
457:
456:
451:
448:
447:
437:
434:
433:
421:
418:
417:
407:
404:
403:
393:
390:
389:
379:
376:
375:
367:
364:
363:
355:
352:
351:
341:
338:
337:
327:
324:
323:
315:
312:
311:
308:
306:
305:
298:
291:
283:
276:
273:
180:
177:
146:
143:
128:
125:
110:
109:
99:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
84:
83:
70:
69:Judges sitting
66:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
49:
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
580:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
554:
551:
549:
546:
545:
543:
528:
525:
520:
514:
510:
506:
505:
497:
494:
490:
486:
485:
479:
476:
469:
465:
462:
461:
454:
449:
445:
442:
441:
435:
431:
428:
427:
419:
415:
412:
411:
405:
401:
398:
397:
391:
387:
384:
383:
377:
372:
371:
365:
360:
359:
353:
349:
346:
345:
339:
334:
333:
325:
320:
319:
318:Barnes v Addy
313:
304:
299:
297:
292:
290:
285:
284:
281:
274:
271:
269:
268:
261:
259:
255:
251:
249:
244:
238:
236:
232:
228:
222:
220:
215:
213:
208:
202:
200:
196:
192:
188:
187:
178:
176:
174:
170:
165:
160:
158:
157:
152:
144:
142:
140:
136:
134:
126:
124:
122:
118:
117:
108:
104:
100:
95:
90:
87:Case opinions
85:
82:
78:
74:
71:
67:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
531:3 All ER 353
527:
503:
496:
482:
478:
438:
422:
408:
400:EWCA Civ 502
394:
380:
368:
356:
342:
335:1 All ER 393
328:
316:
265:
263:
253:
247:
243:Banque Belge
242:
240:
234:
226:
224:
218:
217:
212:Banque Belge
211:
207:Banque Belge
206:
204:
199:Banque Belge
198:
184:
182:
167:
162:
154:
148:
137:
130:
115:
114:
113:
18:
267:prima facie
201:, he said:
173:Scrutton LJ
81:Scrutton LJ
542:Categories
470:References
386:EWCA Civ 4
348:EWCA Civ 2
260:observed:
258:Denning MR
373:1 WLR 509
227:Hambrouck
179:Aftermath
169:Bankes LJ
77:Bankes LJ
275:See also
231:Millet J
151:Atkin LJ
145:Judgment
139:Salter J
97:Keywords
92:Atkin LJ
73:Atkin LJ
59:1 KB 321
56:Citation
444:UKPC 30
430:UKHL 28
414:UKHL 48
107:tracing
48:Decided
515:
361:Ch 264
250:orders
191:Fox LJ
487:
252:. In
127:Facts
38:Court
513:ISBN
235:Agip
171:and
183:In
544::
256:,
189:,
105:,
521:.
302:e
295:t
288:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
