28:
312:) was whether the plaintiff could claim the entire sum remaining in the hands of DLH, or only a rateable proportion (the other share belonging in equity to the other victims of the fraud). The court held that as none of the other victims had come forward, the plaintiff could claim the entire sum (up to the maximum amount of his total loss). The case also set down important guidance for the assessment of interest in claims relating to fraud.
210:
proceedings to try and reclaim some of the money he had been defrauded of. For their part, DLH denied that in 1986 it had had any knowledge that the money which the
Canadians invested in the project represented the proceeds of fraud. The further asserted that, in buying out the interest of the Canadians in 1988 they were a
197:
Abdul Ghani El Ajou was a wealthy businessman who resided in Saudi Arabia. He was the largest single victim, although not the only victim, of a massive share fraud scheme carried out in
Amsterdam between 1984 and 1985 by three Canadians. The proceeds of that fraud were transferred around the world
209:
The interest of the
Canadians in the joint venture was subsequently bought out by DLH in 1988, which then became the sole owner of the development project. When the nature of fraud was uncovered and the proceeds were tracked by the plaintiffs lawyers into the development project, he began legal
177:
overturned the first instance decision on appeal, the first instance decision is much more widely cited. The decision was reversed relating to the issues around knowing receipt, and there was no substantive appeal against the trial judge's original rulings in relation to the law of tracing, and
294:
he plaintiff must show, first, a disposal of his assets in breach of fiduciary duty; secondly, the beneficial receipt by the defendant of assets which are traceable as representing the assets of the plaintiff; and thirdly, knowledge on the part of the defendant that the assets he received are
285:
Of the questions that remain in dispute in this case, the most important is whether, for the purposes of establishing a company's liability under the knowing receipt head of constructive trust, the knowledge of one of its directors can be treated as having been the knowledge of the
206:
with a company called Dollar Land
Holdings PLC (referred to as "DLH" in the judgments). DLH was a public limited company incorporated in England but was tax resident in Switzerland.
227:
At first instance
Millett J gave a lengthy judgment which had to deal with a broad array of legal issues, including tracing, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt. He held that:
934:
263:
he held there was no evidence that the principals of DLH knew the
Canadians were using fraudulently obtained money, and so DLH could not be take to have that knowledge.
267:
Accordingly, he found for the defendants. In his judgment he assumed that negligence rather than dishonesty, triggered liability in equity for knowing receipt.
198:
through various intermediaries, until they arrived in London, where in 1986 they were invested in a joint venture to carry out a property development project at
257:
the fact that the money passed through countries which did not recognise the concept of trusts/equitable ownership did not defeat the equitable tracing claim;
309:
211:
553:
370:
619:
524:
939:
645:
464:
341:
260:
in order to succeed against DLH the plaintiff had to show that DLH had the requisite degree of knowledge that the money was proceeds of fraud; and
278:
Court of Appeal overturned
Millett J on the finding that the recipient company had sufficient knowledge, adopting another analysis of the facts.
899:
867:
804:
772:
740:
712:
174:
41:
593:
675:
239:
238:
however, it was possible to trace the money in equity, because the fraudsters stood in fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff as
607:
270:
That decision was appealed by the plaintiff, and there was also a cross appeal by the defendant on one issue relating to tracing.
929:
450:
118:
480:
436:
517:
883:
756:
579:
183:
788:
728:
567:
384:
334:
244:
304:
The case was then remitted back to the High Court for determination of damages, and a second judgment is reported at
659:
510:
410:
114:
235:
the stolen money at common law because it had become mixed with the money of the fraudsters and other victims;
891:
764:
704:
251:
this type of constructive trust was not a remedial constructive trust, but an institutional resulting trust;
27:
680:
327:
232:
398:
829:
670:
493:
167:
133:
859:
796:
895:
863:
800:
768:
736:
708:
541:
138:
440:
186:
at trial is cited eleven times, but the Court of Appeal's decision is not cited at all.
163:
426:
388:
923:
358:
203:
143:
110:
583:
484:
470:
454:
254:
the plaintiff could therefore trace the money all the way into the hands of DLH;
633:
199:
52:
Abdul Ghani el Ajou v (1) Dollar Land
Holdings Limited, and (2) Factorum NV
833:
821:
319:
502:
170:
case concerning tracing and receipt of property in breach of trust.
32:
Nine Elms, Battersea (where some of the laundered proceeds ended up)
506:
323:
178:
those statements all remain good law. In the 34th edition of
308:
2 All ER 213. The principle issue in the judgment (of
595:
Carl-Zeiss
Stiftung v Herbert Smith & Co (No 2)
124:
106:
101:
90:
82:
77:
65:
57:
47:
37:
20:
822:"Company officers and attribution of knowledge"
793:Goff & Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment
791:, Paul Mitchell and Stephen Watterson (2011).
701:The Law of Tracing In Commercial Transactions
518:
335:
290:Lord Justice Hoffman commenced his judgment:
8:
281:Lord Justice Nourse commenced his judgment:
212:bona fide purchaser for value without notice
372:Belmont Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)
621:Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Ltd (No 2)
525:
511:
503:
342:
328:
320:
26:
17:
935:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
306:El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc (No 2)
295:traceable to a breach of fiduciary duty.
95:El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc (No 2)
647:Criterion Properties plc v Stratford LLC
555:Banque Belge pour L'Etranger v Hambrouck
466:Criterion Properties plc v Stratford LLC
194:The facts were set out in the judgment.
691:
481:Arthur v AG of Turks and Caicos Islands
7:
854:John McGhee; Steven Elliott (2020).
826:Singapore Journal of Legal Studies
676:Constructive trusts in English law
423:El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc
159:El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc
21:El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc
14:
733:Constructive and Resulting Trusts
940:1993 in United Kingdom case law
451:Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam
608:Re Montagu's Settlement Trusts
437:BCCI (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele
1:
820:Lan Luh Luh (December 1994).
580:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
242:(citing his own decision in
568:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson
385:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson
245:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson
956:
202:in Battersea as part of a
660:English unjust enrichment
656:
642:
630:
616:
604:
590:
576:
564:
550:
538:
491:
477:
461:
447:
433:
419:
407:
395:
381:
367:
362:(1873-74) LR 9 Ch App 244
355:
164:[1993] EWCA Civ 4
129:
25:
699:Magda Raczynska (2018).
411:Baden v Societe Generale
148:Attribution of knowledge
930:English trusts case law
892:Oxford University Press
765:Oxford University Press
705:Oxford University Press
231:it was not possible to
888:The Law of Restitution
761:The Law of Restitution
681:Tracing in English law
297:
288:
248:Ch 547 on this point);
350:Knowing receipt cases
292:
283:
240:constructive trustees
545:(1826) 2 C&P 176
860:Sweet & Maxwell
797:Sweet & Maxwell
735:. Hart Publishing.
671:English trusts law
494:English trusts law
300:Subsequent hearing
182:, the judgment of
168:English trusts law
134:Constructive trust
901:978-0-19-929652-1
869:978-0-414-07150-6
858:(34th ed.).
806:978-0-414-05523-0
774:978-0-19-929652-1
742:978-1-84-113927-2
714:978-0-19-879613-8
666:
665:
533:Ignorance sources
500:
499:
155:
154:
91:Subsequent action
947:
906:
905:
890:(3rd ed.).
880:
874:
873:
851:
845:
844:
842:
840:
817:
811:
810:
795:(8th ed.).
789:Charles Mitchell
785:
779:
778:
763:(3rd ed.).
753:
747:
746:
729:Charles Mitchell
725:
719:
718:
696:
648:
622:
596:
556:
527:
520:
513:
504:
467:
373:
344:
337:
330:
321:
102:Court membership
30:
18:
955:
954:
950:
949:
948:
946:
945:
944:
920:
919:
914:
909:
902:
894:. p. 407.
882:
881:
877:
870:
853:
852:
848:
838:
836:
819:
818:
814:
807:
787:
786:
782:
775:
767:. p. 132.
755:
754:
750:
743:
727:
726:
722:
715:
698:
697:
693:
689:
667:
662:
652:
646:
638:
626:
620:
612:
600:
594:
586:
572:
560:
554:
546:
542:Holiday v Sigil
534:
531:
501:
496:
487:
473:
465:
457:
443:
429:
415:
403:
399:Re Montagu’s ST
391:
377:
371:
363:
351:
348:
318:
310:Robert Walker J
302:
276:
274:Court of Appeal
225:
220:
192:
175:Court of Appeal
151:
139:Knowing receipt
72:
70:
61:2 December 1993
42:Court of Appeal
33:
12:
11:
5:
953:
951:
943:
942:
937:
932:
922:
921:
918:
917:
913:
910:
908:
907:
900:
884:Andrew Burrows
875:
868:
856:Snell's Equity
846:
812:
805:
799:. para 38-34.
780:
773:
757:Andrew Burrows
748:
741:
720:
713:
690:
688:
685:
684:
683:
678:
673:
664:
663:
657:
654:
653:
643:
640:
639:
631:
628:
627:
617:
614:
613:
605:
602:
601:
591:
588:
587:
577:
574:
573:
565:
562:
561:
551:
548:
547:
539:
536:
535:
532:
530:
529:
522:
515:
507:
498:
497:
492:
489:
488:
478:
475:
474:
462:
459:
458:
448:
445:
444:
434:
431:
430:
420:
417:
416:
408:
405:
404:
396:
393:
392:
382:
379:
378:
368:
365:
364:
356:
353:
352:
349:
347:
346:
339:
332:
324:
317:
314:
301:
298:
275:
272:
265:
264:
261:
258:
255:
252:
249:
236:
224:
221:
219:
216:
214:of the fraud.
191:
188:
180:Snell's Equity
153:
152:
150:
149:
146:
141:
136:
130:
127:
126:
122:
121:
108:
107:Judges sitting
104:
103:
99:
98:
92:
88:
87:
84:
80:
79:
75:
74:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
952:
941:
938:
936:
933:
931:
928:
927:
925:
916:
915:
911:
903:
897:
893:
889:
885:
879:
876:
871:
865:
861:
857:
850:
847:
835:
831:
827:
823:
816:
813:
808:
802:
798:
794:
790:
784:
781:
776:
770:
766:
762:
758:
752:
749:
744:
738:
734:
730:
724:
721:
716:
710:
706:
702:
695:
692:
686:
682:
679:
677:
674:
672:
669:
668:
661:
655:
650:
649:
641:
636:
635:
629:
624:
623:
615:
610:
609:
603:
598:
597:
589:
585:
582:
581:
575:
570:
569:
563:
558:
557:
549:
544:
543:
537:
528:
523:
521:
516:
514:
509:
508:
505:
495:
490:
486:
483:
482:
476:
472:
469:
468:
460:
456:
453:
452:
446:
442:
439:
438:
432:
428:
425:
424:
418:
413:
412:
406:
401:
400:
394:
390:
387:
386:
380:
375:
374:
366:
361:
360:
359:Barnes v Addy
354:
345:
340:
338:
333:
331:
326:
325:
322:
315:
313:
311:
307:
299:
296:
291:
287:
282:
279:
273:
271:
268:
262:
259:
256:
253:
250:
247:
246:
241:
237:
234:
230:
229:
228:
222:
217:
215:
213:
207:
205:
204:joint venture
201:
195:
189:
187:
185:
181:
176:
173:Although the
171:
169:
165:
161:
160:
147:
145:
142:
140:
137:
135:
132:
131:
128:
123:
120:
116:
112:
109:
105:
100:
96:
93:
89:
85:
81:
76:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
29:
24:
19:
16:
887:
878:
855:
849:
837:. Retrieved
825:
815:
792:
783:
760:
751:
732:
723:
700:
694:
644:
632:
625:1 All ER 393
618:
606:
592:
578:
566:
552:
540:
479:
463:
449:
441:EWCA Civ 502
435:
422:
421:
409:
397:
383:
376:1 All ER 393
369:
357:
305:
303:
293:
289:
284:
280:
277:
269:
266:
243:
226:
208:
196:
193:
179:
172:
158:
157:
156:
97:2 All ER 213
94:
86:3 All ER 717
83:Prior action
78:Case history
71:2 All ER 685
51:
15:
828:: 417–425.
924:Categories
912:References
634:Re Diplock
427:EWCA Civ 4
389:EWCA Civ 2
223:High Court
119:Hoffman LJ
69:EWCA Civ 4
414:1 WLR 509
200:Nine Elms
184:Millett J
111:Nourse LJ
66:Citations
886:(2011).
834:24866713
759:(2011).
731:(2010).
599:2 Ch 276
559:1 KB 321
316:See also
286:company.
218:Judgment
125:Keywords
651:UKHL 28
584:UKHL 12
485:UKPC 30
471:UKHL 28
455:UKHL 48
144:Tracing
115:Rose LJ
73:BCC 143
58:Decided
898:
866:
839:6 June
832:
803:
771:
739:
711:
637:AC 251
611:Ch 264
571:Ch 265
402:Ch 264
166:is an
830:JSTOR
687:Notes
233:trace
190:Facts
162:
38:Court
896:ISBN
864:ISBN
841:2021
801:ISBN
769:ISBN
737:ISBN
709:ISBN
658:See
926::
862:.
824:.
707:.
703:.
117:,
113:,
904:.
872:.
843:.
809:.
777:.
745:.
717:.
526:e
519:t
512:v
343:e
336:t
329:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
