Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers PDF

Preview

Summary

essay reading with answers in text, knowing recipient...

Description

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim Home » Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim

Published May 25, 2020

Table of Contents



1. Barnes v Addy: the two-limb test 2. The First Limb – what are the elements of ‘knowing receipt’? 3. The Second Limb – what are the elements of ‘knowing assistance’? 4. The element of ‘knowledge’ 5. Legal Advice

Where there has been a breach of trust or duciary duty, the party who has suffered loss and damage may be able to pursue their claim against the party who has caused the breach; see Fraud, Business & White Collar Crime. However, the injured party may also potentially be able to pursue their claim against third parties who have knowingly received property acquired through the

h



breach, or alternatively, third parties who have knowingly assisted in the breach.

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

constitute third-party liability in relation to breach of trust or duciary duties. The most renowned case in relation to knowing receipt and knowing assistance was the case of Barnes v

Addy (1874) 1, where the Court set out a ‘two-limbed test’ for establishing whether knowing receipt or knowing assistance had occurred. This test was considered more recently by the High Court of Australia in the case of Farah Constructions Pty Limited v Say-Dee Pty Limited(2007).2

The principles relating to establishing ‘knowing receipt’ and ‘knowing assistance’ create an exception to the general principle that a person is not to be made constructive trustee simply because they act as the agent of a trustee. If this exception did not exist, then it would be difcult, if not impossible, to recover from someone who commits fraud and then gifts or sells the proceeds to their spouse or friend.

Where the elements of the two limbs identied in Barnes v Addy can be established, a third party will be imputed with the duties and responsibilities of a contrastive trustee and, importantly, the party bringing the claim against them will have the same remedies as they would have against a constructive trustee.

The First Limb – what are the elements of ‘knowing receipt’? The ‘rst limb’ of Barnes v Addy arises where a third party knowingly receives property in breach of trust or duciary duty (although the term ‘knowing receipt’ was itself not explicitly used in that case).

Barnes v Addy was certainly not the rst instance of this cause of action being used, and it has long been held that wrongfully receiving trust property will grant the principal the same rights and remedies as those that would arise against a fraudulent trustee. 3

h



In order to prove ‘knowing receipt’, the principal will have to establish the following elements

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

Element 3 – The recipient knew that the transfer to them would amount to a breach.

The concept of ‘knowledge’ for the purposes of this test will be considered in more detail below.

Where a person is the knowing recipient of trust property, remedies will arise against the recipient as a constructive trustee. However, that does not mean that the recipient will automatically have all of the powers or duties of a trustee; rather, their duty will be foremost to restore the assets to the trust.4 A wronged principal may also seek an account of prots against the constructive trustee where this is appropriate.

The Second Limb – what are the elements of ‘knowing assistance’? The ‘second limb’ of Barnes v Addy arises where there has been a dishonest and fraudulent breach of the duty by the trustee or duciary to which a third party has knowledge of and assists in. The Court in Barnes v Addy considered whether two solicitors should be held liable for assisting in the appointment of a trustee who subsequently breached its requisite duties.

Knowing assistance is a very difcult cause of action to establish due, not only to the requirement for establishing knowledge on part of the third party, but also due to the necessity for establishing fraudulent conduct on part of the duciary.

In order to prove ‘knowing assistance’, the principal will have to establish the following two elements: 

Element 1 – Dishonest and Fraudulent Design h

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

to fraudulent conduct.6 As there is a higher standard of proof required in cases involving criminal allegations, this element creates an additional onus on the party bringing the claim. 7

In the case of The Bell Group (In liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [No 9,]8 Owen J held, with reference to Farah Constructions, that in order for the rst element of fraudulent design to be satised:

“…the impugned conduct must be attended by circumstances that would attract a degree of opprobrium raising it above the level of a simple breach of trust or breach of a duciary duty”.

Note: Opprobrium means “harsh criticism; disgrace from shameful conduct”.

Element 2 – Assistance The second element of the second limb of Barnes v Addy states that liability arises through the third party’s assistance with the fraudulent breach. The concept of ‘assistance’ was considered by the Supreme Court of Queensland in Quince v McLaughlan as:

“…generally taken to mean any action by the stranger taken with the intention of furthering the trustee’s or duciary’s fraudulent and dishonest purpose”.9

For example, ‘standing by’ or not stopping the misuse of funds may be classied as assistance for

h



the purpose of this test.”10

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

The element of ‘knowledge’ The common element between the two limbs of Barnes v Addy is knowledge. Both knowing receipt and knowing assistance must occur with the knowledge of the third party. ‘Knowledge’ for the purposes of these tests can be either:

Actual knowledge – the third party has actual knowledge of the matter in question; or Constructive knowledge – the third party could reasonably be expected to know of the matter in question.

In the case of Baden v Societe General pour Favoriser le Developpement du Commerce et de

l’Industrie en France SA,11 the Court put forth ve different mental states that may comprise knowledge:

1. Actual knowledge;

2. Wilfully shutting one’s eyes to the obvious;

3. Wilfully and recklessly failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make;

4. Knowledge of circumstances which would indicate the facts and circumstances to an honest and reasonable man; and

5. Knowledge of circumstances which would put an honest and reasonable man on inquiry.

Of these categories (the ‘ Baden ’ categories, as they are often referred), points 1, 2, and 3 are described as ‘knowledge’, while points 4 and 5 are described as ‘notice’. 

The High Court of Australia in Farah Constructions held that the rst 4 points of the Baden h

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

Legal Advice If you require legal advice to pursue or defend a Barnes v Addy claim, or any claim relating to fraud, contact Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers for a no-cost, obligation free discussion about your matter and how we can assist.



References



Facebook

฀

Twitter



LinkedIn

The content of this publication is intended as general commentary only and may not be suitable or applicable to your personal circumstances. It is not intended to replace independent legal advice. You can contact us at our Brisbane Ofce for a free consultation on a range of litigation matters on (07) 3130 0027.

h



About Gibbs Wright

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

About us

Recent Publications

Force Majeure: When the unforeseen strikes Contractual provisions designed to protect the parties to a contract as the result of an unforeseeable or unavoidable event.

 h

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

Dismissing a Statement of Claim Summarily for Lack of a Cause of Action | General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways The case of General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) reinforces the legal principle that a case may be dismissed summarily if it is manifestly groundless.

I’ve just received a Notice to Remedy Breach of Covenant I’ve just received a Notice to Remedy Breach of Covenant. What now? Table of Contents If you have received a

 h

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

Elements of a Contract The 7 elements of a contract that you need to know for dealing with a contract dispute.

Further Reading

h



Copyright Infringement and Intellectual Property Theft in Copyright Law

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

Notice Periods in Employment Contracts Reviewing the employment contract is an essential rst step in understanding your employment relationship. What are your Notice Periods?

 h

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

Free consultation

Talk to a litigation lawyer today We offer an initial no-cost, obligation-free consultation to assess the strength of your case.

Talk to us

 h

3

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

© 2021 Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers, Brisbane, Queensland Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

https://gibbswrightlawyers.com.au/publications/barnes-v-addy-claim





12/13

10/3/2021

Establishing a Barnes v Addy Claim - Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers

https://gibbswrightlawyers.com.au/publications/barnes-v-addy-claim

13/13...