Tag: British Court of Appeal

12 Jun

Hull on Estates #548 – Four Corners versus Armchair

76admin Archived BLOG POSTS - Hull on Estates, Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Hull on Estates, Hull on Estates, Podcasts, PODCASTS / TRANSCRIBED, Show Notes, Show Notes Tags: , , , , , , , 0 Comments

In today’s podcast, Jonathon Kappy and Kira Domratchev discuss the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision of Killam v Killam (2018) BCCA 64, and the “four corners” approach versus the “armchair” approach in interpreting the testator’s intention.

Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Jonathon Kappy.

Click here for more information on Kira Domratchev.

06 Mar

When does Knowing Amount to “Knowing Assistance?”

Hull & Hull LLP Archived BLOG POSTS - Hull on Estates, Ethical Issues Tags: , , , , , , 0 Comments

When does a bank become liable for the actions of clients who use its accounts as a vehicle for fraud?

This was the question considered in Abou-Rahmah v. Abacha [2006] EWCA Civ 1492 as reported in 9 ITELR.

A victim of fraud made payment into a Nigerian bank account through an English branch which funds were promptly removed from the bank by the fraudsters who disappeared. The victim sought damages against the Nigerian bank by way of a proceeding commenced in England.

Having lost at trial, the Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the bank had knowingly assisted in the fraudster’s breach of trust. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal and, in so doing, comprehensively reviewed the authorities.

In short, a finding that the bank had knowingly assisted in the breach of trust would require a dishonest state of mind such that the bank had knowledge that rendered its participation “contrary to normally acceptable standards of honest conduct.”

Such a state of mind could involve suspicions combined with a conscious decision not to make enquiries. Applied to the case at hand, the Court considered that, although the bank had general suspicions that the account holder who subsequently committed the fraud was possibly involved in money laundering, the bank had no knowledge of any specific act of dishonesty regarding the transactions in question.

Until tomorrow,

David

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET