Abstract
The trust arrangement found by Lord Wilberforce in Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments has been the subject of a fierce debate seeking to explain its precise nature and reconcile it with established principles. It is argued that six of the principal explanations discussed in this debate have been exposed as deficient, either as inconsistent with orthodoxy or as requiring an unrealistic construction of the facts. It is further argued that the explanation originally given by Lord Wilberforce has been missed, and that this explanation avoids both of these problems.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
