Abstract
Traditionally, a beneficiary could require a trustee to reconstitute misapplied trust property without having to prove causation of loss, by seeking substitutive performance of the trustee’s primary obligation to deliver the trust property. This position was altered in Target Holdings v Redferns, where the House of Lords held that a beneficiary is only entitled to equitable compensation for loss he would not have suffered but for the trustee’s breach. The correctness of that decision has been much debated. In the recent case of AIB v Redler, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the but-for causation requirement, and it is suggested that this development may have sounded the death knell for substitutive performance claims in England.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
