Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] Ch 105 is a case of UK trust law, concerning constructive trust. It was held that trust emerged to protect payments made under errors, with the benefit of an exclusive remedy. It is important to question whether responses, personal or ownership, can be derived from claims in unfair enrichment.
The decision in this case has experienced "continuous and authoritative criticism", both academically and legally.
Video Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd
Fakta
Chase Manhattan was instructed to pay $ 2 million to the Israeli-British Bank, but paid him twice for mistakes. The Israeli-British Bank then went bankrupt and entered into liquidation after Yehoshua Ben-Zion, managing director, was convicted of embezzling Ã, Â £ 20 million ($ 39.4 million) from the bank. Chase Manhattan wants to reclaim the money he has paid wrong. However, since the Israeli-British Bank is now bankrupt, rather than making a claim for dividends in liquidation, where it must compete with all other creditors of a bankrupt bank, Chase Manhattan is trying to argue that the entire amount is held on a trust basis and must be returned as part of claim of ownership of the money.
The Israeli-British Bank had known about Chase Manhattan's mistakes before it became liquidated.
Maps Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd
Judgment
Goulding J declares that Chase Manhattan can recover the full amount, because the money is held on trust basis upon receipt. He says the following.
Criticism
Decisions have been subject to "continuous and authoritative criticism."
The case was reviewed at the Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and expressed doubts about the reason. He states "I disagree with this reason: First, it is based on the concept of maintaining a fair property in money where, before payment to the receiving bank, there is no equitable interest.Furthermore, I can not understand how the conscientious recipient can be affected when he is not aware of any error. "This view, expressed in the manner of obit dictum, is specifically criticized by Peter Birks on the grounds that an easier way to establish a claim is for unfair enrichment, triggering exclusive drugs under similar circumstances. , regardless of the position of one's conscience.
Lord Millett, writing unlawfully, also criticized the decision, stating "It is easy to agree with Lord Browne-Wilkinson that [ Chase Manhattan v Israel-British Bank ] was wrongly decided, but it was wrongly decided not because [transferee] has no such [claims] claims notification... but because [the plaintiff] has no proprietary interest for it to have a notification. "
See also
- English trust law
- British land law
- British property law
Note
References
External links
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments