Defence available to the innocent volunteer (Equitable proprietary claims against strangers -FS Flashcards
(8 cards)
What is Defence of Inequitable Result (Innocent Volunteer)
A defence available to an innocent volunteer who has received and used trust property, where allowing tracing or enforcing a proprietary claim would result in an inequitable outcome, despite the claimant’s equitable interest.
In what situation can an innocent volunteer rely on the inequitable result defence?
When enforcing a proprietary claim (e.g., lien or recovery) would cause unjust hardship to the innocent recipient, such as forcing the sale of their home, even though they acted in good faith.
Can tracing be denied even if value has been added to the recipient’s property?
Yes. If tracing or enforcing a lien would be inequitable, for example by requiring the sale of an innocent volunteer’s home, the court may refuse the remedy—even if trust funds added value.
What happens if trust funds were used to repay debts or make improvements that add no value?
The funds are considered dissipated and cannot be traced. No proprietary claim can be enforced in such cases.
Situations Where Tracing Will Be Denied Against an Innocent Volunteer
- Funds were used to repay debts
- Funds were used for improvements that added no value.
- Funds added value, but enforcing a lien would cause unjust hardship.
- The innocent volunteer was completely unaware of the breach
Why was tracing disallowed in the case of Jaswinder’s home extension?
Because enforcing a lien over the house (to recover £10,000) would result in disproportionate hardship to Jaswinder, who was innocent and unaware of the breach. The result would be inequitable.
Is innocence alone enough to defeat a proprietary claim?
No. Innocence does not automatically bar proprietary claims. However, when innocence + inequitable consequences are both present, a claim may be denied.
What is the underlying equitable principle in denying tracing for inequitable result?
Equity will not enforce rights in a manner that causes injustice to an innocent party. The balance of fairness between the parties determines whether a proprietary remedy will be granted.