The Court of Appeal established the test for third party liability in breach of trust cases, requiring either dishonest assistance or knowing receipt.

Milroy v Lord established the fundamental principle that for a gift to be valid, it must be completely constituted either by transfer of legal title (whether to the donee outright or to trustees) or by declaration of trust. The case demonstrates that an imperfect gift cannot be saved by treating it as a declaration of trust unless there is clear evidence of such intention.

Court of Appeal establishes landmark two-stage test for dishonesty in criminal law

Strong v Bird established the rule that an imperfect gift can be perfected where the intended donee later becomes the donor's executor. This case created an important exception to the general rule that equity will not assist a volunteer to perfect an imperfect gift.

Supreme Court revolutionises dishonesty test, abolishing Ghosh's subjective element

Tinsley v Milligan established that a party can recover property held under an illegal trust if they can prove their equitable interest without relying on the illegality. The case clarified the application of the 'reliance principle' in cases involving illegal transactions between joint participants.

Moss orally declared himself trustee of 50 of his 950 shares in a private company for Hunter's benefit. The Court of Appeal held that a trust of intangible property (shares) does not fail for uncertainty of subject matter even when the specific shares are not segregated from the larger holding, distinguishing tangible chattels.

Pennington v Waine established that equity can perfect an imperfect gift of shares even without formal transfer where it would be unconscionable to allow the donor to resile from the gift. The case significantly relaxed the strict requirements for share transfers by allowing equitable intervention in appropriate circumstances.

Theft conviction upheld despite valid civil law gift transfer

Keech v Sandford established the fundamental principle that trustees cannot profit from their position of trust, even where no fraud or bad faith is involved. A trustee who renewed a lease for his own benefit after being unable to renew it for the trust was held accountable for the profits, creating a cornerstone rule of fiduciary duty.

Bribe proceeds held on constructive trust from moment of receipt by fiduciary

Morice v Bishop of Durham established the fundamental principle that charitable trusts must have purposes that are sufficiently certain and capable of being carried out by the court. The case created the foundational test for charitable trust validity and the cy-près doctrine in English law.

Theft can occur even when the victim consents to the taking.

Knight v Knight established the three certainties required for the creation of a valid trust in English law. The case laid down the fundamental principle that there must be certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter, and certainty of objects for a trust to be legally enforceable.

House of Lords rules theft can occur even with owner's consent

Saunders v Vautier established that adult beneficiaries of a trust who are of sound mind and absolutely entitled can call for the trust property to be transferred to them, even if this terminates the trust earlier than the settlor intended. This fundamental principle gives beneficiaries significant control over trust assets.

A testamentary gift failed for uncertainty where the testator left 'the bulk of my residuary estate' to trustees. The court held that 'bulk' was too vague to constitute a valid trust.

Strict liability offences require clear presumption of mens rea to be displaced

House of Lords decision establishing the doctrine of secret trusts, holding that equity will enforce secret trusts to prevent fraud, even though they appear to contradict statutory formality requirements for wills.

Legitimate expectation may arise from representations even without legal right to hearing.

Re Hallett's Estate established the fundamental principle in trust law that when a trustee wrongfully mixes trust money with their own funds, the beneficiary can claim the mixed fund or any traceable proceeds. This case created the important rule that a trustee cannot profit from their breach by claiming they spent the trust money first.

House of Lords decision establishing the four heads of charity based on the Charitable Uses Act 1601. This foundational case created the classification system that dominated charity law for over a century.

Court defines when temporary taking becomes theft under criminal law

The Court of Appeal held that a half-secret trust fails if the terms communicated to trustees differ from those specified in the will.

You can steal your own property from someone with superior possession rights.

Paul v Constance established that informal words can create an express trust without using technical language. The case demonstrates that saying 'this money is as much yours as mine' can constitute a valid declaration of trust if the intention is clear from the circumstances.

House of Lords defines theft as any assumption of owner's rights

This case established the fundamental distinction between fiduciary duties and duties of care and skill in professional negligence. The Court of Appeal clarified that breach of fiduciary duty requires dishonesty or lack of good faith, while ordinary professional negligence falls under duties of care.

Section 2(1) damages assessed on fraud basis, including all consequential losses.

Re Diplock established the personal remedy against recipients of funds wrongfully distributed from an estate. This landmark case created important principles for tracing and recovering misapplied trust property, particularly where innocent third parties have received funds they were not entitled to.

Robbery is continuing act - force can occur during ongoing theft

Fiduciaries must account for unauthorized profits despite acting honestly

Confidential information cannot be stolen as it does not constitute property under theft law.

Undue influence requires transaction shown to be manifestly disadvantageous to complainant

Economic duress requires lack of practical choice and protest at time of agreement

Deception as to the nature and quality of sexual act vitiates consent.