Synopses & Reviews
Synopsis
The decision of the House of Lords in Twinsectra v Yardley (2002) has refocused attention on the Quistclose trust (Barclays Bank v Quistclose Ltd 1970] AC 567). Although accepted by British insolvency lawyers as a convenient tool for corporate rescue, the precise basis of the trust has always been in doubt. The purpose of these essays is to explore the supposed foundations of the trust and subject them to a searching analysis. In particular, attention will focus on Lord Millett's controversial analysis in Twinsectra of the way the trust works and his assertion that it is consistent with traditional principles of trust law.
Synopsis
The so-called Quistclose trust probably represents the single most important application of equitable principles in commercial life. (Lord Millett in the foreword to this book).
The decision of the House of Lords in Twinsectra v Yardley has refocused attention on the Quistclose trust. Although accepted by insolvency lawyers as a convenient tool for corporate rescue, the precise basis of the trust has always been in doubt. The purpose of these essays is to explore the foundations of the trust and subject them to a searching analysis.
Contributors: Robert Stevens (Oxford), 'Rolls Razor Ltd'; William Swadling (Oxford), 'Orthodoxy'; James Penner (LSE), 'Lord Millett's Analysis'; Lionel Smith (McGill), 'Understanding the Power'; Robert Chambers (Alberta), 'Restrictions on the Use of Money'; Peter Birks (Oxford), 'Retrieving Tied Money'; Ewan McKendrick (Oxford), 'Commerce'; Robert Stevens (Oxford), 'Insolvency'; George Gretton (Edinburgh), 'Scotland'.
Synopsis
The decision of the House of Lords in Twinsectra v Yardley (2002) has refocused attention on the Quistclose trust (Barclays Bank v Quistclose Ltd 1970] AC 567). These essays explore and analyse the supposed foundations of the trust.