Liability of alleged accessory to breach
However, as the majority took care to add, a defendant who is so aware cannot be excused on the ground that he did not consider himself to be in the wrong by his own standards of morality .
Start your free trial today
Your trusted daily source of commercial real estate news and analysis. Register now for unlimited digital access throughout April.
Including:
- Breaking news, interviews and market updates
- Expert legal commentary, market trends and case law
- In-depth reports and expert analysis
Liability of alleged accessory to breach
Q On the facts used to illustrate PP 2002/191, in what circumstances, according to Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12; [2002] 38 EG 204 (CS), would David be held liable for “knowingly” assisting Charlie in the breach, or for receiving trust property?
A In Twinsectra, it was common ground that dishonesty had to be established, and that there could be no dishonesty without knowledge of the facts of the breach. Nor was it disputed that the conduct of the defendant had to transgress the ordinary standards of honest behaviour. The critical issue was whether the claimant had the further task of showing that the defendant was (subjectively) aware that he was guilty of such a transgression. Four members of the House (ruling in favour of the defendant) held that the claimant did have that task. The House thus created a distinction (deplored by Lord Millett) between this area of the law and the common law rules applicable to alleged accessories to the commission of a tort or a breach of contract.
However, as the majority took care to add, a defendant who is so aware cannot be excused on the ground that he did not consider himself to be in the wrong by his own standards of morality .
