Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
A-G for Hong Kong v Reid
[1994] 1 AC 324, [1994] 1 All ER 1, [1993] 3 WLR 1143, [1993] NLJR 1569, 137 Sol Jo LB 251
Court: PC
Judgment Date: circa 1994
Case History
Annotations | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
- | A-G for Hong Kong v Reid | [1994] 1 AC 324, [1994] 1 All ER 1, [1993] 3 WLR 1143, [1993] NLJR 1569, 137 Sol Jo LB 251 | PC | circa 1994 | |
On Appeal from | A-G for Hong Kong v Reid | [1992] 2 NZLR 385 (NZ CA) | NZ CA | circa 1992 |
Cases referring to this case
Annotations: All Cases Court: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Considered | Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd | [2004] EWHC 622 (Ch), [2005] Ch 119, [2005] 4 All ER 73, [2004] 3 WLR 1106, [2004] All ER (D) 507 (Mar) | Ch D | 26/03/200 | |
Applied | Crown Resources AG v Vinogradsky | [2001] All ER (D) 203 (Nov) | QBD | 14/11/200 | |
Considered | Cia de Seguros Imperio (a body corporate) v Heath (REBX) Ltd (formerly CE Heath & Co (North America) Ltd ) | [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 787, [2001] 1 WLR 112, [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 795, (2000) Times, 26 September | CA | 20/07/200 |
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Applied | Keech v Sandford | (1726) 2 Eq Cas Abr 741, Sel Cas Ch 61, Cas temp King 61, 25 ER 223, [1558-1774] All ER Rep 230 | LC | 31/10/172 | |
dictum Lord Scarman Explained | Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd (No 2) | [1986] AC 519, [1986] 1 All ER 897, [1986] 1 WLR 392, 130 Sol Jo 186, [1985] LS Gaz R 869 | PC | circa 1986 | |
Doubted | Lister & Co v Stubbs | (1890) 45 Ch D 1, 59 LJ Ch 570, 38 WR 548, [1886-90] All ER Rep 797, 63 LT 75, 6 TLR 317 | CA | circa 1890 | |
Considered | Metropolitan Bank v Heiron | (1880) 5 Ex D 319, 29 WR 370, 43 LT 676 | CA | circa 1880 | |
Applied | Caerphilly Colliery Co, Re, Pearson's Case | (1877) 5 Ch D 336, 46 LJ Ch 339, 25 WR 618 | CA | circa 1877 | |
Applied | Canadian Oil Works Corpn, Re, Eastwick's Case | (1876) 45 LJ Ch 225, 34 LT 84 | CA | circa 1876 | |
Applied | Canadian Oil Works Corpn, Re, Hay's Case | (1875) 10 Ch App 593, 44 LJ Ch 721, 24 WR 191, 33 LT 466 | CA in Ch | circa 1875 | |
Applied | Sugden v Crossland | (1856) 25 LJ Ch 563, 2 Jur NS 318, 107 RR 73, 3 Sm & G 192, 4 WR 343, 26 LTOS 307 | pre-SC | circa 1856 | |
Applied | Fawcett v Whitehouse | (1829) 8 LJOS Ch 50, 39 ER 51, 1 Russ & M 132 | pre-SC | circa 1829 |
Catchwords & Digest
TRUSTS - NATURE AND CREATION OF TRUSTS - CONSTRUCTIVE AND RESULTING TRUSTS - CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS - THE FIDUCIARY AS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE - PROFITS OBTAINED BY PERSON IN FIDUCIARY POSITION - TRUSTEE - BRIBE - EQUITABLE DUTY OF FIDUCIARY WHO RECEIVES BRIBE
R was convicted of accepting bribes given to him in the course of his position as a public prosecutor in Hong Kong as an inducement to exploit his official position by obstructing the prosecution of certain criminals. He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment and ordered to pay the Crown the sum of $HK12.4m, being the value of assets then controlled by him which could only have been derived from bribes. No payment to the Crown was made by R. The Attorney-General for Hong Kong registered caveats on behalf of the Hong Kong government against the titles to three properties in New Zealand registered in the names of R and his wife or his solicitor which were alleged to have been bought with bribes received by R. In an application in the High Court of New Zealand to renew the caveats the Attorney-General claimed that the three properties, the value of which had increased since their purchase, were held on a constructive trust in favour of the Crown. The respondents claimed that the Crown had no equitable interest in the properties. The judge held that the Crown as caveator could not as a matter of law establish an arguable case that it had a proprietary interest in the three properties. On appeal by the Attorney-General the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, following a long-established English Court of Appeal authority, upheld the judge's decision on the grounds that as between principal and fiduciary the receipt of a bribe by the fiduciary only gave rise to the relationship of creditor and debtor and not trustee and cestui que trust as the principal had no proprietary interest in the bribe or moneys or investments representing it. The Attorney-General appealed to the Privy Council. Held, when a fiduciary accepted a bribe as an inducement to betray his trust he held the bribe in trust for the person to whom he owed the duty as fiduciary; and, if property representing the bribe increased in value, the fiduciary was not entitled to retain any surplus in excess of the initial value of the bribe because he was not allowed by any means to make a profit out of a breach of duty. A bribe was a secret benefit which the fiduciary derived from trust property or obtained from knowledge which he acquired in the course of acting as a fiduciary and he was accountable under a constructive trust for that secret benefit to the person to whom the fiduciary duty was owed as soon as the bribe was received, whether in cash or in kind, under the equitable principle that equity considered as done that which ought to have been done. If property representing the bribe increased in value or if a cash bribe was invested advantageously the false fiduciary was accountable not only for the original amount or value of the bribe but also for the increased value of the property representing the bribe since otherwise he would receive a benefit from his breach of duty. Accordingly, the three properties so far as they represented bribes accepted by R were held in trust for the Crown, which was entitled to have the caveats renewed. The appeal would therefore be allowed.
Per curiam. Although the application of stare decisis in the New Zealand Court of Appeal is a matter for that court, it is free to review an English Court of Appeal authority on its merits and to depart from it if it considers it to be wrong.
