TRACING GENERAL

The act of tracing is employed to establish the rightful possession of an object

by the recipient. Typically, the entitlement to trace in equity necessitates the
presence of two conditions: firstly there should be a fiduciary relationship
between the defendant and the claimant and second of all the claimant must
possess an equitable proprietary interest in the property.
To use the fair rules of tracing, it is important for a person to have a stake in a
trust, because the value of the person's right to the proceeds is what is used to
find the proceeds. Fairness means being willing to let claimants point out
situations where other guardians have not done their jobs and neglected their
duties. In the Re Diplock case, the plaintiffs were able to find out if other
trustees had broken their fiduciary duties in similar ways and this is
one example of how equity can be used. A recent decision by the United States
Supreme Court (FHR) says that any secret fees or bribes that a fiduciary gets in
violation of their duty to the principal must be kept in trust for the principal.
The fiduciary is able to make money off of the capital amount by investing it on
their own account. The above statement is shown by the legal case EL Ajou v.
Dollar Land Holdings, which involves situations in which it is clear that the
plaintiff and the defendant did not know each other before the plaintiff's land
was sold to the defendant. By using tracing, litigants have often been able to
get the courts to reveal the existence of fiduciary relationships. Lord Browne
Wilkinson mentioned the famous court case Westdeutsche Landesbank
Girozentrale v. Islington London Borough Council. The speaker went on to
explain that if a criminal committed fraud against a victim, resulting in the
victim receiving money, the criminal would be considered to hold the money in
constructive trust for the victim. This would set up a fiduciary relationship and
a fair ownership interest, making it possible for the victim to ask for the money
back.
The initial prerequisite of a fiduciary relationship has faced significant
criticism, primarily owing to the absence of corroborative substantiation. The
proposition has been put forth that the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the
decision in Sinclair v. Broughham in Re Diplock was flawed, as the former case
established that a primary fiduciary connection was not a prerequisite. It has
been noted that the extrapolation of this particular scenario is unfeasible. Goff
and Jones argue that maintaining separate tracing requirements for law and
equity is unreasonable. Additionally, they suggest that the courts should
abandon the prerequisite of establishing a fiduciary relationship for claimants
to trace in equity, as per the House of Lords' observations in Foskett v.
Mckeown. According to Goff and Jones, a uniform tracing legislation should be
implemented to govern all aspects of law and equity. Professor Birks has
acknowledged the notion that the prevalence of proprietary bases necessitates
the provision of equitable tracing measures.
In the case of unmixed funds, the recipient keeps their legal ownership of the
trust property even though the trustee has been dishonest. Equity can be set
up in a number of cases, such as when a manager breaks their fiduciary duties
by making money instead of doing what they were supposed to do. The law
says that a fiduciary's dishonest gains, which are held in constructive trust,
must be returned to the person who gave them the money. The legal system
gives the owner or receiver of a trust the ability to find out where any trust
assets that were given to an unknown third party in violation of the trust
agreement are. If a third party who wasn't told about it is a genuine buyer for
value, the beneficiary's equity title will be thrown out.
Mixed funds are the subject of the conversation right now in our answer to the
law of tracing. When a trustee mixes trust assets with their own personal
assets or mixes trust funds with their own money then it is up to the trustee to
show that the total amount goes to them. Finding out who owns the assets or
property bought with money from a combined fund between the trustee and
the assets of the trust is difficult. Foskett vs Mckeown shows that a person who
is a beneficiary is entitled to a benefit interest that is equal to the mixed
property. The complaining party can also put an obligation on the object that
was bought with mixed funds that were wrongly spent by the trustee. The
person who is eligible for benefits can choose any of the options that are
offered.
It is possible for the trustee to use the same bank account for both the trust
funds and their own money. Bank accounts are the most popular way for
people to keep their money in one place, so it makes sense that limits would be
put on them. If a trustee or fiduciary is found to have put trust property funds
in the same bank account as their own money, they could face different fines.
In Re Otway, it was shown that the idea that a trustee takes out their own
money first can hurt the applicant when the opposite assumption is made.
People thought that the trustee had used the money for himself or herself
before giving it to the claimant. The equity principle set up in the Re Oatway
case has been looked at closely because it could affect how the trustee's
creditors are treated, raising questions about how fair it is. People will think a
rule is good if it helps them in some way. Also, it is not possible to find out
exactly how the money is being spent. The success of tracing a mixed fund that
was put into a bank account depends on being able to prove that the trust
funds are still there. In Roscoe v. Winder, a judicial standard was set that says
when funds drop below the minimum amount level, it means that a part of the
funds that were committed have been spent. If the trustees can't show that
they want to fix the trust fund, any extra payments won't be seen as such. If it
is decided that tracking should be done in the past, the rule that governs this
will need to be changed.
However, there exist certain constraints on what can be deemed as fair tracing.
Once trust assets and their corresponding income have been distributed, they
become untraceable as there is no longer a tangible representation of the
original property. The Court of Appeal rendered a decision in the case of Re
Diplock, wherein it was concluded that the retrieval of funds that were
inappropriately transferred from a trust to two charitable organisations and
subsequently utilised to settle debts would pose a challenge. The cases of
Bishopgate and Foskett concluded that the cash that was deposited into the
accounts that had exceeded their credit limit could not be traced.
The clean replacement method, based on the common law tracing approach,
operates under the assumption that the plaintiff should be able to maintain
possession of the asset which is in question. The legal title of the claimant is
globally recognized and cannot be challenged or denied even if a legitimate
purchase has been made. As a result the claimant will not be relieved of their
original title. The verdict in the case of Taylor v. Plummers seems to have been
grounded on this line of reasoning. In cases where an individual possesses a
common law entitlement to specific assets, they are eligible to receive any
appreciation in the value of said assets. The legitimacy of the aforementioned
restrictions has been called into question by certain individuals, such as Lionel
Smith. These individuals have expressed the view that the criticism directed
towards the limitations is unjustified. The Plumer case did not employ the
methodology of common law tracing. This proposition implies that the
underlying concern pertains to the notion that common law fails to distinguish
between various types of monetary property.
In the legal matter of Spence v. Union Marine Insurance Co. Ltd., it was
adjudicated that a reasonable and equitable arrangement for the
reorganisation of a multifaceted investment portfolio held in common
ownership could be achieved through the implementation of a tenancy in
common agreement. Individuals who hold a fund that is jointly owned or who
are beneficiaries of a trust have the alternative to maintain their shares as
tenants in common. This particular arrangement confers upon each proprietor
a legitimate stake in the asset that is proportionate to their individual
contribution. The aforementioned process enables a higher degree of accuracy
in the tracking of assets and has the potential to streamline the recovery of
assets in situations involving mixed funds or fraudulent misuse of entrusted
assets.
It is noteworthy that the principles of tracing are not exclusively limited to
cases of "fair tenancy in common." The practice of tracing can prove
advantageous in diverse scenarios, including those that entail multiple levels of
investment or transactional complexity, the transfer or modification of assets,
and comparable situations. The act of tracing is utilized to establish a
conclusive link between the original assets and the assets that can be traced
back to them, thus enabling their recovery or evaluation.
The principles of tracing are considered essential in the field of trust law as
they facilitate the recovery of assets that have been misappropriated. The
realization of effective tracing mechanisms can be attained by enacting just and
fair tenancy in common arrangements.

“IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT QUESTIONS COULD COME FROM A

VARIETY OF ANGLES IN THE EXAM SO THESE ESSAYS DO NOT
GURRANTEE YOUR MARKS. IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
IN THE PAPER AND RESPOND TO NEW ANGLES, PLEASE STUDY THE
ENTIRE CHAPTER AND UNDERTAKE PREPARATORY RESEARCH.”