Head v Gould
A trustee who is a solicitor is not required to indemnify a co-trustee merely because of his profession, unless the co-trustee relied on his advice and he exercised a controlling influence.
Facts
Miss Head and Mr Gould, a solicitor, were trustees. They committed breaches of trust, including advancing money to Miss Head's mother, a beneficiary, beyond what was allowed. Miss Head had actively urged the breaches. When the beneficiaries sued, Miss Head claimed an indemnity from Mr Gould, because he was a solicitor.
Legal principle
Kekewich J held that Miss Head was not entitled to an indemnity. He said that a trustee who is a solicitor is not liable to indemnify a co-trustee merely because he is a solicitor. The co-trustee must show that she relied on the solicitor's advice and that he exercised such a controlling influence over the trust that she was unable to exercise independent judgment. Miss Head had actively participated in the breaches, and had not relied on Mr Gould's professional advice.
Related cases on breach of trust and defences
- AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co [2014] UKSC 58, [2015] AC 1503
- Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241
- Bahin v Hughes (1886) 31 Ch D 390
- Re Dawson (deceased) [1966] 2 NSWR 211
- Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465
- Re Evans (deceased) [1999] 2 All ER 777
- Fletcher v Collis [1905] 2 Ch 24
- Ministry of Health v Simpson [1951] AC 251
Studying equity and trusts? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
