Re Diplock
Next of kin who were not paid because of a wrongful distribution of an estate to charities had personal and proprietary claims against the recipients.
Facts
After the House of Lords held in Chichester Diocesan Fund v Simpson that the gift in Caleb Diplock's will for charitable or benevolent objects was void, the next of kin sought to recover the money that the executors had distributed to various charities. Some of the money had been spent by the charities on improving their buildings, some had been mixed with their own money, and some was still identifiable.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the next of kin had both personal and proprietary claims. The personal claim against the recipients of money wrongly paid in the administration of an estate was available even though the recipients were innocent, but only after the next of kin had exhausted their remedies against the executors. The proprietary claim allowed them to trace the money in equity, including into mixed funds, but not where the charities had used the money to improve their own land, because it would be inequitable to impose a charge on the land in those circumstances. The decision was affirmed by the House of Lords in Ministry of Health v Simpson.
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 Evans (deceased) [1999] 2 All ER 777
- Fletcher v Collis [1905] 2 Ch 24
- Head v Gould [1898] 2 Ch 250
- 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.
