拜尔斯诉沙特国家银行案:知道收据有什么错?

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Rory Gregson, Timothy Pilkington
{"title":"拜尔斯诉沙特国家银行案:知道收据有什么错?","authors":"Rory Gregson, Timothy Pilkington","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In <jats:italic>Byers</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>Saudi National Bank</jats:italic>, the Supreme Court held that where a right is transferred in breach of trust and the beneficiary's beneficial interest in the right is extinguished by the transfer, a personal claim for knowing receipt is not available against the recipient. Lord Briggs and Lord Burrows offered different reasons for this conclusion. This note argues that their approaches, while superficially similar, could lead to divergent results in future cases. It argues that Lord Briggs’ analysis is to be preferred, and is best understood to mean that a personal claim for knowing receipt is one for breach of a restorative duty or a custodial duty. Whilst Lord Briggs did not offer a justification for these duties, this note argues that these duties, and therefore the personal claim for knowing receipt, are justified by a third party knowingly depriving the beneficiary of the performance of their trustee's duties.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Byers v Saudi National Bank: What's the Wrong in Knowing Receipt?\",\"authors\":\"Rory Gregson, Timothy Pilkington\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12888\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In <jats:italic>Byers</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>Saudi National Bank</jats:italic>, the Supreme Court held that where a right is transferred in breach of trust and the beneficiary's beneficial interest in the right is extinguished by the transfer, a personal claim for knowing receipt is not available against the recipient. Lord Briggs and Lord Burrows offered different reasons for this conclusion. This note argues that their approaches, while superficially similar, could lead to divergent results in future cases. It argues that Lord Briggs’ analysis is to be preferred, and is best understood to mean that a personal claim for knowing receipt is one for breach of a restorative duty or a custodial duty. Whilst Lord Briggs did not offer a justification for these duties, this note argues that these duties, and therefore the personal claim for knowing receipt, are justified by a third party knowingly depriving the beneficiary of the performance of their trustee's duties.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47530,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12888\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12888","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在拜尔斯诉沙特国家银行一案中,最高法院认为,如果违反信托规定转让权利,且受益人在该权利中的受益权因转让而消灭,则不得对收受人提出知情收受的个人索赔。布里格斯勋爵(Lord Briggs)和伯罗斯勋爵(Lord Burrows)对这一结论提出了不同的理由。本说明认为,他们的方法虽然表面上相似,但在未来的案件中可能会导致不同的结果。本说明认为,布里格斯勋爵的分析更可取,其最佳理解是,对知情收受的个人索赔是对违反恢复性义务或监护义务的个人索赔。虽然布里格斯勋爵没有提出这些义务的正当理由,但本说明认为,第三方在知情的情况下剥夺受益人履行其受托人义务的权利,是这些义务的正当理由,因此也是知情收受个人索赔的正当理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Byers v Saudi National Bank: What's the Wrong in Knowing Receipt?
In Byers v Saudi National Bank, the Supreme Court held that where a right is transferred in breach of trust and the beneficiary's beneficial interest in the right is extinguished by the transfer, a personal claim for knowing receipt is not available against the recipient. Lord Briggs and Lord Burrows offered different reasons for this conclusion. This note argues that their approaches, while superficially similar, could lead to divergent results in future cases. It argues that Lord Briggs’ analysis is to be preferred, and is best understood to mean that a personal claim for knowing receipt is one for breach of a restorative duty or a custodial duty. Whilst Lord Briggs did not offer a justification for these duties, this note argues that these duties, and therefore the personal claim for knowing receipt, are justified by a third party knowingly depriving the beneficiary of the performance of their trustee's duties.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信