Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria
On 19 February 2014, the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria. The issue in the case was whether s21(1)(a) of the UK Limitation Act 1980 disapplies the statutory limitation period in respect of claims by a beneficiary under a trust against an accessory (a knowing recipient of trust property or a dishonest assistant) to a fraudulent breach of trust.
In particular, the court looked at the issue of whether a stranger to a trust who dishonestly assists in a breach of trust, or knowingly receives trust property paid out in breach of trust, is a ‘trustee’ within the meaning of s21(1)(a).
Lord Sumption (with whom Lords Neuberger and Lord Hughes agreed) held that the act is concerned only with actions against ‘true’ trustees, and a stranger to a trust (although he may have dishonestly assisted the true trustee or knowingly received trust property) is not himself a ‘true’ trustee and, accordingly, a claim against him is not within the scope of s21(1)(a)…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Conyers Dill & Pearman briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Conyers Dill & Pearman
Briefings from Conyers Dill & Pearman
The decision in Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys and another clarifies a liquidator’s authority in relation to antisuit injunctions.
Difficult questions often arise in connection with BVI companies, with regard to directors.