0% found this document useful (0 votes)
605 views9 pages

Objectives of Prostitution

The document discusses constructive trusts under English law. Constructive trusts are imposed by courts when a defendant deals with property in an unconscionable manner. There are three main categories that give rise to a constructive trust: 1) unconscionable dealings with property, 2) profits from unlawful acts such as bribery or fraud, and 3) unauthorized profits made by someone in a fiduciary position. A constructive trust is intended to prevent the defendant from causing further harm with the property and takes it from their control regardless of intentions.

Uploaded by

pauline1988
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
605 views9 pages

Objectives of Prostitution

The document discusses constructive trusts under English law. Constructive trusts are imposed by courts when a defendant deals with property in an unconscionable manner. There are three main categories that give rise to a constructive trust: 1) unconscionable dealings with property, 2) profits from unlawful acts such as bribery or fraud, and 3) unauthorized profits made by someone in a fiduciary position. A constructive trust is intended to prevent the defendant from causing further harm with the property and takes it from their control regardless of intentions.

Uploaded by

pauline1988
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

1. What are constructive trusts?

2. What are the requirements for remedies under a constructive trust?


3.
ConstructivetrustsinEnglishlawareaformoftrustcreatedbythecourtsprimarilywherethedefendant
hasdealtwithpropertyinan"unconscionablemanner",butalsoinothercircumstances;thepropertywill
beheldin"constructivetrust"fortheharmedparty,obligingthedefendanttolookafterit.Themain
categoriesoffactorsgivingrisetoaconstructivetrustareunconscionabledealingswithproperty,profits
fromunlawfulacts,andunauthorisedprofitsbyafiduciary.Wheretheownerofpropertydealswithitina
wayastodenyorimpedetherightsofsomeotherpersonoverthatproperty,thecourtswillorderthat
ownertoholditinconstructivetrust.Whereprofitsaremadefromunlawfulacts,suchasmurder,fraud,or
bribery,theseprofitswillalsobeheldinconstructivetrust.Themostcommonoftheseisbribery,which
requiresthatthepersonbeinafiduciaryoffice.Certainoffices,suchasthoseoftrusteeandcompany
director,arealwaysfiduciaryoffices;thecourtsmaychoosetorecogniseotherswherethecircumstances
demandit.Wheresomeoneinafiduciaryofficemakesprofitsfromtheirdutieswithouttheauthorisationof
thatoffice'sbeneficiaries,aconstructivetrustmaybeimposedonthoseprofits;thereisadefencewherethe
beneficiarieshaveauthorisedsuchprofits.Thejustificationhereisthatapersoninsuchanofficemust
avoidconflictsofinterest,andbeheldtoaccountshouldhefailtodoso.
Other types of constructive trust not relating to unconscionable dealings are constructive trusts over
property,mutualwills,andarguablysecrettrusts.Wherepropertyissoldortransferred,thesigningofan
agreement to do so automatically transfers the equitable interest to the buyer or transferee; until the
propertyitselfistransferred,itisdeemedtobeheldonconstructivetrustfortherecipient.Mutualwillsare
irrevocablewillsmadebymultiplepeopletocomeintoforceatthewriter'sdeath;similarly,thesearealso
consideredconstructivetrusts.Secrettrustsarethesubjectofmuchdebateovertheirclassification,butone
theoryholdsthemtobeconstructiveinnature.Relatedtoconstructivetrustsareconstructivetrustees,or
trusteesdesontort;thesearewhere"one,notbeingatrusteeandnothavingauthorityfromatrustee,takes
uponhimselftointermeddlewithtrustmattersortodoactscharacteristicoftheofficeoftrustee". [1]Where
theiractionsarerecklessordishonest,thecourtmakesthatpersonaconstructivetrustee,forcingthemto
accounttothebeneficiariesforanylosssufferedandlookafterthetrustpropertyintheirpossession.
Aconstructivetrustisatrustwhichisimposedbythecourtswheneverthedefendantknowsthathehas
dealt with property in an "unconscionable manner", such as stealing it, possessing it via fraud, and
acceptingabribewhileinoccupationofafiduciaryoffice. [2]Theconstructivetrustisintendedtotakethe
propertyfromthedefendant'scontrol,preventingthemfromcausingadditionalharmwithit.Itthusacts
regardlessoftheparties'intentions.InParagonFinanceplcvDBThakerar&Co,[3]MilletLJdefineda

constructivetrustasatrustwhich"arisesbyoperationoflawwheneverthecircumstancesaresuchthatit
wouldbeunconscionablefortheownerofproperty(usuallybutnotnecessarilythelegalestate)toassert
his own beneficial interest in the property and deny the beneficial interest of another". Essentially, a
constructivetrustwillarisewheneveranownereitherignores,orinterferes,withtherightsofanother
personwithaninterestinthatproperty. [4]Thereisadistinctionbetweenpersonalandproprietaryrightsto
property.Aconstructivetrustnormallygivesaproprietaryrighttothebeneficiarythatcanbeenforcedon
anyotherperson.Thealternative(apersonalright)merelygivesthebeneficiarytherighttorecovermoney
equivalenttothevalueoftheproperty.[5]
Constructivetrusts,underSection53(2)ofthe LawofPropertyAct1925,donotrequireanyparticular
formalitiesoncreation,unlikeexpresstrusts.Forthemtobevalid,however,thedefendant(or"trustee"of
the constructive trust) must know that he has dealt with property in an "unconscionable manner". In
Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington London Borough Council,[6] Lord BrowneWilkinson wrote that
"Sincetheequitablejurisdictiontoenforcetrustsdependsupontheconscienceoftheholderofthelegal
interestbeingaffected,hecannotbeatrusteeofthepropertyifandsolongasheisignorantofthefacts
allegedtoaffecthisconscience".[7]

Reasons
Unconscionabledealingswithproperty
Whentheownerofpropertydealswithitinsuchawayastodenyorimpedetherightsofsomeother
personoverthatproperty,thecourtswillorderthatownertoholditonconstructivetrust.Fortrustsofreal
property,constructivetrustsmayariseinoneofthreesituations.First,whenthepartiesformanagreement
tobuytheland,orshow"commonintention"byjointlycontributingtothepriceormortgageofaproperty,
asin LloydsBankplcvRosset.[8] Second,whenacontracttotransferrightsisagreedto,theequitable
interest is automatically transferred, [9] something that also applies to personal property.[10] Third, a
constructivetrustmaybecreatedwherethereareseveralpartiesinterestedincommerciallyexploitingland,
andsomerefrainfromdoingsoduetoanagreementwiththedefendant,asin PallantvMorgan.[11] In
BannerHomesGroupplcvLuffDevelopmentsLtd,[12]itwasdecidedthatthisprincipleappliesevenwhen
nobindingcontracthasbeensigned,andtheclaimanthasrefrainedduetoongoingnegotiationswiththe
defendant.[13]
Another "more contentious" form of constructive trust isina situationwhere the claimant has "done
everythingnecessary".Wheretheownerofpropertyintendstotransferpropertytoanother,completestheir

sideofthetransferandthetransferthenfails,thispropertywillbeheldonconstructivetrustasin ReRose.
[14][15]

Inrelationtopersonalproperty,aconstructivetrustwillbecreatedoverafundcreatedtoprotectpre

payments to a company in the event of that company going into insolvency. In several situations,
companies,knowingtheyareindirefinancial straits,haveput moneypaidtothem bycustomersfor
productsnotyetdeliveredinaseparatebankaccounttoprotectitintheeventofinsolvency.Thiscauses
theoreticalproblems;itis"difficulttosquaretheconscionabilityofholdingthemoneyontrustforthe
customerswiththeparipassuprincipleininsolvencylawthatnounsecuredcreditorshouldbegivenan
advantageoveranyotherunsecuredcreditor".[16]

Profitsfromunlawfulacts
Whereactsleadtoprofitandareillegal,undereitherEnglishcriminallaworanestablishedlegalprinciple,
equityputsanypropertyacquiredthroughtheseactsintoaconstructivetrust.Themostcommontypeof
trusthereisoneresultingfrombribery;wheresomebodyinafiduciaryofficemakesunlawfulprofit,that
moneywillbeheldonconstructivetrustforthebeneficiariesofhisoffice. [17]InAttorneyGeneralforHong
KongvReid,[18]theDirectorofPublicProsecutionsinHongKongacceptedbribestonotprosecutecertain
people.Thecourtheldthatthiswasaviolationoffiduciaryduty,andputthemoneyonconstructivetrust.
An issue with this principle is that the position of Director of Public Prosecutions is not normally
understoodtobeafiduciaryone.Rather,thecourtsareusingfiduciarydutiesasamethodofpunishingthe
defendant;AlastairHudsonwritesthattheyare"asconcernedtopunishthewrongdoerastoprotectrights
inproperty".[19]
Whetherornotsomeoneisafiduciarydependsontheirposition.Trustees,companydirectors,agentsand
businesspartnersareallfiduciaries,asinYugraneftvAbramovich,[20]butotherpositionsmayberecognised
bythecourtifthemisuseofpowersinaparticularcircumstancerendersthemso,asin Reid.InBrink'sLtd
vAbuSaleh(No.3),[21] asecurityguardwhowasbribedtogiveinformationonacompany'ssecurity
systems,allowingagangofarmedrobberstoburgletheirwarehouse,wasfoundtobeinafiduciary
position.Whileasecurityguardwouldnotnormallybeafiduciaryduetonotholdingaseniorenoughrole,
inrelationtosecurityarrangementstheguardwouldbefoundtobeactinginafiduciarycapacity. [22]Bribes
mayalsobesynonymouswith"secretcommissions",wheresomebodyisgivenanundisclosed"kickback".
[23]

Murderwillmakethekilleraconstructivetrusteeofwhateverpropertytheyacquireasaresult.This
appliestomurder,asinIntheEstateofCrippen,[24]incitingsomeonetomurder,asinEvansvEvans,[25]and
causing death by reckless driving, as in R v Seymour (Edward).[26] In Re K,[27] it was confirmed that
involuntarymanslaughterwillnotrequireconstructivetrusts,andneitherwillsituationswherethereisa

successful plea of insanity, as in found in Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964.
Curiously, there is no requirement that the defendant be found guilty in criminal proceedings; in Re
Sigsworth,[28]itwasdecidedthatclaimscanbebroughtwithoutcriminalproceedingshavingtakenplace
providingthedefendantishelduptothecriminalstandardsofguiltintheequitycase. [29]
Incasesoffraud,thesameprincipleapplies;thepropertyisheldbythefraudsteronconstructivetrustfor
theoriginalowner,unlesstheoriginalownerwasinvolvedinthefraud,asinLonrhoplcvFayed(No.2).[30]
Anexceptiontothisprincipleisfraudulentmisrepresentation,wherethecourtsdisagreeoverwhetherit
immediatelyformsaconstructivetrustorrequiresactionbythevictim.InCollingsvLee,[31]anestateagent
transferredpropertytoanonexistentpurchaser(inrealityanalias)andthenclaimedthatashewasnotthe
transferee,hedidnothavetopaythevendors;itwasheldthatthisfraudulentmisrepresentationmeanthe
heldthepropertyonconstructivetrust.[32]However,inLonrho,MillettJheldthat"Acontractobtainedby
fraudulentmisrepresentationisvoidable,notvoid,eveninequity.Therepresenteemayelecttoavoidit,but
untilhedoesso,therepresentorisnotaconstructivetrusteeofthepropertytransferredpursuanttothe
contact,andnofiduciaryrelationshipexistsbetweenhimandtherepresentee".[33]

Fiduciarymakingunauthorisedprofits
Whereapersoninafiduciaryofficeearnsunauthorisedprofitsasaresultoftheirposition,thismoneywill
beheldonconstructivetrust.[34]ThisprincipleoriginatedwithKeechvSandford,[35]andtherulewasfirst
fullydefinedinBrayvFord,[36]whereLordHerschellsaidthat:
Itisaninflexibleruleofthecourtofequitythatapersoninafiduciaryposition...isnot,unlessotherwise
[authorised,]entitledtomakeaprofit;heisnotallowedtoputhimselfinapositionwherehisinterestand
dutyconflict.Itdoesnotappeartomethatthisruleis,ashadbeensaid,foundeduponprinciplesof
morality.Iregarditratherasbasedontheconsiderationthat,humannaturebeingwhatitis,thereisdanger,
insuchcircumstances,ofthepersonholdingafiduciarypositionbeingswayedbyinterestratherthanby
duty,andthusprejudicingthosewhomhewasboundtoprotect.Ithas,therefore,beendeemedexpedientto
laydownthispositiverule.[37]
Thequestionsthenarefourfold;whatisthejustificationforsuchaconstructivetrust,howcanauthorisation
beacquired,whodoesthefiduciaryowedutiesto,andwhataretheremediesforunauthorisedprofit
making.ThemaincaseonthisisBoardmanvPhipps,[38]wheretheHouseofLordsespousedtwopossible
justifications:

Thefirstoneisthatitisastrictrulethatafiduciarycannotallowforaconflictofinterest.
Assuch,ifafiduciarydoesdoso,hewillberequiredtoaccounttothebeneficiariesof
hisoffice,regardlessofwhetherornotheisactinginbadfaith.[39]

ThesecondjustificationisonegivenbyLordsHodsonandGuestinBoardman,which
concernedtheuseofconfidentialinformationbyatrusteeforthetrustee'spersonalgain.
Hodson and Guest held that where such a situation arises, the constructive trust is
justifiednotonlytoavoidconflictsofinterestbutalsobecausesuchinformationistrust
property,andusingitforpersonalgainismisuse.[40]

Thereisnorequirementthattheprofitbedirectlymadefromthefiduciaryposition,merelyinawaythat
causesaconflictbetweenthefiduciary'spersonalinterestsandhisduties.Ifatrusteewasinformedbythe
trust'sstockbrokerthatonlyoneparcelofhighlysoughtafterstocksremainedandchosetopurchaseitfor
himselfratherthanforthetrust,hewouldbetakingadvantageofthetrustandcausingaconflictofinterest.
Onthesecondissue, Boardman confirmedadefenceofauthorisation;ifthefiduciaryhasinformedthe
beneficiariesthatheisandwillbeactingonhisownbehalf,andreceivedpermissiontodoso,theproperty
wouldnothavebeenheldonconstructivetrust. [41]Thethirdissueiswhodoesthefiduciaryowedutiesto.
InBoardmanthecasewasconcerningatrust,anditwasheldthatthedutiesweretowardsthebeneficiaries.
Section170oftheCompaniesAct2006providesthatinsituationsconcerningcompanies,thedutiesofthe
directorsandotherfiduciariesaretothatcompany.[42]
Whereafiduciaryhasmadeunauthorisedprofits,theremedyisforthoseprofitstobeheldonconstructive
trust.Ifthatprofitisnolongeravailable,thefiduciaryis"liabletoaccount"tothebeneficiaries.InSinclair
Investment HoldingsSAv VersaillesTradeFinance (No.3),[43] RimerJexplainedthat thismeant the
beneficiariesacquirerightsoverthoseprofits,andthetrusteemustpaythatmoneyorthemoney'sworth
backtothebeneficiaries.Iftheprofitsaremixedwithothermoneyorusedtopurchaseproperty,the
beneficiarymay tracethatpropertyandclaimit. [44] Furtherexpansionoftheprinciplewaslatergivenin
FHREuropeanVenturesLLPvCedarCapitalPartnersLLC.[45]

Constructivetrustsrelatingtoproperty
Manyconstructivetrustsrelatethetransferofproperty.Thosetrusts overhomes areknownastrustsof
commonintention,andrelateexclusivelytofamilyhomes.InLloydsBankvRosset,[46]theHouseofLords
set out the circumstances in which a trust of common intention can arise. Firstly, where the parties
demonstratethattherewasanagreementformedbeforetheacquisitionoftheproperty.Secondly,wherethe
partiescontribute tothe purchasepriceor mortgagepaymentsandthereforepracticallydemonstrate a

commonintentiontoclaimanequitableinterest;thissecondformissimilartooneformofresultingtrust
Commonintentiontrustsgrantaclaimantanequitablerighttothehome,calculatedasaproportionofthe
totalvaluethatcorrespondstotheirfinancialcontributions. [47]Thesecondoccasiononwhichaconstructive
trustmayariseoverpropertyiswhereapieceofpropertyissoldortransferred.Thecontracttransfersthe
equitableinterestfromtheoriginalownertotheotherparty,whichtakesplacethroughaconstructivetrust.
This originated with Chinn v Collins,[48] where it was decided that the creation of such a contract
automaticallypassestheequitableinteresttothebuyer,assumingthecontractcanbecompleted.Untilitis
completed,thatpropertyisheldonconstructivetrustbythesellerforthebenefitofthebuyer. [10] This
appliestoboth personal and realproperty,withadditionalrulesforthetransferofrealproperty(land).
Section2oftheLawofProperty(MiscellaneousProvisions)Act1989providesthatthecontractmustbein
writing,whichisnotarequirementforthetransferofpersonalproperty. [49]

Other
Constructivetrustsalsoarisewithmutualwills;willscreatedbytwoormorepeopleatthesametime,with
theintentionthatthewillsarecompletelybinding.Normalwillscanbealteredorrevoked;whenone
signatorytoamutualwilldies,thewillirrevocablybindstheothersignatories.Thisisdependentonseveral
things.Firstly,theremustbeevidenceofacontractbetweenthesignatoriesdemonstratingthateachwould
makeawillinacertainform,andneitherwouldrevokeit,asin WaltersvOlins.[50]Secondly,thewillmust
makeitclearthatitistoapplytotheotherpartyafterdeath.Untiladeathoccurs,thearrangementissimply
acontractandhasnoeffectinequity.[51]
Secret trusts are sometimesconsidered constructive trusts.They do not follow the Wills Act 1837; a
requirementforexpresstrusts.[52] Theargumentisthatitissuchtrustsareintendedtopreventfraudby
statute.Underthisrule,secrettrustswouldbeconstructivetrusts;thereasontheydonothavetofollowthe
WillsActisbecausetheyarecreatedbythecourts. [53] Thisisadifficultargumentwithwhichtojustify
halfsecrettrusts,becausesincethewillmentionsthetrust,fraudisnotdirectlypossible. [53]Amoremodern
argumentisthatsecrettrustsareindependentandoperateoutsidethewill. [54]Thetrustwascreatedbythe
donorandtrusteeduringthedonor'slife,andsimplynotconstituteduntilhisdeath;itdoesnothaveto
followtheWillsAct,becauseitwasnotcreatedbyawill.ThisviewwasexpressedbyMegarryVCinRe
Snowden,[55]wherehesaid"Thewholebasisofsecrettrusts...isthattheyoperateoutsidethewill,changing
nothingthatiswritteninit,andallowingittooperateaccordingtoitstenor,butthenfasteningatrustonto
thepropertyinthehandsoftherecipient".Thissuggeststhatsecrettrustsarenotconstructivetrustsbut
ratherexpresstrusts.[56]

Constructivetrustees

Whennontrusteesinterferewiththeworkingsofanexpresstrusttosuchanextentastoharmit,theycan
bedeemedtobe"constructivetrustees",ortrusteesdesontort.InMaravBrowne,[57]SmithLJstatedthat
"ifone,notbeingatrusteeandnothavingauthorityfromatrustee,takesuponhimselftointermeddlewith
trustmattersortodoactscharacteristicoftheofficeoftrustee,hemaythereforemakehimselfwhatis
calledinlawtrusteeofhisownwrongie,atrustee desontort,or,asitisalsotermed,aconstructive
trustee".[1] For someone to be made a constructive trustee, they must have had the property in their
possessionorcontrolbeforetheapplication,andhaveactedinadishonestorrecklessway.Iffoundliable,
theconstructivetrustwillbeheldtoaccountpersonallytorepayanylosssufferedbythetrustfund,and
willberesponsibleformaintainingthattrustpropertyinhispossession.
OnPeterThornersSteartFarm,Cheddar,Somerset,DavidThorner,secondcousin,workedforPeterfor
30yearsunpaid,aswellasonhisparentsfarm,wherehegothousingandmoney.Heworkedlonghours
andbelievedhewouldinheritthefarm,encouragedbyPetersconductover15years,suchasin1990
givingabonusrelatingtotwoassurancepolicies,sayingThatsformydeathduties.Buttherewasno
explicitpromiseorassurance.PeterleftthefarmtoDavid,andalsomoneytoothers.ButPeterdestroyed
thewillwhenhefelloutwiththeothersanddidnotmakeanewwill.Sothepropertypassedbystatuteto
theothers.Davidclaimedproprietaryestoppel.
TheCourtofAppeal[1](LloydLJ,WardLJandRimerLJ)heldDavidhadnoproprietaryestoppelclaim
becausetherewasneveraclearandunequivocalassurance.
JohnRandallQCheldDavidhadarighttoSteartFarm.

Judgment
TheHouseofLordsheldthattheonlythingthatmatteredwaswhetherareasonablepersoncouldhave
reliedontheconductthatlookedlikeanassurance.
LordHoffmannsaidthatspeakinginobliqueandallusivetermsdoesnotmatterifonecouldreasonably
believeonewasbeinggivenanassurance.WhatmatteredwaswhetherPetersconductwouldreasonably
havebeenunderstoodasintendedtobetakenseriouslyasanassurancewhichcouldbereliedupon.There
wasnorequirementthatPeterintendedDavidtorelyonhim.

8. There was a close and ongoing daily relationsh


have done so.

LordScottheldtotheviewthatproprietaryestoppelcanonlybeusedwheretheassurerbelievestheyhave
orwillhaveverysoonacquiredarightinsomeonesland.Hesaidthoughhewouldnotdisagreeabout
proprietaryestoppel,hewouldfinditeasierandmorecomfortabletoregardDavidsequityasestablished
viaaremedialconstructivetrust.Theelementsofaclaimareclearassurance,reasonablereliance,
substantialdetriment.Proprietaryestoppelbringsuncertainresults,e.g.ifPeterintendedtogiveupthe
farm,butbeforethenhadwantedtousethefarmasahomegivenhisoldage.CaseslikeRamsdenand
Crabbcaneasilybeunderstoodasproprietaryestoppel,buthefindsinheritancecaseseasiertounderstand
asbeingremediedthrougharemedialconstructivetrust,createdbythepartiescommonintention,since
Gissing.LikeGillett.

LordWalkerheldtheelementsforaproprietaryestoppelare(1)apromiseorrepresentationbythe
defendantthattheclaimanthasorwillacquiresomerightinrelationtothedefendantsland(2)the
claimantsreasonablerelianceonthispromise/representation(3)detrimentsufferedbytheclaimantby
reasonofhisrelianceonthatpromise/representation.
LordNeuberger,agreedwithLordWalker,butwishedtostatetheresultinhisownwords.

84. ... Just as a sentence can have one meaning i


v Spurrier (1802) 7 Ves 231, 235-6 and per Lord K

85.Secondly,itwouldbequitewrongtobeunrealisticallyrigorouswhen

86.Thirdly,aspointedoutinargumentbymynobleandlearnedfriendLo

87.Itwasalsoarguedfortherespondentsthat,iftherewasanestoppelas
assurancesmadefromtimetotime,PetermadeitcleartoDavidthathewo

88.Ishouldaddthat,ifPeterhadchangedhismindbeforehedied,theque

89.Beforeturningtothatsecondissue,Ishouldaddthat,evenifPeter's"i
havebeenentitledtoequitablerelief,inthelightofhisfourteenormorey

Uncertainty as to the extent of the property

90.Basedonthereasoningofmynobleandlearnedfriend,LordScottofF

91.Sofarastherelevantfactsofthiscaseareconcerned,theextentofthe

92.InCobbe[2008]1WLR1752,MrCobbedevotedconsiderabletime,e
effectivelyseekingtoinvokeproprietaryestoppeltogiveeffecttoacontra

93.InthecontextofacasesuchasCobbe[2008]1WLR1752,itisreadil
interesthaving[sufficient]certainty".

94.Therearetwofundamentaldifferencesbetweenthatcaseandthiscase

95.Inthiscase,theextentofthefarmmightchange,but,ontheDeputyJu

96.Secondly,theanalysisofthelawinCobbe[2008]1WLR1752wasag
oflandthatlackedboththerequisitestatutoryformalitiesandwas,ina

97.Inthiscase,bycontrast,therelationshipbetweenPeterandDavidwas

98.Inthesecircumstances,IseenothinginthereasoningofLordScottin

99.ThenotionthatmuchofthereasoninginCobbe[2008]1WLR1752w
doubtforthatreasonthattherespondents,rightlyinmyview,eschewedan

You might also like