Lister v Stubbs [1890] 45 Ch D 1
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-07 19:46:23 UTC
Defendant was the foreman for Plaintiff and placed orders with X in return for a bribe.
Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant to reclaim the bribe via constructive trust.
CA denied that a constructive trust existed, saying instead that Defendant was merely under a fiduciary duty in personam to pay over the money as being owed to Plaintiff.
RELATED CASES
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Lac Minerals v International Corona Resources
Plaintiff was mining and Defendant approached them about a possible joint venture. During discussions Plaintiff revealed to Defendant that the adjacent plot of land had valuable oil deposits. Plainti...
A-G of Hong Kong v Reid
Defendant had abused his public office to receive huge amounts of bribes to prevent criminal prosecutions. The AG brought an action for the crown to reclaim the bribe money. PC allowed the claim, hol...
Banner Homes Group plc v Luff Developments Ltd
Plaintiff and Defendant agreed informally that neither would bid for a plot of land. Defendant then did so and Plaintiff claimed that Defendant held it on trust for both of them. CA allowed Plaintiff...
Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland Int Ltd
Plaintiff’s former employee Defendant took bribes when commissioning companies to refurbish Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff claimed that because of Defendant’s breach of fiduciary duty Plaintiff actu...
Binions v Evans
Defendant was allowed to have a lifelong rent-free lease by X but that the agreement could be determined with not less than 4 weeks notice. This was described in the contract as making Defendant a te...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.