Brinks Ltd v Abu-Saleh (No 3) [1996] CLC 133 is an English trusts law case, concerning breach of trust and liability for dishonest assistance. It established an apparently high threshold for liability for dishonest assistance.
Mrs Elcombe’s husband, Mr Elcombe, laundered the proceeds of a gold bullion theft, by driving to Switzerland with cash hidden in the car, sometimes with her there with him. She thought her husband was probably avoiding taxes but did not realize that she was assisting in a breach of trust. Brinks Ltd argued that she had dishonestly assisted in the breach of trust.[1]
Judgmentedit
Rimer J held that Mrs Elcombe had not assisted her husband, because her accompaniment was merely ‘in the capacity’ as his wife rather than providing cover for money laundering. She may have made it a more pleasant experience but it was not ‘assistance of a nature sufficient to make her an accessory to the breach of trust.’ It was not enough to be dishonest about one thing if that was not the thing being done.
brinks, saleh, 1996, english, trusts, case, concerning, breach, trust, liability, dishonest, assistance, established, apparently, high, threshold, liability, dishonest, assistance, courthigh, courtcitation, 1996, 133keywordsbreach, trust, dishonest, assistance. Brinks Ltd v Abu Saleh No 3 1996 CLC 133 is an English trusts law case concerning breach of trust and liability for dishonest assistance It established an apparently high threshold for liability for dishonest assistance Brinks Ltd v Abu Saleh No 3 CourtHigh CourtCitation s 1996 CLC 133KeywordsBreach of trust dishonest assistance Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 Significance 4 See also 5 Notes 6 ReferencesFacts editMrs Elcombe s husband Mr Elcombe laundered the proceeds of a gold bullion theft by driving to Switzerland with cash hidden in the car sometimes with her there with him She thought her husband was probably avoiding taxes but did not realize that she was assisting in a breach of trust Brinks Ltd argued that she had dishonestly assisted in the breach of trust 1 Judgment editRimer J held that Mrs Elcombe had not assisted her husband because her accompaniment was merely in the capacity as his wife rather than providing cover for money laundering She may have made it a more pleasant experience but it was not assistance of a nature sufficient to make her an accessory to the breach of trust It was not enough to be dishonest about one thing if that was not the thing being done Significance editLord Hoffmann cast some doubt on the decision Barlow Clowes Ltd v Eurotrust Ltd 2 by saying that one cannot be dishonest about a thing which one thinks one is not doing See also editEnglish trusts lawNotes edit See the case report at 1996 CLC 133 2005 UKPC 37References edit Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Brinks Ltd v Abu Saleh No 3 amp oldid 1148931158, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
