-

Knowing receipt and knowing assistance If he was at faultm, equity treated him like a trustee constructive trustee But what degree of fault is needed is unclear Reasons: 1. Enormously varying situtatiosn in which issue arises 2. Range if types of conduct involved innocent, wrongful, commercial , private, negligent etc 3. Recipient may or may not have trust property still 4. Losses may not be matched, there may be none or varying losses Difiucult to find degree of fault that would cover this which is why judges have been histitant Difficulty of treminorlogy and words like notice and knowledge taking diffwernt meanings

Fault based personal liability Personal liability fault based Degree of fauly unclear Dishonesty suffices to establish liability Constuctuve notice is fault of a lesser degree Whther ^ enough for personal liability controversial The purpose intended to be served by a principle throws light on its proper ambit

Fault free recipients All fault free recipients should have to be liable to return it if they spend it on thinsg they would have bought anyway But to impose a contrastive trust on innocent woukld be too burdentsome just need some personal liability Common law has become less harsh than it was and equty may now have something to learn restitutionary liabile, applicable regardless of fault but subject to a defence of change of position would be a better tailored reponse Would reverse unust renichment but not go beyond Sometimes personal liability in form of restitution is better than proprietary remedy because easier to enforce or more speedy eg money instead of eviction

Recipient liability and the diplock principle Among the factors relevant on the point now under consideration are the desirability of protecting property interests, the desirability of promoting the speedy transaction of business, the blameworthiness of being honest but careless, and the undesirability of imposing liability on a recipient who paid for the property or changed his position in good faith. The present approach of the law lumps together, for better or worse, all careless recipients, those who paid for the property and those who did not, and treats them the same. The Diplock restitutionary principle is focused differently. It is concerned to identify an unjust gain and, so far as this can be achieved, to restore the parties to their original positions. It would embrace all recipients of property whose title was impeachable.

Dishonest Recipients: Dishonest Participation in Breach of Trust A more direct approach is to recognise that breach of trust and dishonest participation in a breach of trust are two species of equitable wrongs. The rationale is not applicable in his case. This difficulty disappears once it is accepted that dishonest participation is itself an equitable wrong. The way is then open to invoke the established principle that a wrongdoer should not be permitted to benefit from his wrong. This is a somewhat nebulous principle but, given the dishonest nature of the wrong, its application in this circumstance is compelling.