Westlaw Asia Delivery Summary

Request made by : Tsz Yeung LAM

Request made on : Saturday, 18 January, 2025 at 00:11 HKT

Title : Attorney General of Hong Kong v Reid

Delivery selection : Current Document
Number of documents delivered : 1
 Page 1

Status: Mixed or Mildly Negative Judicial Treatment

*324 Attorney-General for Hong Kong Appellants v Charles Warwick Reid and
Others Respondents
Privy Council
1 November 1993

[1993] 3 W.L.R. 1143

[1994] 1 A.C. 324

Lord Templeman , Lord Goff of Chieveley , Lord Lowry , Lord Lloyd of Berwick and Sir Thomas
Eichelbaum
1993 Oct. 4, 5, 6; Nov. 1
[Appeal from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand]
Trusts—Constructive trust—Bribe—Payment of bribes to Crown servant—Use of money to purchase
property—Whether property held on constructive trust for Crown
While he was a Crown servant in Hong Kong the first respondent in breach of his fiduciary duty to
the Crown accepted bribes with which it was alleged that he purchased two properties in New
Zealand which were conveyed to him and his wife, the second respondent, and a third which was
conveyed to his solicitor, the third respondent. The first respondent pleaded guilty in Hong Kong
to offences under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and was sentenced to eight years'
imprisonment and ordered to pay the Crown H.K.$12·4m., the value of his assets which could
only have been derived from bribes. The Attorney-General for Hong Kong lodged caveats in New
Zealand against the titles to the properties. He applied to the High Court of New Zealand to
renew the caveats, but the judge refused, holding that the Crown had no equitable interest in the
properties. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand, applying an English Court of Appeal decision
without considering its merits, dismissed the Attorney-General's appeal.
On the Attorney-General's appeal to the Judicial Committee:-
*325
, allowing the appeal,
(1) that a gift accepted by a person in a fiduciary position as an incentive for his breach of duty
constituted a bribe and, although in law it belonged to the fiduciary, in equity he not only became
a debtor for the amount of the bribe to the person to whom the duty was owed but he also held
the bribe and any property acquired therewith on constructive trust for that person; that if the
value of the property representing the bribe depreciated the fiduciary had to pay to the injured
person the difference between that value and the initial amount of the bribe, and if the property
increased in value the fiduciary was not entitled to retain the excess since equity would not allow
him to make any profit from his breach of duty; and that, to the extent that they represented
bribes received by the first respondent, the New Zealand properties were held in trust for the
Crown, and the Crown had an equitable interest therein (post, pp. 330G, 331B-C, E, H-332A,
339B).
Keech v. Sandford (1726) Sel.Cas.Ch. 61 and Phipps v. Boardman [1967] 2 A.C. 46 , H.L.(E.)
applied.
Dictum of Lord Chelmsford in Tyrrell v. Bank of London (1862) 10 H.L.Cas. 26 , 59-60, H.L.(E.);
Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron (1880) 5 Ex.D. 319 , C.A. and Lister & Co. v. Stubbs (1890) 45
Ch.D. 1 , C.A. disapproved.
(2) That the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was not bound by a decision of the English Court of
Appeal but was entitled to review it on its merits and to refuse to follow it if it was considered to
be wrong (post, p. 338E-G).
 Page 2

Dictum of Lord Scarman in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd. v. Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd. [1986] A.C. 80 ,
108, P.C. explained.
Hart v. O'Connor [1985] A.C. 1000 , P.C. distinguished.
Decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand [1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 385 reversed.
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
*326
Attorney-General v. Goddard (1929) 98 L.J.K.B. 743
Caerphilly Colliery Co., In re (Pearson's Case) (1877) 5 Ch.D. 336, C.A.
Canadian Oil Works Corporation, In re (Hay's Case) (1875) L.R. 10 Ch.App. 593
Fawcett v. Whitehouse (1829) 1 Russ. &; M. 132
Hart v. O'Connor [1985] A.C. 1000; [1985] 3 W.L.R. 214; [1985] 2 All E.R. 880, P.C.
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Denby [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 367
Keech v. Sandford (1726) Sel.Cas.Ch. 61
Lister & Co. v. Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch.D. 1, C.A.
Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron (1880) 5 Ex.D. 319, C.A.
Morvah Consols Tin Mining Co., In re (McKay's Case) (1875) 2 Ch.D. 1, C.A.
Phipps v. Boardman [1964] 1 W.L.R. 993; [1964] 2 All E.R. 187 ; [1965] Ch. 992; [1965] 2
W.L.R. 839; [1965] 1 All E.R. 849 , C.A.; [1967] 2 A.C. 46; [1966] 3 W.L.R. 1009; [1966] 3 All
E.R. 721, H.L.(E.)
Powell & Thomas v. Evan Jones & Co. [1905] 1 K.B. 11, C.A.
Reading v. Attorney-General [1951] A.C. 507; [1951] 1 All E.R. 617, H.L.(E.)
Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v. Gulliver (Note) [1967] 2 A.C. 134; [1942] 1 All E.R. 378, H.L.(E.)
Sugden v. Crossland (1856) 3 Sm. &; G. 192
Sumitomo Bank Ltd. v. Kartika Ratna Thahir [1993] 1 S.L.R. 735 *326
Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd. v. Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd. [1986] A.C. 80; [1985] 3 W.L.R. 317;
[1985] 2 All E.R. 947, P.C.
Tyrrell v. Bank of London (1862) 10 H.L.Cas. 26, H.L.(E.)
The following additional cases were cited in argument:

Ardlethan Options Ltd. v. Easdown (1915) 20 C.L.R. 285

Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1985) [1986] Q.B. 491; [1986] 2 W.L.R. 733; [1986] 2
All E.R. 219, C.A.
Daly v. Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd. (1986) 160 C.L.R. 371
de Lasala v. de Lasala [1980] A.C. 546; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 390; [1979] 2 All E.R. 1146, P.C.
Eden v. Ridsdales Railway Lamp and Lighting Co. Ltd. (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 368, C.A.
Mahesan s/o Thambiah v. Malaysia Government Officers' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
[1979] A.C. 374; [1978] 2 W.L.R. 444; [1978] 2 All E.R. 405, P.C.
Nant-y-glo and Blaina Ironworks Co. v. Grave (1878) 12 Ch.D. 738
Napier and Ettrick (Lord) v. Hunter [1993] A.C. 713; [1993] 2 W.L.R. 42; [1993] 1 All E.R. 385,
H.L.(E.)
 Page 3

North Australian Territory Co., In re (Archer's Case) [1892] 1 Ch. 322, C.A.
Police v. Leaming [1975] 1 N.Z.L.R. 471
Reading v. The King [1949] 2 K.B. 232 ; [1948] 2 All E.R. 27 ; sub nom.
In re Reading's Petition of Right [1949] 2 All E.R. 68, C.A.
S.C.F. Finance Co. Ltd. v. Masri [1985] 1 W.L.R. 876; [1985] 2 All E.R. 747, C.A.
Wilsons and Furness-Leyland Line Ltd. v. British and Continental Shipping Co. Ltd. (1907) 23
T.L.R. 397
APPEAL (No. 44 of 1992) with leave of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand by the Attorney-General
for Hong Kong, suing for and on behalf of the Government of Hong Kong, from the judgment of the
Court of Appeal of New Zealand [1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 385 (Richardson, Hardie Boys and Gault JJ.) dated
19 December 1991, reasons for judgment having been given on 12 December 1991, dismissing the
Attorney-General's appeal from the judgment of Penlington J. delivered on 13 September 1991 in the
High Court of New Zealand at Hamilton refusing orders in proceedings against the respondents,
Charles Warwick Reid, his wife Judith Margaret Reid and Marc Molloy that caveats registered by the
Attorney-General against the title to three New Zealand properties should not lapse.
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
David Oliver Q.C. and Stephen Kos (of the New Zealand Bar) for the Attorney-General. The so-called
rule in Lister & Co. v. Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch.D. 1 , that an employee who receives a bribe is obliged to
pay his employer its amount but does not hold the bribe on trust for his employer, who thus cannot
trace it into other property, is contrary to principle, policy and good order. Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron
(1880) 5 Ex.D. 319 was relied on by the Court of Appeal in Lister & Co. v. Stubbs , which in turn has
been followed in subsequent cases. [Reference was made to Powell & Thomas v. Evan Jones & Co.
[1905] 1 K.B. 11 ; Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1985) [1986] Q.B. 491 ; Islamic*327
Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Denby [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 367 ; Wilsons and Furness-Leyland
Line Ltd. v. British and Continental Shipping Co. Ltd. (1907) 23 T.L.R. 397 and Attorney-General v.
Goddard (1929) 98 L.J.K.B. 743 .]
In so far as the decisions in Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, 5 Ex.D. 319 , and Lister & Co. v. Stubbs, 45
Ch.D. 1 were based on the supposition that there had to be some diminution of the trust estate before
a proprietary claim would lie, they were inconsistent with an earlier line of authority exemplified by
Keech v. Sandford (1726) Sel.Cas.Ch. 61 . The basic rule is that a person who is in a fiduciary
relationship with another must not place himself in a position in which his interest conflicts with his
duty. If he does and derives a benefit as a result, he holds that benefit on trust for the person to whom
he owes the fiduciary duties. There is no reason in principle for differentiating between fiduciary duties
owed by an agent to his principal and those owed by a trustee to his cestui que trust, although the
normal fiduciary obligations of an agent may be modified by contract, particularly in commercial
cases. If an agent receives a bribe he holds it on trust for his principal, who therefore has an equitable
proprietary interest in the money and any property acquired therewith. [Reference was made to
Fawcett v. Whitehouse (1829) 1 Russ. & M. 132 ; Sugden v. Crossland (1856) 3 Sm. & G. 192 ; In re
Canadian Oil Works Corporation (Hay's Case) (1875) L.R. 10 Ch.App. 593 ; In re Morvah Consols Tin
Mining Co. (McKay's Case) (1875) 2 Ch.D. 1 ; In re Caerphilly Colliery Co. (Pearson's Case) (1877) 5
Ch.D. 336 ; Nany-y-glo and Blaina Ironworks Co. v. Grave (1878) 12 Ch.D. 738 ; Eden v. Ridsdales
Railway Lamp and Lighting Co. Ltd. (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 368 ; Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v. Gulliver (Note)
[1967] 2 A.C. 134 ; Phipps v. Boardman [1964] 1 W.L.R. 993 ; [1965] Ch. 992 ; [1967] 2 A.C. 46 ;
Sumitomo Bank Ltd. v. Kartika Ratna Thahir [1993] 1 S.L.R. 735 and Sir Peter Millett's article, 'Bribes
and Secret Commissions' [1993] R.L.R. 7 .]
It has been suggested that the rule in Lister & Co. v. Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 , should be retained on
grounds of policy, because of the effect a proprietary remedy may have on unsecured creditors, or
because a proprietary remedy is inappropriate except in circumstances where there has been some
erosion or diminution of the trust property. There is no logical distinction between breach of a fiduciary
duty by taking a bribe and any other breach of fiduciary duty in respect of which there is a proprietary
remedy. Furthermore, unsecured creditors would not be disadvantaged by the removal from the
insolvent's estate of an asset which he should never have had. The real policy consideration is that
the law refuses to endorse bribery, and so a person who takes a bribe should not be allowed to
benefit from it. Unless a proprietary remedy exists it will be more difficult for the Crown to recover the
 Page 4

bribes paid to the first respondent.

Antony White for the second respondent. The critical 19th century case is Tyrrell v. Bank of London
(1862) 10 H.L.Cas. 26 , which supports the principle that a fiduciary who obtains a gain by placing
himself in a position where his duty and interest conflict cannot be allowed to keep that gain, but the
remedy is not a proprietary one. He has a duty to *328 account for the gain but does not hold it on a
constructive trust. Tyrrell v. Bank of London has only been cited in Nant-y-glo and Blaina Ironworks
Co. v. Grave, 12 Ch.D. 738 , 742, but was referred to by Leggatt J. in Islamic Republic of Iran
Shipping Lines v. Denby [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 367 , 371.
Between Tyrrell v. Bank of London, 10 H.L.Cas. 26 and Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, 5 Ex.D. 319 ,
there was a series of cases relating to company promoters who received bribes by way of shares in a
company. In each case the court regarded the money used to acquire the shares, or the shares
themselves, as having originated from the company so as to be the property of the company prior to
the wrongful act. Accordingly, the company was held to have a proprietary claim to the shares.
[Reference was made to In re Canadian Oil Works Corporation (Hay's Case), L.R. 10 Ch.App. 593 ;
In re Morvah Consols Tin Mining Co. (McKay's Case), 2 Ch.D. 1 and Goff and Jones, The Law of
Restitution , 3rd ed. (1986, p. 657.] Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, 5 Ex.D. 319 and Lister & Co. v.
Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 can be distinguished because in them the bribes were not corporate property but
were paid by a third party.
The true principle is that a fiduciary who acts in breach of his duties cannot be allowed to retain any
gain that he has made. If he uses it to make a further gain he should be deprived of that as well, but
by an action for debt and not by a claim based on any proprietary right. The cases decided after Lister
& Co. v. Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 , mainly support that proposition. [Reference was made to In re North
Australian Territory Co. (Archer's Case) [1892] 1 Ch. 322 ; Powell & Thomas v. Evan Jones & Co.
[1905] 1 K.B. 11 ; Attorney-General v. Goddard, 98 L.J.K.B. 743 ; Attorney-General's Reference (No.
1 of 1985) [1986] Q.B. 491 ; Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Denby [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep.
367 ; Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v. Gulliver (Note) [1967] 2 A.C. 134 ; Reading v. The King [1949] 2 K.B.
232 ; Reading v. Attorney-General [1951] A.C. 507 and Mahesan s/o Thambiah v. Malaysia
Government Officers' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [1979] A.C. 374 .] However, where a trustee
makes a profit by misusing trust property the beneficiary has a proprietary remedy: see Phipps v.
Boardman [1964] 1 W.L.R. 993 ; [1967] 2 A.C. 46 . In Keech v. Sandford , Sel.Cas.Ch. 61, the original
lease was trust property and so the beneficiary was entitled to the new lease obtained by the trustee.
There is a distinction between a benefit which would have accrued to the principal if his agent had
complied with his duties and one which would not. A bribe falls within the latter category.
Lister & Co. v. Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 , has been followed in Australia and New Zealand. [Reference was
made to Ardlethan Options Ltd. v. Easdown (1915) C.L.R. 285 ; Daly v. Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd.
(1986) 160 C.L.R. 371 and Police v. Leaming [1975] 1 N.Z.L.R. 471 .]
The existence of an equitable proprietary interest in funds received by an agent in certain
circumstances was recognised in Lord Napier and Ettrick v. Hunter [1993] A.C. 713 . Where the line
should be drawn is a question of policy. That case suggests that if a line of authority exists the courts
may be taken to have resolved this question of policy. Lister & Co. v. Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 and the
cases which followed it represent such a line of authority. A proprietary remedy clearly exists when
there is an *329 original proprietary basis from which the claim can be traced. A deemed agency gain
(a concept borrowed from Goode, Essays on the Law of Restitution (ed. Burrows) (1991)) is the
correct place to draw the line. If a fiduciary by a breach of duty acquires for himself a benefit which
ought to have been acquired for his beneficiary or principal, he is deemed to have acquired it for such
person, who, therefore, has a proprietary right to it. However, where a benefit is obtained by a
fiduciary acting wholly outside the scope of his agency, or the ambit of his legitimate activities, no
proprietary remedy exists. To draw the line there gives the beneficiary or principal such proprietary
rights as he would have obtained had the trustee or agent fulfilled his fiduciary duties, but not
proprietary rights which would never have been obtained through fulfilment of those duties.
Acceptance of a bribe is wholly outside the scope of an agent's duties. That division is justified by
reason of the position of all third parties, not merely unsecured creditors.
The Crown has no proprietary interest in the properties allegedly purchased by the first respondent
with the bribes which he received, but the Attorney-General can apply to the court for a Mareva
injunction to prevent disposal of the properties pending trial of the action. [Reference was made to
S.C.F. Finance Co. Ltd. v. Masri [1985] 1 W.L.R. 876 .]
 Page 5

Oliver Q.C. in reply. Tyrrell v. Bank of London, 10 H.L.Cas. 26 is an authority in favour of proprietary
claims. In Fawcett v. Whitehouse, 1 Russ. & M. 132 , the money came from outside the partnership,
and in Sugden v. Crossland, 3 Sm. & G. 192 , the money paid to the trustee did not come from the
trust. There is no distinction between a bribe emanating from the trust itself and a bribe from an
extraneous source. In Lister & Co. v. Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 , the employee through his breach of trust
acquired a benefit which ought to have been acquired for his employers; it was not a case of a
fiduciary acting wholly outside the scope of his authority. In In re North Australian Territory Co.
(Archer's Case) [1892] 1 Ch. 322 the money came from an extraneous source. Phipps v. Boardman
[1967] 2 A.C. 46 is consistent with Keech v. Sandford , Sel.Cas.Ch. 61, because the solicitor was
misusing his position as trustee.
Kos following. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand erred in concluding that it was bound to follow the
decision of the English Court of Appeal in Lister & Co. v. Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 , in spite of differentiating
local circumstances. Judgments of the English Court of Appeal are persuasive authority only and do
not bind the New Zealand Court of Appeal: see de Lasala v. de Lasala [1980] A.C. 546 . The New
Zealand Court of Appeal misunderstood the dictum of Lord Scarman in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd. v. Liu
Chong Hing Bank Ltd. [1986] A.C. 80 , 108, because in Hart v. O'Connor [1985] A.C. 1000 Lord
Brightman did not state that the New Zealand Court of Appeal was bound to apply English law.
The first and third respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Cur. adv. vult.
1 November. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD TEMPLEMAN.
*330
The first respondent Mr. Reid, a solicitor and New Zealand national, joined the legal service of the
Government of Hong Kong and became successively Crown Counsel, Deputy Crown Prosecutor and
ultimately Acting Director of Public Prosecutions. In the course of his career the first respondent, in
breach of the fiduciary duty which he owed as a servant of the Crown, accepted bribes as an
inducement to him to exploit his official position by obstructing the prosecution of certain criminals.
The first respondent was arrested, pleaded guilty to offences under the Prevention of Bribery
Ordinance and was sentenced on 6 July 1990 to eight years' imprisonment and ordered to pay the
Crown the sum of H.K.$12·4m., equivalent to N.Z.$2·5m., being the value of assets then controlled by
the first respondent which could only have been derived from bribes. No part of the sum of
H.K.$12·4m. has been paid by the first respondent.
Among the first respondent's assets are three freehold properties in New Zealand. The trial judge's
finding that the Attorney-General for Hong Kong had established an arguable case that each of the
three properties was acquired with moneys received by the first respondent as bribes has not been
challenged. Two of the freehold properties were conveyed to the first respondent and his wife and
one to the first respondent's solicitor, Mr. Molloy. The three New Zealand properties were purchased
for approximately N.Z.$500,000. Their current value was not the subject of evidence before the New
Zealand Court of Appeal. The total amount thought to have been received by the first respondent
from bribes exceeds N.Z.$2·5m.
In the courts of New Zealand the first and second respondents argued that part of the costs of the
three New Zealand properties might not be derived from bribes. If so, the courts have ample means of
discovering by means of accounts and inquiries the amount (if any) of innocent money invested in the
properties and the proportion of the present value of the properties attributable to innocent money. It
was also argued that the second respondent might have a beneficial interest in the properties. This
also could be investigated in due course but it does not appear that either the second respondent or
the third respondent was a bona fide purchaser of a legal estate without notice. For present purposes
this appeal proceeds on the assumption that the freehold New Zealand properties were purchased
with bribes received by the first respondent and are held in trust for the first respondent subject to the
claims of the Crown in these proceedings.
A bribe is a gift accepted by a fiduciary as an inducement to him to betray his trust. A secret benefit,
which may or may not constitute a bribe, is a benefit which the fiduciary derives from trust property or
obtains from knowledge which he acquires in the course of acting as a fiduciary. A fiduciary is not
always accountable for a secret benefit but he is undoubtedly accountable for a secret benefit which
consists of a bribe. In addition a person who provides the bribe and the fiduciary who accepts the
bribe may each be guilty of a criminal offence. In the present case the first respondent was clearly
 Page 6

guilty of a criminal offence.

Bribery is an evil practice which threatens the foundations of any civilised society. In particular bribery
of policemen and prosecutors *331 brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Where bribes
are accepted by a trustee, servant, agent or other fiduciary, loss and damage are caused to the
beneficiaries, master or principal whose interests have been betrayed. The amount of loss or damage
resulting from the acceptance of a bribe may or may not be quantifiable. In the present case the
amount of harm caused to the administration of justice in Hong Kong by the first respondent in return
for bribes cannot be quantified.
When a bribe is offered and accepted in money or in kind, the money or property constituting the
bribe belongs in law to the recipient. Money paid to the false fiduciary belongs to him. The legal estate
in freehold property conveyed to the false fiduciary by way of bribe vests in him. Equity, however,
which acts in personam, insists that it is unconscionable for a fiduciary to obtain and retain a benefit in
breach of duty. The provider of a bribe cannot recover it because he committed a criminal offence
when he paid the bribe. The false fiduciary who received the bribe in breach of duty must pay and
account for the bribe to the person to whom that duty was owed. In the present case, as soon as the
first respondent received a bribe in breach of the duties he owed to the Government of Hong Kong,
he became a debtor in equity to the Crown for the amount of that bribe. So much is admitted. But if
the bribe consists of property which increases in value or if a cash bribe is invested advantageously,
the false fiduciary will receive a benefit from his breach of duty unless he is accountable not only for
the original amount or value of the bribe but also for the increased value of the property representing
the bribe. As soon as the bribe was received it should have been paid or transferred instanter to the
person who suffered from the breach of duty. Equity considers as done that which ought to have been
done. As soon as the bribe was received, whether in cash or in kind, the false fiduciary held the bribe
on a constructive trust for the person injured. Two objections have been raised to this analysis. First it
is said that if the fiduciary is in equity a debtor to the person injured, he cannot also be a trustee of the
bribe. But there is no reason why equity should not provide two remedies, so long as they do not
result in double recovery. If the property representing the bribe exceeds the original bribe in value, the
fiduciary cannot retain the benefit of the increase in value which he obtained solely as a result of his
breach of duty. Secondly, it is said that if the false fiduciary holds property representing the bribe in
trust for the person injured, and if the false fiduciary is or becomes insolvent, the unsecured creditors
of the false fiduciary will be deprived of their right to share in the proceeds of that property. But the
unsecured creditors cannot be in a better position than their debtor. The authorities show that
property acquired by a trustee innocently but in breach of trust and the property from time to time
representing the same belong in equity to the cestui que trust and not to the trustee personally
whether he is solvent or insolvent. Property acquired by a trustee as a result of a criminal breach of
trust and the property from time to time representing the same must also belong in equity to his cestui
que trust and not to the trustee whether he is solvent or insolvent.
When a bribe is accepted by a fiduciary in breach of his duty then he holds that bribe in trust for the
person to whom the duty was owed. If *332 the property representing the bribe decreases in value
the fiduciary must pay the difference between that value and the initial amount of the bribe because
he should not have accepted the bribe or incurred the risk of loss. If the property increases in value,
the fiduciary is not entitled to any surplus in excess of the initial value of the bribe because he is not
allowed by any means to make a profit out of a breach of duty.
The courts of New Zealand were constrained by a number of precedents of the New Zealand, English
and other common law courts which established a settled principle of law inconsistent with the
foregoing analysis. That settled principle is open to review by the Board in the light of the foregoing
analysis of the consequences in equity of the receipt of a bribe by a fiduciary. In Keech v. Sandford
(1726) Sel.Cas.Ch. 61 a landlord refused to renew a lease to a trustee for the benefit of an infant. The
trustee then took a new lease for his own benefit. The new lease had not formed part of the original
trust property, the infant could not have acquired the new lease from the landlord and the trustee
acted innocently, believing that he committed no breach of trust and that the new lease did not belong
in equity to his cestui que trust. Lord King L.C. held nevertheless, at p. 62, that 'the trustee is the only
person of all mankind who might not have the lease;' the trustee was obliged to assign the new lease
to the infant and account for the profits he had received. The rule must be that property which a
trustee obtains by use of knowledge acquired as trustee becomes trust property. The rule must, a
fortiori, apply to a bribe accepted by a trustee for a guilty criminal purpose which injures the cestui
que trust. The trustee is only one example of a fiduciary and the same rule applies to all other
fiduciaries who accept bribes.
 Page 7

In Fawcett v. Whitehouse (1829) 1 Russ. & M. 132 the defendant, Whitehouse, intending to enter into
partnership with the plaintiffs, Shand and Fawcett, negotiated for the grant of a lease by a landlord to
the partnership. The landlord paid Whitehouse £12,000 for persuading the partnership to accept the
lease. Sir John Leach V.-C. said, at p. 149, that Whitehouse

'was bound to obtain the best terms possible for the intended partnership . . . and that all
he did obtain will be considered as if he had done his duty and had actually received the
£12,000 for the new partnership, as upon every equitable principle he was bound to do.
I am of opinion, therefore, that this is what must be called in a court of equity a fraud on
the part of the defendant. It was in fact selling his intended partners for £12,000; . . .'

Sir John Leach V.-C. made a declaration, at p. 135, that Whitehouse

'had received the £12,000 on behalf of himself and the plaintiffs Shand and Fawcett
equally, and that he was a trustee, as to one third part of that sum, for Shand, and as to
another third part . . . for the plaintiff Fawcett . . .'

An appeal to the Lord Chancellor was dismissed by Lord Lyndhurst L.C. Although in that case, there
was no need to trace the sum of £12,000 into other assets, the bribe of £12,000 was plainly held to be
trust property.
*333
In Sugden v. Crossland (1856) 3 Sm. & G. 192 a trustee was paid £75 for agreeing to retire from the
trust and to appoint in his place the person who had paid the £75. Sir John Stuart V.-C. said, at p.
194:

'It has been further asked that the sum of £75 may be treated as a part of the trust fund,
and as such may be directed to be paid by Horsfield to the trustee for the benefit of the
cestui que trusts under the will. It is a well-settled principle that, if a trustee make a profit
of his trusteeship, it shall enure to the benefit of his cestui que trusts. Though there is
some peculiarity in the case, there does not seem to be any difference in principle
whether the trustee derived the profit by means of the trust property, or from the office
itself.'

This case is of importance because it disposes succinctly of the argument which appears in later
cases and which was put forward by counsel in the present case that there is a distinction between a
profit which a trustee takes out of a trust and a profit such as a bribe which a trustee receives from a
third party. If in law a trustee, who in breach of trust invests trust moneys in his own name, holds the
investment as trust property, it is difficult to see why a trustee who in breach of trust receives and
invests a bribe in his own name does not hold those investments also as trust property.
In Tyrrell v. Bank of London (1862) 10 H.L.Cas. 26 a solicitor acting for a bank in negotiating the
purchase by the bank of a building known as the Hall of Commerce acquired for himself an interest in
a larger property which included the Hall of Commerce and then sold the Hall of Commerce to the
bank at a profit. The House of Lords held that the solicitor was a trustee for the bank of his interests in
the Hall of Commerce but was not a trustee for the bank of that part of the retained property which the
bank never had any intention of acquiring. The solicitor was obliged to bring into account the value of
the retained property in calculating the profit which the solicitor had made at the expense of the bank.
No difficulty arises from the decision in this case but, at pp. 59-60, Lord Chelmsford said that if the
solicitor had been paid a sum of £5,000 to induce the bank to purchase the Hall of Commerce at an
excessive price, the bank could have recovered damages from the solicitor but could not have
obtained the £5,000 on the grounds that it belonged to the bank. No reason was given and no
authority cited for these observations which were unnecessary for the decision of the appeal before
the House and which appear to be inconsistent with the authorities to which the Board have already
referred.
In In re Canadian Oil Works Corporation (Hay's Case) (1875) L.R. 10 Ch.App. 593 the vendors of
property to a company gave money forming part of the purchase price to a director of the company to
enable him to subscribe for shares in the company. It was held that the money was the money of the
company and that the shares registered in the name of the director were therefore unpaid. The
 Page 8

judgment emphasised the rule that 'no agent can in the course of his agency derive any benefit
whatever without the sanction or knowledge of his principal;' per James L.J., at p. 601.
*334
In In re Morvah Consols Tin Mining Co. (McKay's Case) (1875) 2 Ch.D. 1 , upon the application of the
liquidator of an insolvent company a director was ordered to pay under section 165 of the Companies
Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89) compensation for his misfeasance in accepting 600 paid-up shares in
the company from the vendor of property to the company. Mellish L.J. said, at p. 5:

'Either as a matter of bargain or as a present to the agent of the purchaser, it was in

consideration of a benefit which the vendor had received from the company's agents.
Now it is quite clear that, according to the principles of a Court of Equity, all the benefit
which the agent of the purchaser receives under such circumstances from the vendor
must be treated as received for the benefit of the purchaser.'

A similar decision was reached in In re Caerphilly Colliery Co. (Pearson's Case) (1877) 5 Ch.D. 336
where a director received paid-up shares from the vendor of property to the company. Jessel M.R.
referring to Sir Edwin Pearson the director in question said, at pp. 340-341:

'That being the position of Sir Edwin Pearson, can he be allowed to say in a Court of
Equity that he, having received a present of part of the purchase money, and being
knowingly in the position of agent and trustee for the purchasers, can retain that present
as against the actual purchasers? It appears to me that, upon the plainest principles of
equity and good conscience, he cannot. . . . he cannot, in the fiduciary position he
occupied, retain for himself any benefit or advantage that he obtained under such
circumstances. He must be deemed to have obtained it under circumstances which
made him liable, at the option of the cestui que trust, to account either for the value at
the time of the present he was receiving, or to account for the thing itself and its
proceeds if it had increased in value.'

This is an emphatic pronouncement by the most distinguished equity judge of his generation that the
recipient of a bribe holds the bribe and the property representing the bribe in trust for the injured
person.
Different reasoning and a different result followed in Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron (1880) 5 Ex.D. 319 .
This was a decision of a distinguished Court of Appeal heard and determined on one day, 5 August
1880, perilously close to the long vacation without citation of any of the relevant authorities. An
allegation of the receipt of a bribe by a director was considered in 1872 by the board of directors of
the company and they decided to take no action. In 1879 the company sued to recover the bribe of
£250 and it was held that the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27) .
James L.J. said, at p. 323:

'The ground of this suit is concealed fraud. If a man receives money by way of a bribe
for misconduct against a company or cestui que trust, or any person or body towards
whom he stands in a fiduciary position, he is liable to have that money taken from him
by his principal or cestui que trust. But it must be borne in mind *335 that that liability is
a debt only differing from ordinary debts in the fact that it is merely equitable, and in
dealing with equitable debts of such a nature Courts of Equity have always followed by
analogy the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, in cases in which there is the same
reason for making the length of time a bar as in the case of ordinary legal demands.'

This judgment denies that any proprietary interest exists in the bribe. Brett L.J. said, at p. 324:

'It seems to me that the only action which could be maintained by the company or by the
liquidator of the company against this defendant would be an action in equity founded
upon the alleged fraud of the defendant. Neither at law nor in equity could this sum of
£250 be treated as the money of the company, until the court, in an action by the
company, had decreed it to belong to them on the ground that it had been received
fraudulently as against them by the defendant.'
 Page 9

This is a puzzling passage which appears to mean that a proprietary interest in the bribe arises as
soon as a court has found that a bribe has been accepted. Cotton L.J. said, at p. 325:

'Here the money sought to be recovered was in no sense the money of the company,
unless it was made so by a decree founded on the act by which the trustee got the
money into his hands. It is a suit founded on breach of duty or fraud by a person who
was in the position of trustee, his position making the receipt of the money a breach of
duty or fraud. It is very different from the case of a cestui que trust seeking to recover
money which was his own before any act wrongfully done by the trustee.'

This observation does draw a distinction between moneys which are held on trust and are taken out
by the trustee and moneys which are not held on trust but which the trustee receives in circumstances
which oblige him to pay the money into the trust. The distinction appears to be inconsistent with
Keech v. Sandford , Sel.Cas.Ch. 61, and with those authorities which make the recipient of the bribe
liable for any increase in value. The decision in Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, 5 Ex.D. 319 , is
understandable given the finding that the fraud was made known to the company more than six years
before the action was instituted. But the same result could have been achieved by denying an
equitable remedy on the grounds of delay or ratification.
It has always been assumed and asserted that the law on the subject of bribes was definitively settled
by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lister & Co. v. Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch.D. 1 .
In that case the plaintiffs, Lister & Co., employed the defendant, Stubbs, as their servant to purchase
goods for the firm. Stubbs, on behalf of the firm, bought goods from Varley & Co. and received from
Varley & Co. bribes amounting to £5,541. The bribes were invested by Stubbs in freehold properties
and investments. His masters, the firm Lister & Co., sought and failed to obtain an interlocutory
injunction restraining Stubbs from disposing of these assets pending the trial of the *336 action in
which they sought, inter alia, £5,541 and damages. In the Court of Appeal the first judgment was
given by Cotton L.J. who had been party to the decision in Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, 5 Ex.D. 319 .
He was powerfully supported by the judgment of Lindley L.J. and by the equally powerful concurrence
of Bowen L.J. Cotton L.J. said, at p. 12, that the bribe could not be said to be the money of the
plaintiffs. He seemed to be reluctant to grant an interlocutory judgment which would provide security
for a debt before that debt had been established. Lindley L.J. said, at p. 15, that the relationship
between the plaintiffs, Lister & Co., as masters and the defendant, Stubbs, as servant who had
betrayed his trust and received a bribe:

'is that of debtor and creditor; it is not that of trustee and cestui que trust. We are asked
to hold that it is - which would involve consequences which, I confess, startle me. One
consequence, of course, would be that, if Stubbs were to become bankrupt, this
property acquired by him with the money paid to him by Messrs. Varley would be
withdrawn from the mass of his creditors and be handed over bodily to Lister & Co. Can
that be right? Another consequence would be that, if the appellants are right, Lister &
Co. could compel Stubbs to account to them, not only for the money with interest, but
for all the profits which he might have made by embarking in trade with it. Can that be
right?'

For the reasons which have already been advanced their Lordships would respectfully answer both
these questions in the affirmative. If a trustee mistakenly invests moneys which he ought to pay over
to his cestui que trust and then becomes bankrupt, the moneys together with any profit which has
accrued from the investment are withdrawn from the unsecured creditors as soon as the mistake is
discovered. A fortiori if a trustee commits a crime by accepting a bribe which he ought to pay over to
his cestui que trust, the bribe and any profit made therefrom should be withdrawn from the unsecured
creditors as soon as the crime is discovered.
The decision in Lister & Co. v. Stubbs is not consistent with the principles that a fiduciary must not be
allowed to benefit from his own breach of duty, that the fiduciary should account for the bribe as soon
as he receives it and that equity regards as done that which ought to be done. From these principles it
would appear to follow that the bribe and the property from time to time representing the bribe are
held on a constructive trust for the person injured. A fiduciary remains personally liable for the amount
of the bribe if, in the event, the value of the property then recovered by the injured person proved to
be less than that amount.
 Page 10

The decisions of the Court of Appeal in Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, 5 Ex.D. 319 , and Lister & Co. v.
Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 , are inconsistent with earlier authorities which were not cited. Although over 100
years has passed since Lister & Co. v. Stubbs , no one can be allowed to say that he has ordered his
affairs in reliance on the two decisions of the Court of Appeal now in question. Thus no harm can
result if those decisions are not followed.
*337
The decision in Lister & Co. v. Stubbs was followed in Powell & Thomas v. Evans Jones & Co. [1905]
1 K.B. 11 and Attorney-General v. Goddard (1929) 98 L.J.K.B. 743 . In Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v.
Gulliver (Note) [1967] 2 A.C. 134 shares intended to be acquired by directors at par to avoid them
giving a guarantee of the obligations under a lease were sold at a profit and the directors were held to
be liable to the company for the proceeds of sale, applying Keech v. Sandford , Sel.Cas.Ch. 61.
In Reading v. Attorney-General [1951] A.C. 507 , the Crown confiscated thousands of pounds paid to
an army sergeant who had abused his official position to enable drugs to be imported. The Crown
was allowed to keep the confiscated moneys to avoid circuity of action.
Finally in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Denby [1987] Lloyd's Rep. 367 Leggatt J. followed
Lister & Co. v. Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 , as indeed he was bound to do.
The authorities which followed Lister & Co. v. Stubbs do not cast any new light on that decision. Their
Lordships are more impressed with the decision of Lai Kew Chai J. in Sumitomo Bank Ltd. v. Kartika
Ratna Thahir [1993] 1 S.L.R. 735 . In that case General Thahir who was at one time general assistant
to the president director of the Indonesian state enterprise named Pertamina opened 17 bank
accounts in Singapore and deposited DM.54m. in those accounts. The money was said to be bribes
paid by two German contractors tendering for the construction of steel works in West Java. General
Thahir having died, the moneys were claimed by his widow, by the estate of the deceased general
and by Pertamina. After considering in detail all the relevant authorities Lai Kew Chai J. determined
robustly, at p. 810, that Lister & Co. v. Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 , was wrong and that its 'undesirable and
unjust consequences should not be imported and perpetuated as part of' the law of Singapore. Their
Lordships are also much indebted for the fruits of research and the careful discussion of the present
topic in the address entitled 'Bribes and Secret Commissions' [1993] R.L.R. 7 delivered by Sir Peter
Millett to a meeting of the Society of Public Teachers of Law at Oxford in 1993. The following
passage, at p. 20, elegantly sums up the views of Sir Peter Millett:

'[The fiduciary] must not place himself in a position where his interest may conflict with
his duty. If he has done so, equity insists on treating him as having acted in accordance
with his duty; he will not be allowed to say that he preferred his own interest to that of
his principal. He must not obtain a profit for himself out of his fiduciary position. If he has
done so, equity insists on treating him as having obtained it for his principal; he will not
be allowed to say that he obtained it for himself. He must not accept a bribe. If he has
done so, equity insists on treating it as a legitimate payment intended for the benefit of
the principal; he will not be allowed to say that it was a bribe.'

The conclusions reached by Lai Kew Chai J. in Sumitomo Bank Ltd. v. Kartika Ratna Thahir [1993] 1
S.L.R. 735 and the views expressed by Sir Peter Millett were influenced by the decision of the House
of Lords *338 in Phipps v. Boardman [1967] 2 A.C. 46 which demonstrates the strictness with which
equity regards the conduct of a fiduciary and the extent to which equity is willing to impose a
constructive trust on property obtained by a fiduciary by virtue of his office. In that case a solicitor
acting for trustees rescued the interests of the trust in a private company by negotiating for a takeover
bid in which he himself took an interest. He acted in good faith throughout and the information which
the solicitor obtained about the company in the takeover bid could never have been used by the
trustees. Nevertheless the solicitor was held to be a constructive trustee by a majority in the House of
Lords because the solicitor obtained the information which satisfied him that the purchase of the
shares in the takeover company would be a good investment and the opportunity of acquiring the
shares as a result of acting for certain purposes on behalf of the trustees; see per Lord Cohen, at p.
103. If a fiduciary acting honestly and in good faith and making a profit which his principal could not
make for himself becomes a constructive trustee of that profit then it seems to their Lordships that a
fiduciary acting dishonestly and criminally who accepts a bribe and thereby causes loss and damage
to his principal must also be a constructive trustee and must not be allowed by any means to make
any profit from his wrongdoing.
 Page 11

The New Zealand Court of Appeal in the present case declined to enter into the merits of Lister & Co.
v. Stubbs, 45 Ch.D. 1 , founding itself on a passage in the judgment of this Board delivered by Lord
Scarman in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd. v. Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd. [1986] A.C. 80 , 108, where his
Lordship said the duty of the New Zealand Court of Appeal was not to depart from a settled principle
of English law. While their Lordships regard the application of stare decisis in the New Zealand Court
of Appeal as a matter for that court, they desire to make the following remarks, in case Lord
Scarman's comments in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd. v. Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd. have in any way been
misunderstood.
In the present case the Court of Appeal did not say and could not have meant that it was bound by a
decision of the English Court of Appeal, since for many years the New Zealand courts have not
regarded themselves as bound by decisions of the House of Lords, although of course continuing to
pay great respect to them. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal, as their Lordships understand it,
was rather that in the absence of differentiating local circumstances the court should follow a decision
representing contemporary English law, leaving its correctness for consideration by this Board.
Without in any way criticising that approach in the circumstances of this case, where the decision in
question was of such long standing, their Lordships wish to add that nevertheless the New Zealand
Court of Appeal must be free to review an English Court of Appeal authority on its merits and to
depart from it if the authority is considered to be wrong. Hart v. O'Connor [1985] A.C. 1000 to which
Lord Scarman referred in the passage mentioned by the Court of Appeal concerned the very different
situation of the Court of Appeal wishing to apply English law but, in the judgment of this Board,
misapprehending the state of the contemporary law. In any case where the New Zealand Court of
Appeal has to decide whether to follow an *339 English authority, its own views on the issue,
untrammelled by authority, will always be of great assistance to the Board.
The Attorney-General for Hong Kong has registered caveats against the title of the three New
Zealand properties. He seeks to renew the caveats to prevent any dealing with the property pending
the hearing of proceedings which, their Lordships are informed, have been initiated for the purpose of
claiming the properties on a constructive trust. The respondents oppose the renewal of the caveats
on the grounds that the Crown had no equitable interest in the three New Zealand properties. For the
reasons indicated their Lordships consider that the three properties so far as they represent bribes
accepted by the first respondent are held in trust for the Crown.
Before parting with this appeal their Lordships wish to express their appreciation for the eloquent and
well structured submissions made by Mr. David Oliver on behalf of the Attorney-General for Hong
Kong and by Mr. Antony White on behalf of the respondents.
Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise Her Majesty that this appeal should be allowed. Since an
unfulfilled order has been made against the first respondent in the courts of Hong Kong to pay
H.K.$12·4m., his only purpose in opposing the relief sought by the Crown in New Zealand must reflect
that the properties, in the absence of a caveat, can be sold and the proceeds whisked away to some
Shangri La which hides bribes and other corrupt moneys in numbered bank accounts. In these
circumstances the first and second respondents must pay the costs of the Attorney-General before
the Board and in the lower courts; as regards the third respondent the costs orders in his favour in the
High Court and in the Court of Appeal should be set aside and the third respondent must repay any
sums that have been paid to him. There will be no order against the third respondent for costs
incurred by the Attorney-General before the Board.

Representation
Solicitors: Herbert Smith ; Simons Muirhead & Burton .
(S. S. )

(c) Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales

© 2022 Thomson Reuters