CASE ANALYSIS

Case Analysis of “Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd and Another v Akindele [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1423, [2001] Ch. 437.”

Case Analysis of “Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd and Another v Akindele [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1423, [2001] Ch. 437.”

Introduction

This paper in analysis of the case “Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd and Another v Akindele [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1423, [2001] Ch. 437.” The paper discusses the central issue and the facts related to the case as well as the judgment provided by the court. The decision of the court is analysed in terms of whether it created a legal precedent or uphold a precedent. The paper provides that whether the liability for knowing receipt of trust property should be strict or fault-based liability.

Nature of the case and legal issues central to the case

The case in consideration is between the “Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd” and “Chief Labode Onadimaki Akindele.” The former is the claimant in this case along with “International Credit and Investment Company (Overseas) Ltd” whereas; the latter is the defendant in the case. The case and issue was heard by the “Court of Appeal”. In the case, the court was needed to reflect on and judge the claim that the defendant of the case needs to be held accountable and liable being a constructive trustee who provided dishonest assistance in the “breach of fiduciary duty” or consciously and intentionally acquiring a property and asset that is able to be traced to the “breach of trust or fiduciary duty”.

The decision being made in this case by the court is significant and important in that the “Court of Appeal” put forth a novel test for liability regarding the claim of “knowing receipt.” It was decided by the court that the test is no longer supposed to be founded on the basis of knowledge. In the place of the test for knowledge, the court now needs to find out and decide on the claim on account of the fact that if the defendant obtained the property unconscientiously that is without any due consideration. The claim in this case is a “third party liability claim” attributable to the decision of the case of Barnes v Addy in 1874.

The decision made in this case created a legal precedent in that it dismissed the test of knowledge and proposed the new test of “unconscientious or unconscionable receipt”. The test proposed in the decision of this case is safe in legal and public policy terms as it has the benefit of being more flexible as compared to the classes of knowledge and it authorizes judges to craft determinations on the basis of the situations and facts of the case exclusive of being necessitated to make use of the “Baden categories of knowledge”. Moreover, the decision also entails that strict liability is too not suitable for knowing receipt of trust property.

Facts regarding the case

The first claimant in this case is “Bank of Credit and ...