Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd (1968)

English Equity & Trusts

Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd
Image: ‘Bankers in Action’ by Remedios Varo

Conditional lending, while perhaps overlooked during commercial and personal loans, forms the bedrock of such delicate transactions, and so should the borrower find themselves unable to apply the funds as expected, the nature of the agreement remains lawfully intact in favour of the lender. In this matter, an insolvent debtor’s bank attempted to convert such monies into company assets at the expense of the lender, at which point the reassurance of equity intervened.

In 1964, the shareholders of a relatively successful enterprise took steps to issue dividends of around £210,000, however upon inspection, they discovered that without adequate liquidity, the payment would be impossible. With that in mind, the company owner secured a conditional loan from the respondents, on the express condition that the funds were to be used for dividend issue only.

Once received, the owner wrote to the company bank, giving instruction to open a standalone account for the retention of the funds, while stipulating that:

“We would like to confirm the agreement reached with you this morning that this amount will only be used to meet the dividend due on July 24, 1964.”

Unfortunately, on July 17 1964, the company entered into voluntary liquidation, whereupon the monies held remained unused, as per the instructions given at the point of receipt. Some time later, the respondents demanded repayment of the money loaned, after which the appellant bank argued that it had since become a corporate asset, and was therefore subject to the priorities of all associated creditors involved in the bankruptcy process.

At the point of litigation, the respondents held that the money loaned was subject to a resulting trust, and that the bank by virtue of their position, were now under a fiduciary liability as constructive trustees for the amount loaned. In the first hearing, the judge awarded in favour of the appellants, on grounds that equitable principles did not apply when arms-length dealings fail, whereupon the respondents appealed and the Court held that in matters involving third parties to a failed transaction, recovery under equity was a principle long enjoyed, and routinely evidenced through a number of judgments across hundreds of years.

Presented again to the House of Lords, the House examined the complexity of the transaction, and noted that in Toovey v Milne, Abbot CJ had ruled that failure to apply the money loaned in the way originally intended, allowed for recovery of the funds during insolvency, under the principle that:

“[T]his money was advanced for a special purpose, and that being so clothed with a specific trust, no property in it passed to the assignee of the bankrupt. Then the purpose having failed, there is an implied stipulation that the money shall be repaid.”

Here again, reference was made to the express conditions applied to the loan, as well as the statement made in the letter at the time the money was passed to the appellant bank. It was further noted that while in circumstances where the lender agrees to loan on non-specific terms, there is an implied assumption that such funds become part of the corporate estate (albeit not entirely free of equity), however on this occasion there was ample testimony that the respondents had bargained with the borrowers on clear conditions, therefore the House uniformly and unreservedly held that the Appeal Court decision was to remain untouched and the bank’s appeal dismissed.

Midland Bank Plc v Cooke

English Property Law

Midland Bank Plc v Cooke
Image: ‘Pillars of Deceit’ by Michael Lang

Note: To read about this case in greater depth, and with the benefit of full OSCOLA referencing, simply purchase a copy of ‘The Case Law Compendium: English & European Law’ at Amazon, Waterstones or Barnes & Noble (or go here for a full list of international outlets)


When two first-time homebuyers rely upon a financial donation from family members, the equality of shared ownership can become displaced, despite individual perceptions of common intention and the partnership of marriage.

When two young newlyweds entered into a mortgage of their family home, it was not without a significant cash contribution from the groom’s parents. This gift was bestowed upon the couple after the bride’s parents had covered the costs of the wedding, and therefore implied equal investment into their committed relationship. At the time of conveyance, the deeds fell under sole title in favour of the groom, and no assumptions were otherwise made than it was their home, and that both parties were joint occupants and thus entitled to equal benefits.

A few years after the purchase, the nature of the mortgage altered, and was now liable under the terms of an acquiring bank, at which point the wife was asked to sign away any beneficial interest she held in favour of the new mortgagee. Her agreement to this request was given (albeit under visible duress) so that the husband could continue to run his business, while the family (now with three children) could remain in secure occupation.

After re-mortgaging the property a number of years later, the wife took the opportunity to have her name included within the title, and thus became a legal tenant-in-common. When the business began to fail and the mortgage fell into unrecoverable default, the bank sought to repossess, at which point the wife challenged the order on grounds that any relinquishing of interest had not been of her volition, rather that her now estranged husband’s undue influence led her to act against her will and under marital obligation.

In the first hearing, the judge found in favour of the wife on the grounds described, before going further to explain that while her collective time and monies invested into the home during the course of their marriage could not translate into an equal half-share of the property, it did result in a six percent stake hold, arising from her half-share entitlement of the cash gifted by the groom’s parents at the point of purchase; and therefore under those circumstances, any repossession order could not stand.

When challenged by the bank and the wife in the Court of Appeal, the principle of shared equity was given greater consideration, along with the equitable maxim ‘equality is equity‘, which on this occasion was not relied upon. Instead, it was agreed that the wife’s actions first dismissed as non-contributory,  were embraced as wholly acceptable, despite no verbal agreements between the couple as to whether or not the home was equally divisible to begin with.