‘The question of when a Quistclose trust can be recognised in a given set of facts gives rise to highly complicated considerations of policy and justice, which are the appropriate province of Parliament rather than the courts.’ To what extent do you agree?

This paper should be a balancing of policy (distributive) vs justice (personal)

Please read the documents called “Skeleton” and “Seminar Notes”. They include the basic analysis of the issues and what should be discussed. The Skeleton also includes the basic structure of the paper.

Again, these two documents are essential. They are not to be cited, as they are only personal notes.

The core reading for this paper, which must be considered, is:

Cases: Barclays Bank v Quistclose, Cooper v PRG, Twinsectra
Articles: Hudson, Swadling, Millett

I will also be uploading several other cases or papers. Though not all need to be used, there should be a MEANINGFUL incorporation of at least one or two of these. It can be another case, or another article.

The articles often discuss the cases in question – it can be useful to read them and use them to consider the cases, and what they mean.

If further sources are found, they can be used, as long as they are making a point that is not found in the ones provided. I am setting a minimum limit of 9 sources needed for this paper – if you can or need to go beyond, this is absolutely fine

Citations must be pinpoint. This means the specific page of an article or paragraph of a case. Sources should not be cited for their introduction – a use of the body/core of the article or case is necessary.

As there is a lot of material, I encourage the writer to spend the initial portion of the assignment reading, before any writing is done