Chancery Division
Published February 12, 2008
Statek Corporation v Alford and Another

Where a beneficiary had a claim against an accessory to another’s fraudulent breach of trust, the exception to the normal limitation period applied to that claim as if the accessory were a fiduciary or trustee.

Mr Justice Evans-Lombe so held on January 17, 2008, when allowing the claim of Statek Corporation against David Frederick McNeill Alford for US$2,426,385 damages after finding that he had failed to account for moneys of Statek in his control and in respect of which he owed fiduciary duties.

HIS LORDSHIP said that since Mr Alford was constituted a de facto director of Statek, he fell into the first category of defendants identified by Lord Justice Millett in Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar and Co (\[1999]1 All ER 400), being trustees or fiduciaries established as such before the events complained of.

It followed that Mr Alford’s limitation defence failed because section 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 applied, disapplying the normal six-year limitation period in trust cases.

The same conclusion was reached where the defendant was merely an accessory to the fraudulent breach of trust of another: see Soar v Ashwell ([1893] 2 QB 390) and (GL Baker Ltd v Medway Building and Supplies Ltd) ([1958] 1 WLR 1216).

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers