Reading V King (1948) 2 Kb 268 Kings Bench

Reading 5 A-K
Court	Business firm of Lords
Full case name	Reading v Attorney-Full general (on behalf of His Majesty)
Citation(s)	[1951] UKHL 1, [1951] AC 507
Keywords
Constructive trust

Reading v Attorney-Full general [1951] UKHL one is an English trusts constabulary example, concerning constructive trusts.

Facts [edit]

Mr Reading was stationed in Arab republic of egypt as an army sergeant. Smugglers paid him to ride in their lorries, while they were doing their smuggling of illegal spirits (whisky and brandy), while visibly wearing his army uniform, hence making a search less probable. Mr Reading got betwixt £1000 and £4000 each time, simply was caught. The Crown seized the money he was paid, £19,325 4s 8d in total, and put him in prison house. Mr Reading claimed that the money should be returned under an activeness for money had and received. The Crown argued it was entitled to retain the sums, which must have been received in "trust" for the Crown.

Judgment [edit]

The House of Lords held that the Crown could retain the coin for many reasons, including that Mr Reading was in a fiduciary position. He was required to give up all unauthorised profits to his principal, the Crown. Lord Porter said the following.

In these circumstances Denning J, held that the Crown was entitled to the coin in question. It was, in his view, immaterial to consider whether the method of seizure was justified or not. Fifty-fifty if it was not, the Crown had a valid counterclaim and. avoiding a circuity of action, could thus defeat the Appellant'southward claim. " It is", he says, " a claim for restitution of moneys " which, in justice, ought to be paid over." It was suggested in argument that the learned approximate founded his decision solely upon the doctrine of unjust enrichment and that that doctrine was not recognised by the police force of England. My Lords, the exact condition of the law of unjust enrichment is not yet assured. It holds a predominant place in the law of Scotland and, I think, of the U.s.a., merely I am content for the purposes of this case to accept the view that it forms no part of the police of England and that a correct to restitution so described would be as well widely stated. Simply. indeed, this doctrine is not of the essence of Denning, J.'s, judgment. His reasoning is to be found in the passage which succeeds that quoted. He says:

"In my judgment, information technology is a principle of law that if a servant takes reward of his service past violating his duty of honesty and proficient religion, to brand a prom for himself, in this sense, that the assets of which he has command, or the facilities which he enjoys, or the position which he occupies, are the real cause of his obtaining the money, as distinct from existence the mere opportunity for getting it, that is to say, if they play the predominant part in his obtaining the money, so he is accountable for it to the master. It matters not that the master has non lost whatever profit, nor suffered whatsoever damage. Nor does it matter that the master could not have washed the act himself. It is a case where the servant has unjustly enriched himself past virtue of his service without his primary's sanction. It is money which the servant ought not to be allowed to keep, and the law says it shall be taken from him and given to his chief, considering he got it solely by reason of the position which he occupied as a servant of his master."

And again,

"The uniform of the Crown, and the position of the man as a servant of the Crown were the sole reasons why he was able to get this money, and that is sufficient to make him liable to hand it over to the Crown."

The learned approximate nevertheless too says:

"In that location was not, in this example, a fiduciary human relationship; and this human being Reading was not acting in the course of his employment."

If this means, every bit I think it does, that the Appellant was neither a trustee nor in possession of some turn a profit-earning chattel and that it was contrary to his duty to escort unwarranted traffic or possibly any traffic through the streets of Cairo, it is true, only, in my view, irrelevant. He nonetheless was using his position as a Sergeant in His Majesty's Regular army and the uniform to which his rank entitled him to obtain the coin which he received. In my opinion any official position, whether marked by a uniform or not, which enables the holder to earn money by its use gives his master a right to receive the money so earned even though it was earned by a criminal human activity.

See also [edit]

• English trusts police
• English land constabulary
• English property police force

Notes [edit]

References [edit]

robisonthatithe.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_v_Attorney-General

Share this post