User:AlasdairEdits/Head v Gould

Head v Gould [1898] 2 CH 250; 67 L.J.Ch. 480; 78 L.t 739 was a case in english trust law concerning the indemnity of trustee's inter se for a breach of a trust. Where a trustee has committed a breach of trust relying on the professional advice of a fellow solicitor trustee they were entitled to be indemnified by virtue of that reliance. It is one of the few common law situations concerning inter-trustee indemnity that is still thought to apply following the passing of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

Facts
Miss Head and Mrs Gould were appointed trustees of certain marriage settlements, Mrs Gould was a Solicitor-Trustee. The trustee's sold a house that was part of the trust property and in breach of trust paid the proceeds of the sale to a life tenant. Miss head sought to claim that she was indemnified because of the status of her co-trustee as a solicitor. Miss Head claimed that she had acted in reliance on the professional advice of Gould. There was no evidence that this was the case and so Miss Head's claim for indemnity was unsuccessful. However, in giving judgement Kekewich J considered earlier equitable case law and considered that "I do not myself think that Bryne J or any other judge ever intended to hold that a man is bound to indemnify his co-trustee against loss merely because he was a solicitor, when that co-trustee was an active participant in the breach of trust complained of, and is not proved to have participated merely in consequence of the advice and control of the solicitor."

Legal Significance
This case is one of the surviving examples of the equitable development of the law of trust, holding that a lay trustee was entitled to pass on the burden of trust losses onto a professional trustee, upon whose expertise the lay trustee's had reasonably relied. It is therefore a significant demonstration of the development of the historical doctrine that led to the increased flexibility and guidance of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. It haas been suggested that the rise of professional trust companies will give this line of case law increasing significance in the future.