Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Roscoe v Winder

[1915] 1 Ch 62

Case summary last updated at 24/02/2020 17:09 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Roscoe v Winder

T put trust money into his personal account which already had some money in it, then withdrew some money and then put in some additional money of his own. The court held that the monies paid in after the withdrawal are not subject to tracing. Hence if T puts £10 of trust money belonging to B in his account containing £5 already, and then withdraws £12, there will be £3 left, before putting in another £30, only £3 will be traceable by B. 
Sarjant J: To allow B to claim tracing over monies paid in by T would be to extend the Re Hallett’s doctrine greatly. To trace you have to “put your finger on some definite fund which either remains in its original state or can be found in another shape.”

Roscoe v Winder crops up in following areas of law