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.”

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Trusts and Equity study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Trusts and Equity Notes

Trusts and Equity Notes >>