Re EVTR [1987] BCLC 646

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Alpha PLC, a technology conglomerate, advanced a substantial sum of money to its newly formed subsidiary, Beta Ltd, for the explicit purpose of developing an innovative software platform. The agreement between the parties stated that the funds must be spent solely on acquiring the specialized hardware necessary for the project’s launch. Subsequently, market conditions shifted drastically, preventing Beta Ltd from purchasing the hardware in question. Beta Ltd argued that the funds were given outright and not subject to return. Alpha PLC maintained that the subsidiary received the funds subject to a trust for a specific goal that remained unfulfilled.


Which of the following is the single best explanation for why Alpha PLC is entitled to reclaim the funds if the project cannot proceed?

Introduction

The case of Re EVTR [1987] BCLC 646 is a landmark judgment in English corporate law, addressing the principles governing the return of funds when the purpose for which they were advanced fails. This case is particularly significant in the context of trust law and corporate finance, as it clarifies the legal obligations of parties when funds are provided for a specific purpose that subsequently becomes unattainable. The Court of Appeal's decision in this case established a precedent for the treatment of such funds, emphasizing the importance of the intention behind the transfer and the legal framework governing the relationship between the parties.

The judgment revolves around the concept of "purpose trusts," where funds are advanced for a specific objective. When the purpose fails, the court must determine whether the funds should be returned to the provider or retained by the recipient. The case also highlights the distinction between contractual obligations and equitable principles, particularly in situations where the intended purpose of the funds cannot be fulfilled. The court's analysis in Re EVTR provides a detailed examination of the legal principles applicable to such scenarios, offering clarity on the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

Legal Framework and Key Principles

The legal framework supporting Re EVTR [1987] BCLC 646 is rooted in trust law and the principles of equity. A trust arises when one party (the settlor) transfers property to another (the trustee) to hold for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary). In the context of corporate finance, funds may be advanced for a specific purpose, creating a "purpose trust." The key issue in Re EVTR was whether the funds advanced for a specific purpose should be returned to the provider when the purpose failed.

The court applied the principle that a trust for a specific purpose is valid only if the purpose is certain and capable of being fulfilled. If the purpose fails, the funds must be returned to the settlor, unless there is a clear intention to the contrary. This principle is based on the equitable maxim that equity regards as done that which ought to be done. In other words, if the purpose of the trust cannot be achieved, the court will ensure that the funds are returned to the party who provided them, unless there is a valid reason to retain them.

Facts of the Case

The case of Re EVTR [1987] BCLC 646 involved a company that had advanced funds to a subsidiary for the purpose of acquiring certain assets. The subsidiary was unable to complete the acquisition, and the funds were not used for the intended purpose. The parent company sought the return of the funds, arguing that they had been advanced for a specific purpose that had failed. The subsidiary contended that the funds were an outright gift and that there was no obligation to return them.

The court examined the terms of the advance and the intentions of the parties. It was established that the funds had been provided for a specific purpose, and there was no evidence to suggest that the parent company intended to make an outright gift. The court held that the funds were held on trust for the purpose of acquiring the assets, and since the purpose had failed, the funds should be returned to the parent company.

Analysis of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal's judgment in Re EVTR [1987] BCLC 646 provides a detailed analysis of the legal principles applicable to purpose trusts. The court emphasized the importance of the intention behind the transfer of funds and the need for certainty in the purpose of the trust. The judgment also highlights the distinction between contractual obligations and equitable principles, particularly in situations where the intended purpose of the funds cannot be fulfilled.

The court rejected the argument that the funds were an outright gift, finding that there was no evidence to support this contention. Instead, the court held that the funds were advanced for a specific purpose and were held on trust for that purpose. Since the purpose had failed, the funds were to be returned to the parent company. This decision reinforces the principle that funds advanced for a specific purpose are subject to a trust, and if the purpose fails, the funds must be returned to the provider.

Implications for Corporate Finance

The judgment in Re EVTR [1987] BCLC 646 has significant implications for corporate finance, particularly in relation to the treatment of funds advanced for specific purposes. The case establishes that funds provided for a specific purpose are held on trust and must be returned if the purpose fails. This principle provides clarity for companies and their subsidiaries, ensuring that funds are used for their intended purposes and that there is a mechanism for their return if the purpose cannot be achieved.

The case also highlights the importance of clear documentation and the need to specify the purpose for which funds are advanced. Companies should ensure that the terms of any advance are clearly set out in writing, including the purpose of the advance and the conditions under which the funds must be returned. This will help to avoid disputes and ensure that the funds are used in accordance with the parties' intentions.

Cross-Topic Connections

The principles established in Re EVTR [1987] BCLC 646 have broader implications for trust law and corporate finance. The case reinforces the importance of certainty in the creation of trusts and the need for clear evidence of the parties' intentions. It also highlights the role of equity in ensuring that funds are used for their intended purposes and that there is a mechanism for their return if the purpose fails.

The judgment in Re EVTR can be compared to other cases involving purpose trusts, such as Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567. In Quistclose, the House of Lords held that funds advanced for a specific purpose were held on trust and must be returned if the purpose failed. The principles established in Quistclose were applied in Re EVTR, demonstrating the consistency of the courts' approach to purpose trusts.

Conclusion

The case of Re EVTR [1987] BCLC 646 provides a clear and authoritative statement of the principles governing the return of funds when the purpose for which they were advanced fails. The Court of Appeal's judgment emphasizes the importance of the intention behind the transfer of funds and the need for certainty in the purpose of the trust. The case establishes that funds advanced for a specific purpose are held on trust and must be returned if the purpose fails, unless there is a clear intention to the contrary.

The judgment has significant implications for corporate finance, particularly in relation to the treatment of funds advanced for specific purposes. Companies should ensure that the terms of any advance are clearly documented, including the purpose of the advance and the conditions under which the funds must be returned. This will help to avoid disputes and ensure that the funds are used in accordance with the parties' intentions. The principles established in Re EVTR are consistent with those in other cases involving purpose trusts, such as Quistclose, demonstrating the courts' commitment to ensuring that funds are used for their intended purposes and that there is a mechanism for their return if the purpose fails.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal