ABSTRACT
Twinsectra v Yardley [2002] 2 All ER 377, HL Lord Millett: (i).The lender: In ‘The Quistclose Trust:Who Can Enforce It?’ (1985) 101 LQR, 269, I argued that the beneficial interest remained throughout in the lender. This analysis has received considerable though not universal academic support: see for example Priestley J ‘The Romalpa Clause and the Quistclose Trust’ in Equity and Commercial Transactions, ed Finn (1987) 217, 237; and Professor M Bridge ‘The Quistclose Trust in a World of Secured Transactions’ (1992) 12 OJLS 333, 352; and others. It was adopted by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in General Communications Ltd v Development Finance Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1990] 3 NZLR 406 and referred to with apparent approval by Gummow J in In re Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust (1991) 102 ALR 681. Gummow J saw nothing special in the Quistclose trust, regarding it as essentially a security device to protect the lender against other creditors of the borrower pending the application of the money for the sated purpose.
