ABSTRACT
The House of Lords’ decision in Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd was reported almost thirty years ago and yet it is still the subject of considerable academic debate. The operation of a Quistclose trust is simple enough to describe: a sum of money is advanced from A to B for a specified purpose; if, before that purpose can be accomplished, B becomes insolvent, then the money does not form part of B’s general assets but is instead held on trust by B for A. Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsche redrew the map of trusts law in general and resulting trusts in particular. The facts are too well known to require anything other than the briefest recitation. An interest rate swap between the Council and the Bank was into its third year before it was discovered to be void. The usual rule is that to be valid, a private non-charitable trust must be for the benefit of individuals.
