1. Equitable personal actions
   1. Recipient liability
      1. Imposes constructive trust if
         1. Trustee transferred legal title to stranger in breach of trust
         2. Stranger receives the property for his own benefit
         3. Strangers conscience is affected with knowledge that received improperly
      2. Level of knowledge
         1. Baden Delvaux Lecuit v Societe General [1983]
            1. Actual knowledge
            2. Knew facts but wilfully shut eyes
            3. Knew facts but failed to make enquiries honest and reasonable person would have made
            4. Did not infer what reasonable person would have inferred
            5. Knew facts which would have put reasonable person on inquiry
         2. Constructive notice controversial
            1. Re Montagu's ST [1992]
            2. May not suffice if recipient honest
            3. El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc [1993]
            4. recipient not expected to be unduly suspicious
         3. BCCI Overseas Ltd v Akindele [2000]
            1. Dishonesty not an essential element
            2. Defendant's knowledge must make it unconscionable to retain property
            3. Constructive notice may be sufficient
         4. When recipient is company
            1. Who is 'directing mind and will'
            2. El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc [1993]
   2. Accessory liability
      1. Existence of trust or fiduciary relationship
      2. Breach
         1. Need not be dishonest breach
            1. Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan
      3. Stranger assists the breach
      4. Stranger must have been dishonest
         1. Negligence not sufficient
         2. Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan
            1. 'Not acting as an honest person would'
            2. Objective standard
         3. Twinsetra v Yardley [2002]
            1. Interpreted Royal Brunei
            2. Dishonest by standards of reasonable and honest people
            3. AND realised that, by those standards, was dishonest
         4. Barlow Clowes Int Ltd (in liquidation) v Eurotrust Int Ltd
            1. Interpreted Twinsectra
            2. Dishonest by standards of reasonable and honest people
            3. AND knew of those aspects of the transaction which made it dishonest
            4. Need not know of trust or fiduciary relationship, only that assisting in misappropriation
         5. Abou-Rahmah v Abacha [2006]
            1. Court of Appeal decision
            2. Obiter comments support Barlow Clowes
2. Common law personal action
   1. Only open to legal owners
   2. Applies to fraud, theft or mistake
   3. No need to show dishonesty
      1. Strict liability
   4. Developed from 'money had and received' cases
   5. Grounds of unjust enrichment
      1. Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale [1991]
   6. Common law tracing rules apply
      1. Will not succeed if mixed prior to receipt
   7. Defence for innocent recipient
      1. Changed position so that would be unjust
   8. Cannot be used against bona fide purchasers
3. Equitable proprietary actions
   1. Constructive trustee (recipient liability)
      1. Must satisfy Akindele test
         1. unconscionability
      2. Equitable tracing rules apply
         1. same as against express trustee
   2. Innocent volunteer
      1. Tracing rules
         1. Beneficiary and innocent volunteer treated equally
            1. Foskett v McKeown
         2. Mixed asset
            1. Proportionate share of asset
         3. Mixed active account
            1. Same as for two trust funds
            2. Clayton's case
         4. Defence
            1. Re Diplock
            2. Tracing not permitted if inequitable result
            3. Beneficiary could not trace into improvements as sale would deprive volunteer of land
   3. Bona fide purchaser for value without notice
      1. takes free from beneficiaries equitable interest
      2. no proprietary claim possible