1. Equitable tracing
   1. Intro
      1. Beneficiaries use equitable tracing rules
      2. Legal owners of property use common law rules
      3. Check not dissipated - no longer represented by any asset
      4. If money spent on mortgage, claimant may acquire rights of lender
         1. Subrogation
      5. Subrogation available to reverse unjust enrichment
         1. Boscawen v Bajwa [1995]
   2. Clean substitution
      1. Straight swap for another asset
      2. No mixing with property or funds of another
      3. Which remedy to claim
         1. Personal remedy
            1. plus interest
         2. Proprietary claim
            1. Equitable ownership of property
            2. if value has risen
            3. Charge (equitable lien) over property to secure personal claim
            4. if value has fallen
   3. Mixed asset
      1. Foskett v McKeown [2000]
         1. Claim a proportionate share of asset
            1. if value has risen
            2. prevents trustee from profiting unjustly
         2. Enforce lien over asset to secure personal claim
            1. if value has fallen
   4. Mixed bank account
      1. Money withdrawn and dissipated
         1. Trustee assumed to have spent own money first
            1. Re Hallett (1880)
            2. Assumed to have acted honestly
      2. Money spent on asset
         1. Re Oatway [1903]
            1. Beneficiaries may claim asset, regardless of order of withdrawals
      3. Money paid in after trust money dissipated
         1. 'Lowest intermediate balance rule'
            1. Roscoe v Winder [1915]
            2. Cannot be claimed
            3. Unless expressly replacing trust money
   5. Backwards tracing
      1. Tracing into asset acquired before misappropriation
      2. i.e. to pay off debt after asset bought on credit
      3. Possible if planned scheme
         1. Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan [1995]
   6. Swollen assets theory
      1. i.e paying off overdraft
         1. Tracing not allowed
   7. Mixing of trust funds
      1. No active account
         1. Proportionate share
      2. Active bank account
         1. First withdrawal comes from trust money paid in first
            1. Clayton's Case (1816)
         2. May refuse to apply Clayton's rule
            1. Barlow Clowes Int v Vaughan [1992]
            2. impracticable
            3. unjust
            4. contrary to express or implied intention of claimants
         3. Clayton's rule rarely appropriate
            1. Russell-Cooke Trust Co v Prentis [2003]
2. Equitable proprietary action against other fiduciaries
   1. Legal owners use common law tracing
      1. Cannot trace after mixing
         1. in bank account
         2. in purchase of asset
      2. Cannot trace through clearing system
         1. Agip Ltd v Jackson [1990]
         2. Bank Tejarat v HSBC [1995]
         3. Unless by cheque
            1. Jones FC & Sons v Jones [1996]
      3. Dual system criticised
         1. Jones FC & Sons v Jones [1996]
   2. Unless owed fiduciary duties
      1. Enables use of equitable rules
         1. Re Diplock [1948]
         2. Has been criticised
            1. Foskett v McKeown [2000]
      2. Eg company director
         1. s175 Companies Act 2006
   3. Money paid by mistake
      1. held on constructive trust?
         1. fiduciary duty owed
            1. Chase Manhattan Bank v Israel-British Bank [1981]
      2. OR no trust
         1. but fiduciary duty owed when aware of mistake
            1. Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington BC [1996]
   4. Money stolen
      1. held on constructive trust for victim?
         1. Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale [1991]
         2. arguable decision
            1. Sinclair Investment Holdings SA v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd [2005]