Rescission and substitute property: Bainbridge v Bainbridge [2016] EWHC 898 (Ch)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


One of the unresolved issues concerning equity’s jurisdiction to set aside dispositions for mistake is the nature of the proprietary consequences that ensue. The decision in Bainbridge v Bainbridge sheds further light on this important issue, but also illustrates that some important aspects concerning the application of rescission needs further clarification. The key issue concerned the rescission of a trust, where parts of the land had been sold by the trustees who had used the proceeds of sale to buy two new plots of land. Part of the reasoning used by Master Matthews relied upon authorities, developed in the context of fraudulently induced transfers of money, which requires careful consideration of the relationship between the principle in Pitt v Holt and unjust enrichment.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1098-1103
Number of pages6
JournalTrusts and Trustees
Issue number10
Early online date26 Aug 2016
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2016

Bibliographical note



Dive into the research topics of 'Rescission and substitute property: Bainbridge v Bainbridge [2016] EWHC 898 (Ch)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this