FHR European Ventures LLP and other companies v Mankarious and other companies [2013] EWCA Civ 17, [2013] All ER (D) 219 (Jan)
Per Terrence Etherton C: “If the law is to be made simpler and more coherent, but Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd (in admin) and Lister & Co v Stubbs correctly represent the law, then that suggests a need to revisit the very many long-standing decisions in category 2 cases and to provide an overhaul of this entire area of the law of constructive trusts in order to provide a coherent and logical legal framework. If that can be done at all by the courts, rather than Parliament, it can only be accomplished by the Supreme Court. That indicates a need for informed debate and ultimately determination by the Supreme Court: (i) whether Sinclair Investments was right to decide that Lister is to be preferred to A-G for Hong Kong v Reid; (ii) in terms of constructive trusts and proprietary relief for breach of fiduciary duty, what are the principles to distinguish opportunity cases within category 2 and those within category 3; (iii)
