Target V Redferns Essay

There is clear disagreement over the question of whether Target v Redferns was correctly decided. One point of view is that “Lord Browne-Wilkinson took a false step in Target when he introduced an inapt causation requirement into the law governing … substitutive performance claims" (per Professor Charles Mitchell in a lecture on "Stewardship of Property and Liability to Account" delivered to the Chancery Bar Association on 17 January 2014); the other is that “I consider that it would be a backward step for this court to depart from Lord Browne-Wilkinson's fundamental analysis in Target Holdings” (per Lord Toulson in AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58).

Critically discuss the competing arguments.

Introduction
The law is ever changing and as such, new principles arise from time to time. In

Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s judgment in this case is one of much controversy that we will analyse in this essay.

The principle laid down by Lord Browne-Wilkinson for the need for causative links between the breach of trust and the loss suffered was then applied in AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors where the solicitor had similarly breached the trust.

Pro-Target
Target had given a sum of money to Redfern (solicitors) to hold on bare trust until Crowngate had completed the purchase of a property and executed the mortgage. However, Redfern had instead, breached the trust and gave the money to another company, Mirage, by writing to Target to falsely inform them that the purchase had gone through and the mortgage had been executed. Mirage bought the property for £775,000 and sold it to Crowngate for £2m so that Target would have to advance the £2m. Thereafter, Crowngate became insolvent and Target only recovered a partial amount. Target then sued Redfern for the rest of the