Over 200 investors (including one Mr Foskett) had invested in the company for the purpose of buying land in the Algarve, Portugal.

The Court of Appeal held the Claimants could only get an equitable lien over the proceeds of the policy to secure the repayment of the fourth and fifth premiums.

Lord Millett, giving the leading judgment, held that this was a case concerning the vindication of property rights, not of unjust enrichment.

Just as if the trustee had taken money, bought a lottery ticket and won, it would be fair to take away the winnings without a change of position defence.

He appeared to reject possibility of a change of position defence, because tracing claims were not based on unjust enrichment, rather on the simple vindication of property rights.

At the beginning of the story the plaintiffs were beneficially entitled under an express trust to a sum standing in the name of Mr. Murphy in a bank account.

After each transaction was completed the plaintiffs' money formed an indistinguishable part of the balance standing to Mr. Murphy's credit in his bank account.

the debt prospectively and contingently due from an insurance company to its policyholders, being the trustees of a settlement made by Mr. Murphy for the benefit of his children.

At the present and final stage it forms an indistinguishable part of the balance standing to the credit of the respondent trustees in their bank account.

In the present case the plaintiffs do not seek to follow the money any further once it reached the bank or insurance company, since its identity was lost in the hands of the recipient (which in any case obtained an unassailable title as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the plaintiffs' beneficial interest).

An action like the present is subject to the bona fide purchaser for value defence, which operates to clear the defendant's title.Lord Millett added that claimant may elect whether to have a proportional share of the beneficial interest, or an equitable lien.

I agree with him that this is a straightforward case of mixed substitution (what the Roman lawyers, if they had had an economy which required tracing through bank accounts, would have called confusio).

It is, as my noble and learned friend says, a vindication of proprietary right.Lord Hope gave a dissenting judgment, and would have held that only an amount to cover the premiums plus interest should have been available.