In 1893, Lord Macnaghten said "I am inclined to think that the rule in Dearle v Hall has on the whole produced at least as much injustice as it has prevented.
The beneficial owner of a trust fund assigned it first by way of security to A, and then outright to B, in each case for valuable consideration.
This is a perfectly straightforward application of the principle that the first in time will only prevail if the equities are equal and is not considered controversial.
This latter ground has been criticised as it appears to be based on the concept of reputed ownership in bankruptcy law, which had never previously been employed in determining priority between competing equitable claims.
[8] In Ward v Duncombe [1893] AC 369, the House of Lords decided that the rule that notice determines priority of dealings applied regardless of the conduct of the competing assignees.
The Law Commission of England and Wales, as part of a wider view of priority rules relating to security interests has recommended the abolition of the rule in Dearle v Hall in relation to security interests and assignments of receivables only, and its replacement with a system of registration.