Third parties who receive trust property with knowledge that the transfer to them was a breach of trust will be liable in knowing receipt. Knowing receipt has grown quickly in importance in recent years and many of the finer points of the doctrine are still being worked out. This paper discusses one such issue: whether liability can exist when the third party acquires a security interest in trust property, rather than the underlying trust property itself. This point has not yet been considered by English courts, although it has been examined in cases from Australia, Canada and Hong Kong. The paper analyses the existing authorities in the context of the wider law relating to knowing receipt and explains the conceptual difficulties and practical problems with allowing liability to be grounded on the receipt of a mere security interest in trust property.

Disputes relating to cryptoassets have proliferated in recent years, along with the rise of the cryptoasset market. Some of these can be resolved using traditional principles of contract, tort or trust law, but proprietary issues raise particular conundrums. While cryptoassets have generally been accepted to be property, that is merely the starting point. To properly resolve proprietary disputes, it is necessary to provide a reasoned and robust explanation for why particular rules of title originally developed in the context of tangible property should apply. In turn, two foundational questions must be answered. First, what is the subject-matter of the property right in cryptoassets? And secondly, what is the proprietary effect of a blockchain transaction? These issues have received relatively little attention in the literature, which has focused on whether cryptoassets are property at all, and existing contributions (including the Law Commission's recent Consultation Paper on Digital Assets) which do engage these issues are far from reaching consensus. This paper critically examines those views and puts forward its own reasoned approach for the application of traditional rules of title to cryptoassets.

Most universities (bar profit-making institutions) are charities as a matter of law but, historically, have been exempt from charity law regulation. This paper considers the statutory reforms of 2006, which sought to level the regulatory playing field by appointing ‘Principal Regulators’ of such ‘exempt charities’ to promote compliance with charity law. Focusing on the university sector – where some universities are now registered charities (and regulated by the Charity Commission) whilst others remain exempt – it will note how the reforms have resulted in the application of significantly different degrees of scrutiny and accountability, both between individual universities and between universities and other charities. In part, this is due to the statutory framework itself but, significantly, is also attributable to the radically different approach taken by the Office for Students, which replaced HEFCE as Principal Regulator in 2018. Possible improvements in regulatory practice and statutory reform are offered.