It cannot be denied that by entering into the trust deed, both the manager and the trustee are entering into a venture that provides services to their `customers’ and that produces their income. This is cooperation in business, but is unlikely to constitute them a partnership. Basically, the test of the existence of a partnership is by reference to the definition of a partnership discussed and also by reference to the statutory rules regarding co-ownership of assets, sharing of gross return, and also sharing of profit.
There is no business in common. The demarcation of functions under the unit trust deed draws the line of business between them. In essence, the trustee is carrying on the business as a professional trustee and the manager is carrying on the business of investment management. Read the rest of this entry »
(1) Statutory Allocation of Powers and Duties
Against this background, a structure of dual administration in the unit trust is a logical step in the functional specialization of the powers and responsibilities previously found in the single person of the trustee. The unit trust was in the forefront of this development. The first regulation of unit trusts in the United Kingdom in 1939 made the trustee-manager structure a model for the management of unit trusts. This model was adopted by many statutes of common law countries and was followed closely by unregulated schemes. Read the rest of this entry »
There is no question that the distinction between this case and those cases where the retirement of trustees was with a view to purchase is a valid one. Implicit in this judgment is the recognition that there is no absolute rule against self-dealing. The willingness of his Lordship to look at the reality is consistent with the approach of the court in Holder and the recent application of the no-conflict rule in other contexts.
If the broader approach of Holder is adopted, it must be a question of fact whether a trustee in a unit trust can purchase. The court may take into account the fact the trustee does not participate in the decision to make the sale. Read the rest of this entry »
Given that the primary obligation of a trustee is to hold properties belonging to others and to preserve them for the benefit of the beneficiaries, it is no surprise that trustees are generally expected ‘to use such due diligence and care as men of ordinary prudence and vigilance would use in the management of their own affairs’. When investing, they are expected ‘to take such care as an ordinary prudent man would take if he were minded to make an investment for the benefit of other people for whom he felt morally bound to provide’. This focus on integrity rather than ability ties in with the conventional wisdom that `[t]he importance of preservation of a trust fund will always outweigh success in its advancement’ . Read the rest of this entry »
Although the manager has extensive control over the ways that the trust assets are to be invested or dealt with, it is not a trustee. This is because the title to assets does not vest in it.
The first question is whether the manager’s power is a fiduciary power or a beneficial power for its own benefit. Scott and the American Restatement draw a clear distinction between such powers in the discussion of a private trustee being subject to directory or veto powers of others. It has been questioned if such a distinction exists in English cases. Indeed, judges in early English cases did not appear to be particularly concerned with enunciating such a principle. However, there is no reason to doubt that Scott’s position represents the English position as well. The early case Discconson v. Talbot supports such a proposition. So do cases on veto powers and some cases on powers of appointment. Read the rest of this entry »
As the manager is in a contractual relationship with the unitholders, it may have a contractual duty of care under the express or implied terms of the contract as contained in the unit trust deed. Historically, the court has chosen the contract as a medium of control over the conduct of people giving professional services. Invariably, the court will imply a duty of skill and care into a contract for professional services. However, as Deane J in Hawkins v. Clayton has reminded us, the preconditions for implying a term into a contract include that the term must be necessary for the efficacy of the contract, and the term must have been intended by the parties to form part of the contract. Read the rest of this entry »
- The trustee must not follow a direction of the manager if such direction is in breach of the express provisions of the unit trust. This is so irrespective of whether the power in question is beneficial or fiduciary. If it were otherwise, the duty of supervision would be completely hollow.
In respect of every investment proposed by the manager, this means that the trustee has to check each proposal against the letter of the unit trust deed. Read the rest of this entry »
The power is to direct the investment of the capital in such investments as the testatrix’s son may from time to time direct. Upon the language of the power as a whole, in my judgment, provided he acts in good faith, [the son] is entitled to give directions to the trustees to realise any investments constituting the trust fund which they from time to time may hold. In my judgment, upon the language of the clause, the trustees are bound to comply with those directions save that they are to satisfy themselves, the shares not being shares in which there is a free and open market, that the price which they pay for them is a reasonable and proper price at the time they make the purchase. Read the rest of this entry »
Secondly, the holder of a directory power is under a positive duty to initiate a decision on matters covered by the power. In making that decision, the power holder is under a duty of skill and care. A veto power, however, is a power of review that only arises when the holder of the substantive power makes a decision. From the standpoint of the substantive power holder, the seeking of consent is only a condition of an exercise of the power. As a consequence, a veto power holder is not under a primary duty to initiate a decision. For example, if the unit trust deed requires the manager to seek the consent of the trustee in any investment in a single asset that exceeds 5 per cent of the value of the portfolio, there is no dutyon the trustee to initiate the investment. The initiating obligation remains with the manager. In principle, responsibilities for decision making and for reviewing a decision are different in scope. Read the rest of this entry »
It is true that where, as here, neither interest is in any way hypothecated or charged, the function of the trustees is simple, but that does not change the inherent character of the function, for the functional possibilities are present, and might at any time be invoked.
Nelson v. Adamson was distinguished as a decision as to what the income arose from, within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts of the United Kingdom. This is the same interpretation of Baker as that by Lord Morison in Reid’s Trustees.59 Read the rest of this entry »
