A unit trust deed typically has provisions for (a) a primary trust to the effect that whilst the unit trust is a going concern the trustee will hold the unit trust assets for the unitholders ’subject to the terms and conditions of the trust deed‘ and, in the case of an authorized unit trust, ‘all regulations made under section 81 of the Financial Services Act 1986′ and (b) a secondary trust for realization of assets and division of its proceeds upon the termination of the trust by the trustee.There is thus no question that the trustee holds the assets in the capacity as a trustee of an express trust. However, it has often been said that the trustee’s function in a unit trust is merely to hold the trust assets for the unitholders and that it does not actively manage them like ordinary trustees. The question therefore is in what character does the trustee hold assets: a custodial agent, a bare trustee or an active trustee?”‘ 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 »
The Midland Bank Trustee case therefore is a clear rejection of the wider proposition that intentional wrong, gross negligence, and fraud of a trustee cannot be excluded or modified. Before accepting this narrower formulation or the wider proposition or indeed either of the two propositions one must question the theoretical basis of each of these propositions.
It seems that even under the narrower view, an exemption clause cannot effectively exclude wilful default. Read the rest of this entry »
Trust cases have demonstrated that the court is very reluctant to make an agent of a trustee liable to the beneficiaries directly on the basis of constructive trust. The agent will not be liable for merely carrying out the instructions of the trustee, even when it knows that the property is trust property. There must be a want of probity on its part.” One cannot expect an agent to make detailed investigations to see whether or not its principal is validly appointed or whether or not its principal is properly exercising its power. After the decision in Royal Brunei Airlines v. Read the rest of this entry »
It is established that the powers of the manager are not delegated powers derived from the trustee; the manager is a primary source of authority, having been responsible for the set up of the unit trust. However, despite this stated position, it is submitted that the trustee has reserve powers incidental to its status as a trustee by reason of its legal ownership of the properties and equity’s imposition of duties on such an owner. The position appears to be that if the manager cannot find authority for a particular act in the express or implied powers of the unit trust deed, the manager cannot do the act. The unit trust deed is the source of the manager’s authority. Read the rest of this entry »
B. Baker v. Archer-Shee in Unit Trusts
So far, the position is this. With regard to the number of beneficiaries, the effect of Nelson v. Adamson and New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CPD is that Baker is not limited to trusts with one beneficiary and the existence of a number of beneficiaries, whether in successionor concurrently, does not affect their respective claims to proprietary interests in the subject matter of a trust. Ironically, the expansive application of Baker was achieved in New Zealand Insurance only at the price of admitting that a beneficiary may not have a proprietary interest in the trust assets in some fixed trust situations, such as where the beneficial interest is ‘a specified sum to be provided out of an unidentified part of a body of assets‘. Read the rest of this entry »
On the question of the rights of unitholders in the underlying assets of the trust fund, there are two strands of authorities that may be relevant to our understanding. In the first place, as the vast body of trust law is derived from trusts used in family dispositions, the line of cases after Baker v. Archer-Shee will be relevant. Indeed, Baker has been applied in commercial trusts and none of the decisions finds it necessary to distinguish the commercial from the family situations. Deed of settlement companies can be regarded as the origin of modern unit trusts, both in form and substance. The approaches of cases on such companies will illuminate our analysis. Read the rest of this entry »
