In respect of the investment of the property of the unit trust, regulation 7.02.2 spells out clearly that it is not only a duty but also ‘a right’ of the manager to make decisions. Correspondingly, regulation 7.09 is drafted in negative terms so as to leave no doubt that the trustee’s obligation does not extend to a positive consideration on the merits of particular investments. In other words, the trustee has no ‘right’ to make an investment decision as its counterpart in an ordinary private trust. This is also echoed by regulation 7.03.1 which provides that ‘Nile manager may without the specific authority of the trustee give instructions to agents as to the acquisition or disposal of property of the scheme‘. But at the same time, regulation 7.03 requires the manager to restore the trust portfolio to its status quo if the trustee forms the opinion that the manager exceeds its power in a particular transaction. Read the rest of this entry »
It is important, first of all, to define a fiduciary. Despite voluminous literature, there is no ready answer and the fiduciary relationship remains ‘a concept in search of a principle’. In general terms, it is possible to divide fiduciaries into two categories, status-based fiduciaries and fact-based fiduciaries.
The status-based category includes a core of well established relationships such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, director-company, principal- agent, solicitor-client, employer-employee, and partner-partner. They are relationships which are regarded by equity as fiduciary per se. It is debatable as to what is the common denominator behind these relationships but it is not a matter of concern here. Read the rest of this entry »
In Parkes Management Ltd. v. Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd. , the manager of a unit trust was aggrieved by the trustee’s issue of a certificate that it was in the interest of the unitholders that the manager should be dismissed. On the question of the manager’s locus standi, Hope JA said:
It is submitted for the Trustee that it is only a beneficiary who can challenge the exercise by a trustee of a power . . . There would appear to be three answers to this submission. Firstly, that the Manager was a beneficiary; secondly, that the provisions of cl. 20(1) of the Deed entitled the Manager to ensure that the Trustee exercised any power under the Deed bona fide without indirect motive, and with a fair consideration of the issues; and thirdly that being a party to the Deed the Manager was entitled to challenge the certificate . . . 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 »
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 »
