The trust has achieved a separation of the legal and equitable ownership by imposing on the legal owner, the trustee, an obligation to hold the trust properties for the benefit of the beneficiaries. That obligation is a characteristic feature of the trust. The unit trust involves a split of that trust obligation into the custody of the trust corpus and the management of that corpus. If the trust is a manipulation of the facets of ownership’ resulting in a two-party relationship, the unit trust is a furtherance of that manipulation which results in a tripartite relationship. Read the rest of this entry »
There is as yet no judicial pronouncement in England that an exculpatory clause in a trust is to be interpreted in the same manner as a contract. Instead, it has been assumed in all trusts texts that there are trust obligations which can never be excluded as a matter of law. This will be the position of a trustee of a non-authorized unit trust. A trustee of an authorized unit trust will also be subject to section 84 of the Financial Services Act 1986. Read the rest of this entry »
As a general rule, directions given in a trust deed must be followed by the trustee. It follows that if the unit trust deed directs the trustee to follow the decision of the manager in the making or disposal of investments, the direction is imperative. But is this always the case?
Several cases in which third parties were given powers to direct the trustees have bearing on this point. Three aspects emerged. First, in all these cases, the courts approached this as a question of construction of the particular power involved. 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 »
Under the Financial Services (Regulated Schemes) Regulations 1991, there are many situations where the trustee has to obtain the ‘consent‘, `approval’ or ‘agreement‘ of the manager, and vice versa. There are also provisions that require a party not to act without ‘consulting’ the other party.
For example, the manager ‘may instruct’ the trustee to create and to cancel units but the trustee may refuse to follow these instructions `[w]here . . . the trustee is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of participants‘. Similarly, the trustee may refuse to comply with the manager’s instructions to create units in exchange for assets if the trustee is not satisfied that there is no ‘material prejudice to the interests of participants or potential participants’. Read the rest of this entry »
A. Delegation Without Express Provisions
The contractual nature of the unit trust means that there are matters in which the trustee and the manager have interests as contracting parties. Thus, the distinction drawn by the law between beneficial and fiduciary powers is important. In relation to beneficial powers, the trustee can delegate without express authorization in the unit trust deed. I For fiduciary powers, the trustee will be in the same position as the trustees of private trusts. 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 »
The question before the court was the liability of the trustee to income tax on the interest. The relevant tax legislation made no provision for the deduction of tax from payments of income out of trust estates. The trustee argued, relying on Baker, that the liability to tax of income received by trustees depended upon the position as regards liability of the beneficiary; that in this case the interest received was treated as capital as a matter of ordinary principles of accounting between trustees and income- beneficiaries; that the beneficiaries would never receive the interest as income and therefore no liability to tax was possible. It was held by the Scottish Court of Session that on construction of the statute the interest was income and the trustees were the persons receiving or entitled to the income. Read the rest of this entry »
