DOCSLIB.ORG

Fiduciary Duties of Investment Intermediaries: a Consultation Paper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fiduciary Duties of Investment Intermediaries: a Consultation Paper Law Commission Consultation Paper No 215 FIDUCIARY DUTIES OF INVESTMENT INTERMEDIARIES A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, David Hertzell and Professor David Ormerod QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Frances Patterson QC, the Commissioner for Public Law, left the Law Commission at the end of September 2013, but participated in discussions relating to this Consultation Paper. Topic of this consultation: Evaluating the law of fiduciary duties as it applies to investment intermediaries. Geographical scope: United Kingdom. Availability of materials: The consultation paper and summary are available at: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/consultations/fiduciary_duties.htm. Duration of the consultation: 22 October 2013 to 22 January 2014. Comments may be sent: By email to [email protected] OR Before 4 November 2013, by post to Folarin Akinbami, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ. Tel: 0203 334 0200 After 4 November 2013, by post to Folarin Akinbami, Law Commission, 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG. Tel: 0203 334 0200 After the consultation: After analysis of the responses, we will present a final report to the Government by June 2014. Consultation principles: The Law Commission follows the Cabinet Office Consultation Principles, which provide guidance on type and scale of consultation, duration, timing, accessibility and transparency. The Principles are available at: https://update.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/consultation-principles-guidance. Information provided to the Law Commission We may publish or disclose information you provide us in response to this consultation, including personal information. For example, we may publish an extract of your response in Law Commission publications, or publish the response in its entirety. We may also be required to disclose the information, such as in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential please contact us first, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be regarded as binding on the Law Commission. The Law Commission will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. iii iv THE LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER NO 215 FIDUCIARY DUTIES OF INVESTMENT INTERMEDIARIES CONTENTS Paragraph Page GLOSSARY xi PART 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 Introduction The Kay Review 1.3 3 Other reviews 1.11 5 This project 1.17 6 The meanings of “fiduciary duty” 1.20 7 Who invests in UK equities? 1.25 8 The role of pension funds 1.29 10 Other trusts 1.36 11 Long-term trends in equity markets 1.38 11 Previous Law Commission reports 1.45 14 The structure of this consultation paper 1.46 15 Thanks and acknowledgments 1.60 17 v Paragraph Page PART 2: MARKET PRACTICE CHAPTER 2 The pensions landscape Types of occupational pension scheme 2.4 21 The changing nature of occupational pensions 2.24 25 Private personal pensions 2.28 27 Pension schemes and equities 2.29 28 Pension scheme regulation: a dual system 2.32 29 Pension challenges 2.42 31 From surplus to deficit: the problems of DB schemes 2.44 31 Workplace DC schemes: do they offer value for money? 2.59 35 A comparison with Australia 2.68 36 Conclusion 2.70 37 CHAPTER 3 The investment chain A DB pension investment chain 3.4 38 Buying and owning shares: how the process works 3.45 47 A trust-based DC investment chain 3.65 51 A contract-based DC investment chain 3.72 52 Case study examples 3.81 54 Conclusion 3.94 55 PART 3: CURRENT LAW CHAPTER 4 Current law: introduction Four sources of law 4.1 59 The structure of this Part 4.11 61 vi Paragraph Page Fiduciary and other duties 4.12 61 Company directors’ duties 4.15 62 Avenues of redress 4.20 63 CHAPTER 5 Fiduciary duties Who is subject to equitable fiduciary duties? 5.3 65 What are the equitable fiduciary duties? 5.15 68 Modifying fiduciary duties through consent 5.33 73 Remedies for breach of fiduciary duty 5.44 76 Conclusion 5.55 79 CHAPTER 6 Duties on the exercise of a power and duties of care Duties connected to the exercise of a power 6.2 80 Duties of care: general principles 6.33 89 Trustees’ duties of care 6.47 92 Trustees’ exemption clauses 6.68 97 Conclusion 6.77 99 CHAPTER 7 Legislation governing pension trustees Pensions Act 1995 7.4 100 Pensions Act 2004 7.21 104 Overlap with the Trustee Act 2000 7.28 106 Conclusion 7.41 109 CHAPTER 8 Financial Conduct Authority rules The Financial Conduct Authority Handbook 8.3 111 vii Paragraph Page European Directives 8.7 112 Who is subject to the rules? 8.9 112 What do the rules require? 8.27 117 Enforcement 8.71 128 Conclusion 8.77 130 PART 4: ANALYSIS CHAPTER 9 Applying the law to the investment chain: our terms of reference Our terms of reference 9.2 133 Pension trustees’ investment strategies 9.5 134 Others in the investment chain 9.9 134 Workplace defined contribution pensions: problems in practice 9.13 135 The meaning of fiduciary duties 9.15 135 CHAPTER 10 Pension trustees’ duties to invest in the “best interests” of others Cowan v Scargill 10.5 136 Other relevant cases 10.13 139 The duties on pension trustees 10.23 141 The statement of investment principles (SIP) 10.33 143 Stewardship 10.36 144 Factors raised with us 10.41 145 1. Wider factors aimed at securing financial returns 10.43 145 2. Macroeconomic factors 10.67 152 3. Quality of life factors 10.79 154 4. Ethical factors 10.98 158 viii Paragraph Page 5. The views of the beneficiaries 10.117 162 Investment managers to whom powers are delegated 10.122 164 How far do these principles apply to other trusts? 10.131 166 Conclusion 10.135 166 CHAPTER 11 Duties on others in the investment chain: the courts’ general approach General principles 11.12 170 A summary of recent cases 11.56 179 Claims brought by unsophisticated clients 11.59 180 Cases brought by sophisticated clients 11.77 184 Conclusion 11.91 186 CHAPTER 12 Duties on others in the investment chain: specific examples A three stage process 12.4 189 Contract-based pension schemes 12.7 190 Other intermediaries in the investment chain 12.23 193 Investment consultants 12.24 193 Brokers 12.33 195 Investment managers 12.41 197 Collective investment schemes 12.51 199 Custodians 12.57 201 Conclusion 12.67 203 CHAPTER 13 Workplace defined contribution pensions: problems in practice The current workplace pension market 13.5 204 The regulation of DC pensions 13.10 206 ix Paragraph Page Problems with workplace DC pensions 13.29 212 Dual regulation 13.61 221 A comparison with Australia 13.69 223 Conclusion 13.78 225 PART 5: CONCLUSIONS AND QUESTIONS CHAPTER 14 Conclusions and questions Pension trustees’ duties to act in the best interests of beneficiaries 14.3 229 Fiduciary-type duties in contract-based pension schemes 14.37 237 Workplace DC pension schemes: do fiduciary duties work in practice? 14.45 239 Fiduciary duties in the rest of the investment chain 14.54 242 CHAPTER 15 List of questions 249 APPENDIX A: TERMS OF REFERENCE 251 APPENDIX B: CONSUMER REDRESS SCHEMES 253 APPENDIX C: FIDUCIARY LAW IN AUSTRALIA: A PAPER BY CLAYTON UTZ 259 APPENDIX D: LIST OF CONSULTEES 280 x GLOSSARY Active investment An approach to investment which involves the continuous buying and selling of investments. An active investment manager will typically seek to outperform an investment benchmark. Actuary A professional who specialises in statistics and risk who gives advice on a pension scheme’s assets and liabilities. They will predict movements in the scheme, such as deaths, retirements and withdrawals, and estimate the costs of providing the benefits due and accruing in the future. Annuity A fixed sum of money paid to individuals each year upon retirement. This may be for an agreed period or for the rest of the individual’s life. The amount of money paid will depend on the individual’s total accumulated pension savings. Asset manager See “investment manager”. Association of British Insurers (ABI) A trade association representing the majority of UK insurers. Automatic enrolment Also known as “auto-enrolment”. A new legislative requirement introduced by the Pensions Act 2008 which requires all employers (beginning with the largest) to automatically enrol their qualifying employees into a qualifying pension scheme. Best of sector Also known as “best of class”. Companies that perform best in their industry sector against specified indicators. Broker An individual or organisation that acts as an intermediary between a buyer and seller, usually in return for the payment of a commission. Bundled scheme A pension scheme where the pension provider also administers the scheme. COBS Conduct of Business Sourcebook. The section of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Handbook that deals with business standards. xi Contract-based scheme These may be work-based or individual. In work-based contract-based schemes, the employer appoints a pension provider, usually an insurance company, to administer their pension scheme. The employees enter into a contract directly with the pension provider, although the employer may make arrangements to collect and pay contributions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trustee Liability Issues –Offshore
    TRUSTEE LIABILITY ISSUES –OFFSHORE 11th Annual International Estate Planning Institute March 13th – 4pm, Crowne Plaza, Times Square, New York Vanessa Schrum, Appleby (Bermuda) Limited 1. INTRODUCTION A trustee can be faced with many forms of liability including liabilities to third parties, contractual liabilities, liabilities in tort and liabilities as a titleholder (eg shareholder or owner or land). But perhaps one of the biggest concerns to trustees is potential liability to beneficiaries for breaches of trust. In order to fully appreciate the extent to which trustees may face liability for breaches of trust it is important to understand the duties of trustees. 2. TRUSTEE DUTIES Trustee duties are obligations contained in the trust instrument or imposed by common law or statute, which must be carried out by the trustees. In the Channel Islands (unlike other offshore jurisdictions) generally trustee duties are imposed by statute. Duties and powers prescribed by general law may be modified by the trust instrument, but there are minimum core obligations placed on trustees that cannot be avoided. At their basic a duty to act honestly and in good faith1 and an overriding obligation to preserve and safeguard the trust property. Importantly there is a “duty of care” on the trustees which is a standard that they must meet in every aspect of the performance of the role as trustees. The standard applied to the duty of care differs for lay and professional trustees. Licensed trustees in offshore jurisdictions will also be subject to the Regulations and Codes of Practice issued by the relevant governing authority in that jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • ARMITAGE V. NURSE (1997) the Facts the Settlement Was Made on 11Th. October 1984. It Was the Result of an Application to The
    ARMITAGE v. NURSE (1997) The facts The Settlement was made on 11th. October 1984. It was the result of an application to the Court by the trustees of a Marriage Settlement made by Paula’s Grandfather for the variation of the trusts of the settlement under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958. Paula’s Mother was life tenant under the Marriage Settlement and Paula, who was then aged 17, was entitled in remainder. The settled property consisted largely of land which was farmed by a family company called G.W. Nurse & Co. Limited (“the Company”). The Company had farmed the land for many years and until March 1984 it had held a tenancy of the land. Paula’s Mother and Grandmother were the sole directors and shareholders of the Company. Under the terms of the variation the property subject to the trusts of the Marriage Settlement was partitioned between Paula and her Mother. Part of the land together with a sum of £230,000 was transferred to Paula’s Mother absolutely free and discharged from the trusts of the Marriage Settlement. The remainder of the land (“Paula’s land”) together with a sum of £30,000 was allocated to Paula. Since she was under age, her share was directed to be held on the trusts of a settlement prepared for her benefit. So the Settlement came into being. Under the trusts of the Settlement the trustees held the income upon trust to accumulate it until Paula attained 25 with power to pay it to her or to apply it for her benefit.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ordering of the Law of Trusts
    This essay was originally Chapter 36 of the third edition of Equity & Trusts, published in 2003. Its purpose was, at the end of that book, to consider the various forms of trust including public interest trusts and unincorporated associations. I am in the course of attempting to put together an article on the ordering of trusts law which will build on these ideas. In time it will appear on this site. AN ORDERING OF THE LAW OF TRUSTS 36.1 INTRODUCTORY The express trust is an equitable institution: one which has hardened over time into something resembling a contract in that the rules for its creation, operation and termination have become concrete.1 This development is due both to its commercial application and its long-standing use as a means of providing for the welfare of rich families in marriage settlements or will trusts. Both of these contexts required certainty in the use of trusts with the result that the general equitable notions have been pushed into the background.2 This chapter suggests that the bright line tendency of much of the law on express trusts towards ever stricter rules means that there is a need for a new division in the categories of the law of trusts. The increasing prominence of pension funds and investment funds based on trusts law principles requires that the existing principles of trusts law be developed to match the regulatory rules applied to such funds. That is aside from the equally difficult developments in the treatment of trusts implied by law.3 This essay attempts to outline some of the ways in which that re- drawing of principles could take effect, once it has re-established the foundations on which trusts law is built in spite of other competing, fashionable notions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strength of Beneficiaries' Rights Under English Law and the Laws of the Caribbean States
    The Strength of Beneficiaries’ Rights Under English Law and the Laws of the Caribbean States The Honourable Mr Justice David Hayton, Judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice A Transcontinental Trust Conference in Geneva Geneva 19 June 2013 Informa Connect gathers millions of professional and commercial customers. Their mission is to give access to extraordinary people and exceptional insight. They provide unique opportunities to learn, establish relationships and do business. They do this through a range of products and services, from digital platforms to live events like the Transcontinental Trust Conference. Remarks By The Honourable Mr Justice David Hayton, Judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice, On the occasion of The Transcontinental Trust Conference in Geneva 19 June 2013 The general background as to beneficiaries’ rights As Millett LJ (as he then was) stated1, “There is an irreducible core of obligations owed by the trustees to the beneficiaries and enforceable by them which is fundamental to the concept of a trust. If the beneficiaries have no rights enforceable against the trustees there are no trusts.” In recent years, however, many settlors have increasingly wished to diminish their beneficiaries’ rights so far as possible. Draftspersons have accommodated these wishes to the extent that they consider possible and many Caribbean States have responded by enacting legislation making clear how far it is possible to diminish beneficiaries’ rights. Indeed, the Cayman Islands went so far as to enact Special Trust Alternative Regime legislation to create special trusts known as STAR trusts where what would normally be the beneficiaries’ rights against the trustees are held only by an enforcer or enforcers appointed pursuant to the terms of the trust or by order of the court.
    [Show full text]
  • Grounds of Decision
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2018] SGHC 156 Suit No 449 of 2014 Between Lim Ah Leh … Plaintiff And Heng Fock Lin … Defendant GROUNDS OF DECISION [Trusts] — [Resulting trust] — [Presumed resulting trusts] [Equity] — [Fiduciary relationships] — [When arising] [Equity] — [Fiduciary relationships] — [Duties] [Limitation of actions] — [Particular causes of action] — [Account] [Limitation of actions] — [Equity and limitation of actions] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF MY FINDINGS....................................................................2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................4 THE PARTIES....................................................................................................4 THE PARTIES ENTER INTO AN ARRANGEMENT..................................................5 THE SHANGHAI PROPERTIES ............................................................................5 THE ROCHOR PROPERTY..................................................................................6 THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS AN ACCOUNT.................................................................8 SUMMARY OF PARTIES’ CASES.........................................................................8 ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED............................................................................10 ISSUE 1: RECEIPT OF MONEY ................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know: Part 1 – Background, Cowan V Scargill and MNRPF
    The Short-form ‘Best Interests Duty’ – Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know: Part 1 – Background, Cowan v Scargill and MNRPF David Pollard1 Overview Trustees, company directors and others occupy a ‘fiduciary‘ position towards the relevant trust, company or other principal. There is clearly a need for an explanation to be given to the relevant office holder of what this means – and for judges to describe the relevant duties when looking at claims of breach. How should a trustee board actually exercise a relevant power or discretion? Much of the case law and commentary seeks to encapsulate the essence of the fiduciary duties in a simple phrase: that a trustee owes an overarching duty to ‘act in the best interests of the beneficiaries’. In the UK (where private sector pension schemes are established as express trusts), many pension lawyers play ‘best interests‘ bingo in spotting (and condemning) the use of this phrase. It even creeps into legislation (rather worryingly). But, as this article will seek to demonstrate, this is a very misleading encapsulation of the nature of fiduciary duties. There is a risk that, understandably given its use by judges and sometimes in statutes, trustee boards and directors take the formulation literally. This could easily take them into error. Clearly it does not override the terms of the trust, nor can it be taken literally. This article is split into two parts. Part 1 (‘Background, Cowan v Scargill and MNRPF’) looks at: ● the nature of any best interests duty; ● why does the analysis of the supposed duty matter; ● some examples of a best interests duty in official guidance; ● why the test appears in cases about who is a fiduciary (including looking at the decisions of Millett LJ in Mothew and Armitage v Nurse in this context); ● why a literal duty is both dangerous and imprecise and unworkable; 1 Barrister, Wilberforce Chambers, Lincoln’s Inn.
    [Show full text]
  • Trustee Exculpation—The Law, the Quirks and the Business Sense
    Trusts & Trustees, Vol. 20, No. 9, November 2014, pp. 933–942 933 Trustee exculpation—the law, the quirks and the business sense Lawrence Cohen QC and Thomas Seymour Abstract Although the law on this subject has grown out of English case law, its development is now more Trustee exculpation clauses: the law as it stands– closely aligned to offshore trust centres such what duties/liabilities fall outside the standard as Cayman and the Channel Islands which are clause and/or cannot be lawfully excluded: the Downloaded from the engine rooms of modern trust law.1 meaning of ‘wilful default’–how far it extends in practice–the borderline with dishonesty. To what Amongst the consequences of which to be aware extent can the supine trustee rely on a clause which are both the legislative and public policy differences between jurisdictions. One example of a legisla- excepts wilful default? See the Weavering decision. http://tandt.oxfordjournals.org/ Is the ‘wilful default’ standard applied differently tive difference is the Guernsey provision limiting depending on remuneration, professional, and the ability to exculpate in new trusts (see business experience? Points arising on fraud or dis- Spread Trustee discussed below) and the inapplic- honesty. Are wide-form exculpation clauses a bad ability of many of the provisions of the Trustee Act thing? Special considerations affecting professional 2000.2 trustees: the standards applicable, and whether We are principally concerned with profes- such clauses relied on by professional trustees sional trustees who accept their trusteeships in by guest on October 16, 2014 bring the trust industry into disrepute.
    [Show full text]
  • Spread Trustee Company Limited V Sarah Ann Hutcheson & Others
    [2011] UKPC 13 Privy Council Appeal No 0007 of 2010 JUDGMENT Spread Trustee Company Limited (Appellant) v Sarah Ann Hutcheson & Others (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of Guernsey before Lady Hale Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Sir Robin Auld JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY Lord Clarke ON 15 June 2011 Heard on 13 - 14 December 2010 Appellant Respondent Phillip Jones QC Robert Hildyard QC Jonathan Harris John Stephens David Johnston QC Simon Howitt (Instructed by Mayer (Instructed by Harcus Brown International LLP) Sinclair) LORD CLARKE: Introduction 1. This is the judgment of the Board with which Lord Mance and Sir Robin Auld have agreed but to which they have added concurring judgments, with which I agree. 2. On 22 April 1989 there came into force in Guernsey the Trusts (Guernsey) Law 1989 (“the 1989 Law”), which for the first time made statutory provision for Guernsey trusts. It provided by section 34(7): “Nothing in the terms of a trust shall relieve a trustee of liability for a breach of trust arising from his own fraud or wilful misconduct.” Subsection (7) was amended by section 1(f) of the Trusts (Amendment) (Guernsey) Law 1990 (“the Amendment Law”) by the addition of the words “or gross negligence” at the end. The Amendment Law came into force on 19 February 1991. 3. In the proceedings which have given rise to this appeal the respondents (“the beneficiaries”) claim damages for breaches of trust in connection with two settlements made in November 1977. The claims are made against the appellant trustee company (“the trustee”), which is a professional trustee and was appointed as the sole trustee of the settlements on 10 July 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • WILLS and ESTATES Practice Basics 2017
    WILLS AND ESTATES Practice Basics 2017 chair Jordan Atin, C.S., TEP Atin Professional Corporation March 27, 2017 *CLE17-0030501-A-PUB* DISCLAIMER: This work appears as part of The Law Society of Upper Canada’s initiatives in Continuing Professional Development (CPD). It provides information and various opinions to help legal professionals maintain and enhance their competence. It does not, however, represent or embody any official position of, or statement by, the Society, except where specifically indicated; nor does it attempt to set forth definitive practice standards or to provide legal advice. Precedents and other material contained herein should be used prudently, as nothing in the work relieves readers of their responsibility to assess the material in light of their own professional experience. No warranty is made with regards to this work. The Society can accept no responsibility for any errors or omissions, and expressly disclaims any such responsibility. © 2017 All Rights Reserved This compilation of collective works is copyrighted by The Law Society of Upper Canada. The individual documents remain the property of the original authors or their assignees. The Law Society of Upper Canada 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, ON M5H 2N6 Phone: 416-947-3315 or 1-800-668-7380 Ext. 3315 Fax: 416-947-3991 E-mail: [email protected] www.lsuc.on.ca Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Wills and Estates Practice Basics 2017 ISBN 978-1-77094-221-0 (Hardcopy) ISBN 978-1-77094-222-7 (PDF) WILLS AND ESTATES Practice Basics 2017 Chair: Jordan Atin, C.S., TEP, Atin Professional Corporation Monday, March 27, 2017 9:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule of Law Symposium 2012
    Finance, Property and Business Litigation in a Changing World 25-26 April 2013 Supreme Court Auditorium Organisers: Finance, Property and Business Litigation in a Changing World Plenary Session 2 Trusts and Proprietary Remedies Chairperson Mr Timothy Fancourt QC, Falcon Chambers Speakers The Honourable Judicial Commissioner Vinodh Coomaraswamy, Supreme Court of Singapore Professor Yeo Tiong Min SC, School of Law, Singapore Management University Mr Paul McGrath QC, Essex Court Chambers PROPRIETARY REMEDIES AFTER SINCLAIR V VERSAILLES PAUL McGRATH Q.C. Essex Court Chambers PROPRIETARY REMEDIES IN FRAUD • Litigation about commercial fraud increases in downturn in markets: Madoff, Stanford etc • Availability of proprietary remedies crucial part of armoury of litigator • In seeking to impose restrictions, CA decision in Sinclair v Versailles is disappointing • Also sets English law on a different path Paul McGrath Q.C. Essex Court Chambers FINANCE, PROPERTY AND BUSINESS LITIGATION IN A CHANGING WORLD What did it decide? • Rejected PC in A-G of Hong Kong v Reid in favour of CA in Lister v Stubbs • 䇾…a beneficiary of a fiduciary䇻s duties cannot claim a proprietary interest, but is entitled to an equitable account, in respect of any money or asset acquired by a fiduciary in breach of his duties to the beneficiary, unless the asset or money [A] is or [B] has been beneficially the property of the beneficiary or [C] the trustee acquired the asset or money by taking advantage of an opportunity or right which was properly that of the beneficiary.䇿 per Lord Neuberger MR • Need [A], [B] or [C] to be present for proprietary relief.
    [Show full text]
  • Breach of Trust Discussion Paper
    SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Discussion Paper No 123 Discussion Paper on Breach of Trust September 2003 This Discussion Paper is published for comment and criticism and does not represent the final views of the Scottish Law Commission EDINBURGH: The Stationery Office £xx.xx The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 19651 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Eassie, Chairman Professor Gerard Maher Professor Kenneth G C Reid Professor Joseph M Thomson. The Secretary of the Commission is Miss Jane L McLeod. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. The Commission would be grateful if comments on this discussion paper were submitted by 31 December 2003. Comments may be made on all or any of the matters raised in the paper. All correspondence should be addressed to: Dr David Nichols Scottish Law Commission 140 Causewayside Edinburgh EH9 1PR Tel: 0131 668 2131 Fax: 0131 662 4900 E-mail: [email protected] Online comments at: www.scotlawcom.gov.uk - select "Submit Comments" NOTES 1. Where possible, we would prefer electronic submission of comments, either by e-mail to [email protected] or through the Submit Comments page on our website. We should make it clear that the comments we receive from you may be (i) referred to in any later report on this subject and (ii) made available to any interested party, unless you indicate that all or part of your response is confidential. Such confidentiality will of course be strictly respected.
    [Show full text]
  • TOPIC 2: CREATION of EXPRESS TRUSTS (THE THREE CERTAINTIES) Step 1. Introduction A. Consequences of Creating a Trust Step 2
    TOPIC 2: CREATION OF EXPRESS TRUSTS (THE THREE CERTAINTIES) Step 1. Introduction - As [X] is purporting to create a [type] trust, the trust must satisfy [requirements]. o To create a valid express trust, there must be certainty of intention, subject matter and object (Knight), in addition to compliance with statutory formalities and constitution of the trust property. o If the trust fails for some reason, the property will go back to the settlor (trustee would hold on resulting trust for S if trust by transfer) or be disposed of by the rest of the will. a. Consequences of creating a trust - When a trust is validly created, the beneficial interest passes to the beneficiaries. - Therefore, there are IMMEDIATE and BINDING consequences. - These can’t be undone if the settlor changes her mind, or the trustee refuses to act. - Mallott v Wilson established the principle that a trust cannot be revoked, once created, unless a power of revocation exists. - Legal title returns to settlor, who holds ppty subject to the trust. Step 2. Certainty of Intention - RED FLAGS: o Lack of explicit trust language (e.g. no ‘as trustee’, ‘on trust for’, ‘the trust deed’, meaning it is unclear whether it is a trust, a gift, or a gift with a condition) o Precatory language (e.g. ‘on the condition that, hoping that, trusting that, provided that’) o Issues with immediacy (e.g. to commence in 5 years time) - TEST: In order for the clause to be valid, the settlor must have manifested an irrevocable and immediate intention to depart with their beneficial interest in the trust property (Harpur).
    [Show full text]