Soton Equity and Trusts - alastairhudson.com
Soton Equity and Trusts - alastairhudson.com
Soton Equity and Trusts - alastairhudson.com
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
4) Validity of exclusion clauses<br />
Reading: Hudson, section 8.5<br />
(a)<br />
The core principle<br />
**Armitage v. Nurse [1998] Ch 241, per Millett LJ:<br />
‘[T]here is an irreducible core of obligations owed by the trustees to the<br />
beneficiaries <strong>and</strong> enforceable by them which is fundamental to the<br />
concept of a trust. If the beneficiaries have no rights enforceable<br />
against the trustees there are no trusts. But I do not accept the further<br />
submission that there core obligations include the duties of skill <strong>and</strong><br />
care, prudence <strong>and</strong> diligence. The duty of trustees to perform the trusts<br />
honestly <strong>and</strong> in good faith for the benefit of the beneficiaries is the<br />
minimum necessary to give substance to the trusts, but in my opinion it<br />
is sufficient ... a trustee who relied on the presence of a trustee<br />
exemption clause to justify what he proposed to do would thereby lose<br />
its protection: he would be acting recklessly in the proper sense of the<br />
term.’<br />
Hayton, ‘The Irreducible Core Content of Trusteeship’, in Trends in Contemporary Trust<br />
Law (ed. A.J. Oakley, 1996), Ch.3.<br />
(b)<br />
Case law examples<br />
Bogg v Raper (1998/99) 1 ITELR 267<br />
Wight v Olswang (No.2) (1999/2000) 2 ITELR 689<br />
*Walker v Stones [2001] QB 902<br />
Barraclough v Mell [2005] EWHC 3387 (Ch), [2006] WTLR 203<br />
Baker v JE Clark & Co (Transport) UK Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 464<br />
(c)<br />
Gross negligence <strong>and</strong> questioning the central principle<br />
*Spread Trustee Ltd v Hutcheson [2010] WTLR 315, Guernsey Court of Appeal, as<br />
affirmed by the majority of the Privy Council [2011] UKPC 13, per Lord Kerr:<br />
“If, as I suggested at the beginning of this judgment, the placing of reliance<br />
on a responsible person to manage property so as to promote the interests<br />
of the beneficiaries of a trust is central to the concept of trusteeship,<br />
denying trustees the opportunity to avoid liability for their gross negligence<br />
seems to be entirely in keeping with that essential aim.”<br />
(C)<br />
Duty to invest.<br />
General Reading: Hudson, Ch9; Martin Ch18; Pettit Ch17<br />
See also, Hudson, The Law of Finance (Sweet & Maxwell,<br />
2009) Ch 7-12 on the regulation of investment.<br />
1) The power of investment under TA 2000<br />
*Trustee Act 2000, s 3(1)<br />
‘…a trustee may make any kind of investment that he could make if he were<br />
absolutely entitled to the assets of the trust.’<br />
2) The statutory duty of care<br />
**Trustee Act 2000, s.1<br />
‘(1) Whenever the duty under this subsection applied to a trustee, he must<br />
exercise such care <strong>and</strong> skill as is reasonable in the circumstances, having regard<br />
in particular –<br />
40