Property and the Interests of Things: The Case of the Donative Trust

Within a liberal, ‘law of things’ understanding of property, the donative trust is seen as a species of gift. Control over trust property passes from the hands of settlors to beneficiaries, from owners to owners. Trust property, like all other property, is silent and passive, its fate determined by its owners. This article questions this understanding of the trust by showing how beneath the facade of ownership, the trust inverts the relation between owner and owned, person and thing. It analyses the relation that trustees, beneficiaries and settlors have to the trust property and argues that the role of each of these parties can be shown to consist in furthering the interests of the trust property rather than their own. It claims that this protects things from their owners at the same time as it ensures these owners’ ongoing care towards the things they own. This raises questions about the trust’s status within the institution of private property, justified as it is by the human autonomy it is said to enable.

     

Wills,Trusts and Trusting from the Statute of Uses to Lord Nottingham

Medieval feoffments to the uses of a last will provided, in effect, a power to devise freehold land, otherwise generally impossible at common law. The Statute of Uses 1536 put an end to this mechanism, and in 1540 the Statute of Wills provided, within limits, a substitute power to devise. But conveyances inter vivos upon trust for the performance of wills continued to be made after 1540; and the distinction in practice between such trusts and wills was less clear than might be supposed: wills under the statutory power were understood as conveyances; executors were frequently trustees in a narrow sense; and the perception that executors were, in a broader sense, trusted, had substantive effects. In understanding wills, trusts and trusting after the Statute of Uses, distinctions between those who are ‘trustees’ and those who are not, or between conveyances upon trust and wills, may be an essential starting-point in bringing order to the sources, but cannot fully reflect the complexity of contemporary arrangements.     

A useful resource when advising on publishing contracts

The journalist and former Punch editor, Alan Coren, once wrotean article in The Times about his desire to write a best-sellingpublishing contract. This followed a spate of stories in thepress about the large advances then being paid by publishersto ‘trophy’ authors such as Martin Amis. When preparinghis best-selling contract, Mr Coren would have benefited greatlyfrom the precedents in Clark's Publishing Agreements. Originally published in 1980, Clark is now in its seventh edition.It consists mainly of about 25–30 template agreementsfor use in the publishing of books, journals, and related materials,including a substantial section on     

论表决权信托

表决权信托作为获取公司控制权的一种重要手段 ,是美国公司法上比较活跃的制度。但是 ,它的命运经历了从否定到争议再到肯定的过程。表决权信托的成立要符合三个要件 ,即采取书面形式、不能超期并进行登记、公示。通过对表决权信托证书持有人及受托人权利和义务的分析 ,对表决权信托的构造进行了深入研究 ,并首重分析了事实上的虚假表决权信托。针对表决权信托的特性 ,我国应通过适当立法途径建立起相应的表决权信托制度。     

Settlor control--what kind of a problem is it?

Trustee duties are defined when the trust is created, and thetrustee controls management and distribution with the powersgiven to the trustee by the trust instrument. If the settloror a third party has the power to consent to or direct trusteedecisions, is there a trust at all? Trust law is equivocal.It is a question of degree. Family law courts to the contrarywant to know what is really going on, and have refused to acknowledgesuch a trust. In New Zealand, Harrison v Harrison is the latestinstance of this.     

Trustees: how exclusive are you?

There has been an important recent development for trusteesin relation to the general position on clauses which seek toexclude or restrict a trustee's liability for failure to carryout properly their duties imposed by the trust instrument orlaw¹. Such clauses, known as Trustee Exemption Clauses, canbe a complete defence, or at least a deterrent to claims inthe increasingly litigious environment in which trustees operate.This article examines the Law Commission's recommendations onexemption clauses applicable in England and Wales.     

Freakonomics: Scholarship in the Service of Storytelling

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side ofEverything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner is certainlypopular. Indeed, my search for something comparable took meback more than 120 years.¹ Even with the uncertainty about whatconstitutes a best seller, it is clear that the book has reacheda huge audience, especially for a book about "economics." AsI write this, it has been on the New York Times best-sellerlist for 46 weeks, and having started on the Publisher’sWeekly Hardcover Nonfiction best-seller list in the 12th positionon April 25, 2005, it has hovered in the top ten thereafter.Moreover, as reported on the Freakonomics web site, the bookhas garnered a large international audience, and the book ison various "best of" lists. Levitt and Dubner have sought abroad and diverse audience for their collection of stories:Levitt has been on "The 700 Club" (a talk show by conservativebusinessman and religious broadcaster Pat Robertson) and "TheDaily Show with Jon Stewart" (a center–left parody ofthe news and news reporting) among other places. Both the authorswrite a column for the New York Times Magazine as well as participatein an active blog (just navigate from the book’s web siteto the URL http://www.freakonomics.com, where, among other things,they respond to a large number of readers’ inquiries²).The book comes complete with more than 20(!) pages of referencesand citations as diverse as a radio talk show caller’sunverified claim that her niece was named "Shithead" (pronouncedSHUH-teed) as well as Kenneth Arrow’s "A Theory of Discrimination"and includes a two-and-a-half page tabulation of average yearsof mother’s education by child’s first name. Theextensive footnotes should not mislead: Freakonomics does nottake its subjects very seriously. In Freakonomics, Levitt’sscholarship and the scholarship of others are put in the serviceof telling a "good story" rather than the other way around.Indeed, if the many reviews of the book are any guide, manyfind the book "entertaining" even if they felt that "Levitt’sonly real message is to encourage confrontational questions"(Berg, 2005). One reviewer found the stories so compelling thathe went so far as to suggest that "criticizing Freakonomicswould be like criticizing a hot fudge sundae" (Landsburg, 2005).     

Hastings-Bass considered in Cayman Islands court

A settlement, created in 1994 by a UK resident for UK capitalgains tax purposes, was governed by British Virgin Island law.The trustees, in 2000, made two investments through a Guernseyprotected cell company. Before the second investment, the UKtax legislation changed. The trustees were not advised of thechange and the investment went ahead; this comprised £750,000paid by an investment company also controlled by the trustees,to the trustee, of which £712,000 was then paid as a loanto one of the cells of the Guernsey company. The unheeded changeof legislation resulted in a substantial tax liability for thesettlor. The trustee applied to the court for a declaration that thetrustee's decision to accept the     

The power of advancement and charitable donations

Can the discharge by a trustee of a beneficiary's moral obligationconstitute a benefit? The answer to this question was fundamentalto an application to the High Court in London by trustees fordirections of whether they could exercise a power of appointmentunder a trust deed and release a substantial part of the trustcapital to the life tenant who wanted to devote the money tocharitable causes. In principle the court decided that the exercise of the relevantpower in this way could be taken as being of benefit for thebeneficiary but, under the circumstances of this case, the intendeduse of the funds could not properly be said to be for her benefit. Under a marriage settlement, created in 1964, the trust deedgave the trustees a general     

现代商事信托的组织法基础

从民事信托到商事信托,信托关系的本质完成了从财产无偿移转的手段到企业组织架构的变革。商事信托作为组织法,其具有商事组织的典型共性,而且在制度设计和受托人信义义务的标准上,商事信托也与商事公司制度近年来出现了明显的趋同。我国现行信托立法无论是在受托人承担有限责任的规定上,还是在信托投资的规模上以及在受托人的资格取得上,都离成熟的组织法的要求还都相距甚远。     

The emergence of the Islamic trust

The Islamic trust, governed by both the laws of the jurisdictionunder which it is written and by Shari'ah law, has become apopular financial and devolution planning vehicle for assetsheld by Muslims. This article examines how these trusts havedeveloped.     

The Best Interests of the Child? Is the Best Interests of the Child in the Best Interests of Children?

The writings of Goldstein, Freud and Solnit, particularly someof the concepts they developed, have exercised a profound influenceon our thinking about children. A new, revamped, final, authoritativeedition presents the opportunity for critical re-assessment.The author finds a partial analytical framework, a dated imageof children, a narrow concept of children's rights, triggersfor intervention which leave children dangerously exposed and,above all, a sense diat events have moved on leaving the mostinfluential text of this generation firmly rooted in the ideas,problems and concepts of the last. The publication in one revised volume of the landmark trilogyof Beyond, Before and In¹ provides an excuse, if one were needed,to assess the impact and re-evaluate the arguments containedwithin the three monographs and now compressed and updated.Whether or not one agrees with all, or even any, of the ideascontained within Best Interests (as I shall now call the collection),and I shall criticize both applications and implications, theconcepts have impressed themselves, perhaps indelibly, on ourthinking about children. Like it or not, anyone thinking aboutchild law or policy, the relation between parents and children,the state and family, has to grapple with concepts like ‘leastdetrimental alternative’, the ‘psychological parent’,a child's sense of time and others of the rich ideas which permeateBest Interests.²     

Hostile claims by beneficiaries--the burden of costs: Close Trustees (Switzerland) SA v Vildosola

Trustees were incurring significant costs in defending hostileproceedings brought against them by the life tenant of the trust.To ensure that they would ultimately be able to reimburse themselvesout of income, the trustees proposed to retain part of futureincome to form reserve fund, but the Court was not preparedto sanction that proposal. The most significant aspect of thiscase was the Court's analysis of what principles might ultimatelybe applied to determine whether income or capital would bearthe costs of indemnifying the trustees.     

Trusts in prime jurisdictions * By Alon Kaplan and Barbara R Hauser, Eds

It is six years since the first edition of this book was reviewedin Trusts & Trustees (See Trusts & Trustees Volume 7,Issue 5, April 2001, pp. 30–33. The new edition reflectsmany of the changes in international trust jurisdictions. Geoffrey Shindler sets the scene in his preface. His commentthat we have barely seem to have drawn breath since that firstedition is reflected in the numerous new and revised chaptersof the book. In every jurisdiction where trusts are practised,he says, the overriding concern is the extent that our thoughtshave been dominated by regulation and anti-money launderingmeasures. The trust has been used as the scapegoat for the government'sinability to deal with crime—internal and external. Heuses succinct phrases in referring to the occasional assumptionby governments that: ‘trusts must, by definition, be involvedin money laundering in     

Court of Appeal hears 'huge money' divorce case involving offshore trusts

On 7 March, Mr and Mrs John Charman's ‘huge money’divorce reached the Court of Appeal. Last year insurance magnateJohn Charman was ordered by the High Court to pay his formerwife £48 million in what is thought to be the biggestdivorce award in legal history. (See Trusts & Trustees,Volume 12, Issue 9, November 2006, High-value divorces and trusts,p 22, by James Freeman of Speechly Bircham LLP). James Freeman, family law solicitor at City law firm SpeechlyBircham LLP (tel. 020 7427 6584), commented on the case:

TheCourt of Appeal will rule on how parties with unusually highwealth, including offshore trust assets, should be treated ondivorce.     

Switzerland and the Hague Convention

Any suggestion that 2006 has been a quiet year in the internationaltrust world is likely to be quickly denied. Of course, the worldof international trusts never stops changing. A popular conferencetopic is ‘Challenges of the trust today’ or a similartitle which calls upon the speaker to present his views on whatis happening preferably with some crystal ball gazing of impendinglegislation. The source of change offers ample opportunity for discourse.First, case law produces its finely ground decisions to resolveindividual disputes laying down jurisprudence for future settlorsand their advisers to follow. Sometimes it is favourable. Therecent re-adoption and expansion of the Hastings-Bass principle(Re Hastings-Bass (Dec’d), Hastings v IRC [1974] 2 AllER 193), whereby trustees may make good an oversight, has beenfavourable to trustees, provided (naturally) liberties werenot taken with the rules.     

Going to the dogs?

Corporate trustees administer assets worth billions and directorsof these trusts expect to carry on their work without fear ofpersonal liability to beneficiaries other than in exceptionalcases whose ambit is limited and well understood. The emergence in recent years of an action known as the ‘dog-leg’claim threatens this certainty. The claim is brought by beneficiariesfor breach of trust generally, directly against the trustees,where none of the usual grounds for personal liability is evenalleged. The claim relies on being able to prove that the corporate trustee'srights against directors for breach of director's duties areheld by the trustee not for its own benefit, but for the benefitof the trust. This article explains how the claims are put togetherand why, fortunately, in practice they will rarely (if ever)succeed. The recent case of Alhamrani v Alhamrani has stimulatedthis appraisal.