12. Trustee investment

Trustees must invest in a manner that is prudent and fair, and failure to do so may make them personally liable to compensate for any loss. However, it is difficult to prove a breach of trust, and to prove and quantify the loss suffered by the fund. Even if the trustees admit that they invested imprudently and that the trust fund suffered a loss, there seems to be no effective remedy for improper trustee investment. This chapter deals with trustee investment and shows that the modern trend in trustee investment is towards liberalization, freedom of choice, and the free participation of trust funds in investment markets. After discussing the nature of trustee investment, it considers the goals of trustee investment and the trustees' investment powers. The chapter also analyses types of investment, the trustees' investment duties, liability for improper investment by trustees, and ethical investment.

10. The fiduciary duty

The fiduciary duty is the defining duty of trusteeship and consists of several overlapping obligations intended to promote loyalty or faithfulness. As part of his fiduciary duty, the trustee should avoid conflict with the interests of the trust and not to make an unauthorised unauthorized profit from the trust property, or from his position of trust. The fiduciary duty may also apply to a person who is not a trustee, in which case he is said to be a fiduciary. This chapter examines the principal obligations of trusteeship and the implications of breach of those obligations for trustees, beneficiaries, and third parties. It first discusses the strict rule of exemplary fiduciary propriety before turning to the duty of good faith. The chapter also looks at fiduciary relationships and fiduciary duties, the fiduciary duty to avoid conflicts of interest, the fiduciary duty to account for unauthorised unauthorized profits, and trustee remuneration.

5. Ineffective disposition of benefit: resulting trusts

If the beneficial owner of an asset transfers the asset to another who does not give or promise anything in return, and where there is no evidence of any intention on the former's part to make a gift or trust of the property, it is impossible to determine to whom the benefit of the asset belongs. In this case, the beneficial ownership of the asset is assumed to be held by the beneficiary for the owner under a resulting trust. The resulting trust is therefore a type of trust that arises when there is no express intention to create it. This chapter examines the ineffective disposition of benefit, focusing on the resulting trusts. It also discusses the established factual categories of the resulting trust, the theory behind resulting trusts, rebutting the presumption of a resulting trust, resulting trusts of surplus benefits, the Quistclose trust, and pension fund surpluses.

9. Flexibility of benefit

According to the so-called ‘rule in Saunders v. Vautier’, the beneficiaries of an expressly created private trust may terminate the trust if they are in unanimous agreement and are all competent adults, and are, between them, absolutely entitled to the trust property. This chapter examines the issue of ‘flexibility of benefit’, the extent to which beneficiaries may be able to take benefits under a trust despite limitations on their beneficial ownership, as well as the extent to which limitations on their beneficial ownership may be varied or entirely removed. It shows that under the Trustee Act 1925, trustees have a discretionary power—known as ‘the power of maintenance’—to apply income for the benefit of infant beneficiaries and a similar discretionary power, termed ‘the power of advancement’, to apply capital for the benefit of a beneficiary (infant or adult) out of his/her anticipated entitlement to the trust fund.

7. Charity: trust creation and public policy II

This chapter explores how the creation of trusts is influenced by special considerations of public policy, focusing on charity that is beneficial to the public as opposed to illegality. Charity will render a purpose trust valid that the law of trusts would otherwise consider to be void. In contrast, illegality will sometimes render an interest or transaction void or unenforceable that the law of trusts and gifts would generally consider to be valid. After considering the creation of charitable trusts, the chapter also discusses charitable purposes and the public benefit as well as the administration of charitable trusts, before concluding by analysing their variation in accordance with the ‘cy-près’ doctrine.

15. The equitable personal liability of strangers to the trust

Even if a trust beneficiary successfully traces misappropriated trust property, he will only be entitled to a proprietary remedy against a stranger, who retains possession or control of the trust property. The beneficiary's proprietary claim will fail if the stranger received the trust property, but has not retained it. However, the beneficiary (or the trustee) may be able to bring a claim against the stranger personally if the receipt was wrongful. This chapter analyses the circumstances in which a stranger may be personally liable in equity for analogous wrongs. After providing an overview of who strangers are, it examines a number of policy considerations and practical measures designed to give strangers some degree of protection. The chapter also looks at trusteeship de son tort, personal liability in equity for receipt, and equitable liability for assistance in a breach of trust.

8. Constructive trusts and informal trusts of land

Constructive trusts differ from express trusts in many ways. Whereas an express trust gives effect to an owner's intention to transfer a beneficial interest in his property, a constructive trust may be imposed directly contrary to the owner's intentions. Another distinction between an express trust and a constructive trust is that the former is unenforceable unless it is evidenced in writing, whereas the latter is created and operates without formality. However, express and constructive trusts, by their very nature as trusts, have a number of similar features, the most fundamental being the presence of ascertainable property, in which a beneficiary has a proprietary interest for which the trustee is personally liable to account. This chapter examines the nature, operation, and variety of constructive trusts, and also considers one special category of constructive trusts: informal trusts of land. In addition, it discusses commonwealth jurisdictions and proprietary estoppel.

2. Trusts in context

This chapter places trusts in their contemporary social, economic, legal, and international context. It first discusses their significance to the world outside the lawyer's office, and shows that they play an important social and economic role in the lives of ordinary people. The trust operates in key areas such as home, employment, and commerce. The chapter also examines the trust in the context of laws, focusing on how it corresponds to, and coexists with, other legal ideas such as contract, debt, powers, gift, agency, bailment, tax, and corporation, and concludes by looking at the international and comparative dimension of the trust.

16. Equitable maxims, doctrines, and remedies

In general, the leading court cases on equitable doctrines and remedies are very old. The fact that they still have the power to determine modern cases proves that equity is inherently adaptable. Originally developed by the old Court of Chancery in constructive competition with the common law courts, equity is now applied (since the Judicature Acts 1873–1875) by the unified Supreme Court of England and Wales. In addition, equity, as a dimension of law, has retained its special function of restraining or restricting the exercise of legal rights and powers in certain cases. This chapter considers particular principles (including maxims), doctrines (including conversion, satisfaction, performance, and election), and remedies that have been developed over time to help predict the way in which equity will operate in various types of cases.

14. Tracing and recovering trust property

There are situations where trust property passes into the hands of a third party ‘stranger’—a person other than a trustee or beneficiary of the trust. Personal and proprietary remedies against strangers are particularly valuable where the claimant cannot be satisfied with actions against the original trustee. The claimant has to make choices not only in relation to the final remedy, but also when required to ‘elect’ between evidential alternatives. The tracing process, which supplies the evidence that a stranger has received trust property, may require the claimant to make such a choice. This chapter deals with tracing and ‘remedies’, focusing on how a claimant, typically a beneficiary of the trust, is able to trace trust property into the hands of a stranger and recover it by means of a proprietary remedy.