Duties Flashcards
Re Harari’s Settlement Trust
Investment clauses are now given their plain meaning
Speight v Gaunt
Equitable duty of care- ‘a trustee ought to conduct the business of the trust in the same manner that an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own’
Re Whiteley
Such care as the prudent man would take would take if he were minded to make an investment for the benefit of other people for whom he felt morally bound to provide
Nestle v National Westminster Bank
‘Modern trustee’s acting within their investment powers are entitled to be judged by the standards of current portfolio theory, which emphasises the risk of the entire portfolio rather than the risk attaching to each investment taken in isolation’
Lord Hoffman and Staughten: weak authority that beneficiaries do not have to be treated equally
Re Lucking’s Will Trust
Special considerations apply when the trust is a controlling shareholder in a company
Barlette v Barclays Bank Trust
A higher standard for paid trustees- this case was prior to the act and was made orbiter
Cowan v Scargill
Moral objections-
Mine workers pension fund. Refused to accept investment plan on the basis of union policy.
Harries/ Bishop of Oxford v the Church commissioners for England
Trustees of a charitable trust are equally under a duty to get the maximum financial return consistent with commercial prudence but in limited circumstances they can refuse to make certain investments even though there may be risk of financial detriment-
In this case not possible unless it would cause no financial detriment
Re Chapman
S5(2)
No liability for mere errors of judgement
Nestle v NWB
T was a corporate trustee which made some bad mistakes- COA held: no breach of trust
Staughton LJ emphasises that the trustees performance must not be judged with hindsight
Tang Man Sit v Capacious Investments
Personal liability- election between remedies
Two separate causes but to compensate the same loss from slightly different perspectives- couldn’t enforce both of them, had to choose
Target Holdings v Redferns
Mortgage fraud
Redferns were not liable to pay the money as their breach had nothing to do with the ultimate loss
AIB Group v Redler
But for test applies to all breaches of trust
Swindle v Harrison
But for test I’m the context of fiduciary duty
Carson Enterprises v Boughton
Claimant in breach for failure to disclose an improper profit. Held:
La Forest: ‘the difference between damages and compensation is by no means clear, not many cases where compensation awarded for breach of fiduciary duty in context of intervening fault of a third party
Dimes v scott
The basic rule- no set off is possible
Fletcher v Green
Exception- where the profit and loss can be said to arise from the same transaction or breach of trust
Re Pauling’s
A beneficiary who participates in or consents to a breach of trust with knowledge will not be able to sue
Armitage v Nurse
Can exclude liability for all but dishonesty/wilful fraud
Bristol v Mothew
‘A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence’