Reimagining The Express Trust Speaker: Prof. Ho Date: 23 February 2024 Research Aims A Theory of Express Trusts 1. Stewardship commitment 2. Re-envisioning trust law doctrines 3. Justificatory limits of trusts 4. Supporting impact investing Theory - Increase autonomy options bespoke property arrangements - Legal technology for structuring gifts Stewardship Commitment - Distinctive modality of collaboration - enduring commitment to pursue values and projects - Alfred Pennyworth • Stewardship objectives  Beneficiary  Settlor  Manager Stewardship Commitment 1. Altruistic 2. Dynamic 3. Unwavering - trustee; settlor; beneficiary Premature Termination? - - Companies • 75% - change objects, accept a take-over bid, wind up company • 100% - amend entrenched articles • Management Trusts • 100% - Saunders v Vautier • Exclude Saunders v Vautier • Ownership • Control RE-IMAGINING THE TRUST Altruistic Ideal: Duties And Remedies - Trustee duties - Trustee liability - Third- party liability - Proprietary relief - Knowing recipients - dishonest assistants Dynamic Execution: Supervisory Jurisdiction - Give directions / approval - Agency problems? - Exercise discretion surrendered to court - Approve variation for beneficiaries unable to consent Standing - Potential entitlement - Entitlement to trust property - Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) 9 Ves 399 at 404-5, per Sir William Grant MR: • "Every [non-charitable] trust must have a definite object. There must be somebody, in whose favor the Court can decree performance." Trustees - Franco v Franco (1796) 3 Ves Jr 76 - Re-Cross (1881) 20 ChD 109, 120; - Young v Murphy [1996] VR 279, 281-285; - Shovlin v Site Civils and Surfacing Ltd [2023] EWHC 1658 (Ch) [1] Residuary Legatees - Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Qld) v Livingston [1965] AC 694, 713-714 - Freeman v Fairlie (1817) 3 Mer 29, 43-44 - Wroe v Seed (1863) 4 Giff 425, 428-429 Discretionary Objects Prior To Appointment - Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] AC 709 [51] - Lewis v Tamplin [2018] EWHC 777 (Ch) [39] - Serious Fraud Office v Litigation Capital Ltd [2021] EWHC 1272 (Comm) [205] - Elliot v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations (2008) 249 ALR 182 at 193 [39] - RnD Funding Pty Ltd v Roncane Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 28 at [102], [109] Charitable Trusts - Attorney General - Section 115 Charities Act - "any person interested in the charity" • Haslemere Estates Ltd v Bake (1982) 1 WLR 1109 • Re Hampton Fuel Allotment Charity [1989] Ch 484 • Gunning v Buckfast Abbey Trustees Registered [1994] Times 9 June Underlying Principle? - Potential entitlement constitutes a sufficient proprietary right - Personal right but special circumstance Intended To Benefit - Beneficiaries with entitlements to trust property - Objects of discretionary trusts and powers Not Intended To Benefit - Shaw v Lawless • - Advantage to headmaster Hazlemere Estate Ltd v Bake • Lessees of trust land - Intended to benefit from or protect the trust estate - Beneficiaries & objects: Intended to benefit - Trustees: Intended to protect the trust estate - Safeguarding public interest TRUST ABUSES Justificatory Limits VS Policy Limits Trust Abuses - Sham trusts • - Massively discretionary trusts Illusory trusts • "Transform these ghost beneficiaries into real ones" NON-CHARITABLE PURPOSE TRUSTS 1. Enforceability 2. Policy Policy • - Office of the Regulator of CICs • - Private companies Community interest companies Charity Commissioner • Charitable companies Enforceability - any 'person with an interest' - (maybe) supervisor - Stewardship purpose • Manager • Stewardship Committee • Enforcer(s