LegalResearchFoundation

This article analyses the trustee information obligations in the Trusts Act 2019. It sets out the pre-existing law and explores the extent to which the Act has reformed the law. It concludes that the information obligations affirm the obligational conceptualisation of the express trust and that the reforms have strengthened trustee accountability at the expense of confidentiality and settlor intention.

One of the most important procedural reforms introduced by the Trusts Act 2019 is provided for by ss 126–127, which create a form of judicial review of trustee decision-making. This article examines the ways in which these provisions improve upon s 68 of the Trustee Act 1956. It also identifies a number of significant issues as to scope, process and grounds of review that judges and practitioners will need to address as the new judicial review process beds in.

The changes introduced by the Trusts Act 2019 regarding the removal and appointment of trustees aimed to be comprehensive and clear and to minimise the need for recourse to the courts, especially on routine matters. This article discusses the issues with the former Act in this area and the principles for contested removals. It then outlines what was intended in the new Act, how the previous issues have been resolved, how the new Act operates and what has changed. It concludes that there remains plenty of scope for contentious matters involving applications for removal to come to court in respect of which case law will continue to provide guidance. It also discusses the cost and indemnity consequences in contested removal applications and that a pragmatic approach of resigning may often be best.

In this article I provide a concise overview of the law concerning proprietary remedies available to beneficiaries under a trust. The topic is very broad. In the time available, I can do no more than identify the principles governing such claims, and note some important recent developments. The law in relation to proprietary remedies has not been altered by the Trusts Act 2019. But there have been some significant developments in this field over the last decade, in particular in relation to "backwards tracing", which I touch on below.

This article gives a concise account of both principle and recent case law on the subject of personal remedies for breaches of trustees' duties. The first part focuses on the liability of the trustee, the second on the liability of third parties who have a connection to the breach. The first part addresses reinstatement and compensation remedies for breach of trust, monetary remedies for disloyalty and breach of fiduciary duty, and damages for breaches of the duty of care and skill. The second part addresses aspects of the actions for knowing receipt and dishonest assistance in a breach of fiduciary duty, and the liability of third parties who are connected to the wrongful diversion of business opportunities by a fiduciary.

This article explores the application of the Limitation Act 1950, the Limitation Act 2010 and the doctrine of laches to trusts. It sets out the changing nature of the principles applicable to limitation and trusts, the key differences between the 1950 and 2010 Acts for claims for breach of trust, and areas where the 2010 Act appears to have created further complications. The article argues that while the intention of the 2010 Act was to simplify the law relating to limitation an apparent lack of engagement with specific issues means that aim has not been achieved. It will also consider whether there is an ongoing role for laches and concludes that the doctrine has been limited by the 2010 Act.