A proper headache: trust drafting and the proper purpose rule after Grand View v Wong

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW Trusts & Trustees Pub Date : 2023-02-13 DOI:10.1093/tandt/ttad009
Tom McPhail
{"title":"A proper headache: trust drafting and the proper purpose rule after <i>Grand View v Wong</i>","authors":"Tom McPhail","doi":"10.1093/tandt/ttad009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The decision of the Board of the Privy Council in Grand View v Wong has given much greater prominence to the proper purpose rule in the context of the exercise by trustees of their powers. This article argues that, while the apparent desire of the Board to control abuse of trust arrangements is understandable, the judgment risks undermining trustee decision-making and encouraging litigation and unnecessary court applications.","PeriodicalId":43396,"journal":{"name":"Trusts & Trustees","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trusts & Trustees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttad009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The decision of the Board of the Privy Council in Grand View v Wong has given much greater prominence to the proper purpose rule in the context of the exercise by trustees of their powers. This article argues that, while the apparent desire of the Board to control abuse of trust arrangements is understandable, the judgment risks undermining trustee decision-making and encouraging litigation and unnecessary court applications.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个真正令人头痛的问题:大观诉黄案后的信托起草和正当目的规则
摘要枢密院在Grand View v Wong一案中的裁决,在受托人行使其权力的情况下,更加突出了正当目的规则。本文认为,虽然董事会明显希望控制信托安排的滥用是可以理解的,但该判决有可能破坏受托人的决策,并鼓励诉讼和不必要的法庭申请。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
66.70%
发文量
92
期刊最新文献
CC14 guidance update: greener investments, greater uncertainty? Australian tax arrangements for trusts: Section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act (1936) Cth Fathers, daughters, and matters of trust In brief An analysis of the risks that arise for discretionary trust settlements in the event of a divorce: to what extent does the Family Court’s asset division approach undermine discretionary trusts?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1