封闭式课堂?任命更多受益人的权力是Saunders诉Vautier案规则的制约因素

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW Trusts & Trustees Pub Date : 2021-08-30 DOI:10.1093/tandt/ttab074
Jeremy R. Johnson, J. Halligan
{"title":"封闭式课堂?任命更多受益人的权力是Saunders诉Vautier案规则的制约因素","authors":"Jeremy R. Johnson, J. Halligan","doi":"10.1093/tandt/ttab074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n One constraint on the rule in Saunders v Vautier is that, where the trusts include discretionary trusts, the class of beneficiaries must be closed, so it is possible to determine who may legitimately benefit from, and thereby terminate, the trusts. At common law, it is unclear whether a power to appoint further beneficiaries may therefore frustrate the operation of the rule. This article examines the provisions of the Trusts Act 2019 (New Zealand) in the context of a recent decision of the courts in Guernsey, which suggests that the Act may have inadvertently altered the common law position.","PeriodicalId":43396,"journal":{"name":"Trusts & Trustees","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A closed class? Powers to appoint further beneficiaries as a constraint on the rule in Saunders v Vautier\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy R. Johnson, J. Halligan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tandt/ttab074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n One constraint on the rule in Saunders v Vautier is that, where the trusts include discretionary trusts, the class of beneficiaries must be closed, so it is possible to determine who may legitimately benefit from, and thereby terminate, the trusts. At common law, it is unclear whether a power to appoint further beneficiaries may therefore frustrate the operation of the rule. This article examines the provisions of the Trusts Act 2019 (New Zealand) in the context of a recent decision of the courts in Guernsey, which suggests that the Act may have inadvertently altered the common law position.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-30\",\"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/ttab074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trusts & Trustees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab074","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

摘要

桑德斯诉沃蒂埃案规则的一个限制是,如果信托包括全权委托信托,受益人的类别必须是封闭的,因此有可能确定谁可以合法地从信托中受益,从而终止信托。在普通法中,尚不清楚指定其他受益人的权力是否因此会阻碍该规则的实施。本文在根西岛法院最近的一项裁决的背景下研究了《2019年信托法》(新西兰)的条款,该裁决表明,该法案可能无意中改变了普通法的立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A closed class? Powers to appoint further beneficiaries as a constraint on the rule in Saunders v Vautier
One constraint on the rule in Saunders v Vautier is that, where the trusts include discretionary trusts, the class of beneficiaries must be closed, so it is possible to determine who may legitimately benefit from, and thereby terminate, the trusts. At common law, it is unclear whether a power to appoint further beneficiaries may therefore frustrate the operation of the rule. This article examines the provisions of the Trusts Act 2019 (New Zealand) in the context of a recent decision of the courts in Guernsey, which suggests that the Act may have inadvertently altered the common law position.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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