 Note: Cases linked in the text on the right are either to BAILII reports (where available) or the Wikipedia reference. Author
Contents
Sponsors
|
CHAPTER II: TYPES AND USES OF EXPRESS TRUSTS, PAST AND PRESENTThe basic trust conceptThere is a brief outline of the concept of a trust in the third paragraph of Chapter I of this book, and the reader is assumed to be familiar with that for the purposes of the present chapter. Such express trusts are set up by a settlor or settlors expressly transferring property to a trustee or trustees to look after in the interests of beneficiaries in a deed (the trust deed ) . A beneficiary is sometimes called cestui que trust.
However, there are some situations where a court will decide that a trust-like relationship has arisen, and where a court should hold that there is an implied trust (as distinct from an express trust), with the various consequences which go with the existence of a trust. Sometimes a court will decide that a particular set of circumstances give rise to a trust, either because a person or persons, analogous with a settlor, have done something which involves entrusting property to another person in a situation which satisfies the requirements to be a trust; or because a person or persons have taken responsibility for property to the benefit of which others are entitled, or have acted in a way in which it would be unfair not to treat as if they had taken the kind of responsibility an express trustee takes. We will return to implied trusts, or court-imposed trusts, later. The present chapter covers only express trusts.
Trusts in the past: trusts and usesLegal historians have taken an interest in the origins of the trust, and in the question of whether the concept referred to by the old term for a trust, a ' use ,' is somehow different than a trust. Modern textbooks tend, naturally, to draw on work of legal historians. However, their explanations of legal history should be treated with caution because, in reading a summary of modern secondary sources in a standard textbook, the student may get the impression that the history of the trust is more systematic, and more securely understood, than it is.
At most periods lawyers have considered that the terms 'use' and 'trust' did not refer to distinct structures. Look at the first quotation for 'trust' in the legal sense from the Oxford English Dictionary (second ed., online): “ 1442 Rolls of Parlt. V. 57/1 The seid Feffees haue no title ner interest therynne, but only upon trust, and to his use, to execute his will.” In the early seventeenth century the greatest law textbook writer of his age thought that a trust and a use were the same thing: “ 1628 COKE On Litt . 272b, An Vse is a Trust or Confidence reposed in some other.” (1) The same is true of the greatest textbook writer of the next century: Blackstone wrote: “Uses and trusts are in their original of a nature very similar, or rather exactly the same” (2) . According to Francis Bacon, in a lecture on the Statute of Uses, in the past a use had been viewed as a kind of tenancy, but Bacon suggests that analysis is wrong, and that a 'use' and a 'trust' are the same. (3) The Statute of Uses, 1535, made uses executory (with certain exceptions), in other words, the title in property held under a use was automatically passed to the beneficiary (it was 'executed'). However, this rule only applied where there was a specific identifiable person as beneficiary, and the statute was subject to various provisos. The literal construction of the statute enabled lawyers to find any number of loopholes, and eventually one particular loophole came to be recognized by the Chancery Court, which was so large that it made the statute wholly ineffective. If the settlor transferred land to A who was to hold it on trust for B, under the Statute of Uses the title would automatically pass to B. However, if the settlor transferred the land to A, to hold it on behalf of B, who must hold it on behalf C, the court, after some uncertainty, said that since B did not get any benefit from the arrangement, the Statute of Uses would not apply to pass the title to B, so the land could still be held on trust for C by B. That is, since the settlor had not passed the land to B for his own use , the Statute of Uses did not apply. One case explained the development like this: This [the rule in the Statute of Uses that uses must be executed] the judges at first professed to adhere to, but notwithstanding that, the necessities of mankind, the reasonable occasions of families to make use of their estates compelled them in a little while to give way to such limitations of uses, springing uses, executory devises, powers over uses, all foreign to the notion of common law were let in by the construction of the judges themselves; but still they adhered to their doctrine that there could be no such thing as a use upon a use, but where the first use was declared to any person there it was executed and must vest for that estate. Therefore if a man limited land to A. and his heirs, to the use of B. and his heirs in trust, for or to the use of C. and his heirs, the use was executed in B. B. had the estate by the statute and C. could take nothing. Of this construction the courts of equity laid hold, and said however, the intention of the party was to be supported; it was plain B. was designed to take no benefit to himself ; the conscience of B. was affected, and it was still a trust in equity to be executed by subpoena. (4) Tracing a case where the Chancery Court first laid down this as a new rule is not only difficult but in a way pointless because the development took place before the Court's practice of exercising discretion on a case by case basis was replaced by a doctrine of precedent.
Thus, when Blackstone, quoted above, says that a trust and use are the same thing, he must mean that a trust is a kind of use which differs from an ordinary use only in the sense that it employs the technical wording (transferring the property from trustee A to trustee B for the benefit of beneficiaries C) which got round the Statute of Uses.
Incidentally, one of the reasons families found it difficult to manage their affairs without circumventing the Statute of Uses was that in certain circumstances, for example where a land owner died without heirs, the land would revert to the King. By transferring the land under a use, the family could ensure that there was always a living title holder or feoffee (acting as what would now be called the trustee) who could hold the land for the benefit of the family who originally owned it. The beneficiaries were called cestui que use or cestui que trust. (12)
Trusts in the present (1): use of express trusts to manage family wealth: types of trustTraditionally trusts are used to manage family wealth. Sometimes a trust will be set up by a living settlor, and sometimes a trust will be set up in a will, to manage the land or money which the settlor owned. The Latin term imter vivos means only that the trust is set up between living people, so an inter vivos trust may be distinguished from a will trust. The trustees may be family members or friends, or some or all of them may be professionals such as lawyers, accountants, bankers and investment specialists who can use their expertise to mange the money, and may be well paid for their work as trustees. Often banks have departments whose business is to act as trustees and to manage trusts.
There are various reasons why a settlor might want to place money on trust, rather than passing it directly to the members of the family who will ultimately benefit from it. In some cases the trustees will be told by the document creating the trust exactly what must happen to the money and assets on trust, but in many cases they will be given some discretion about how to use it to benefit the beneficiaries, and about how to invest it. Under a will it is possible to place money, intended to benefit an heir, on trust without stating how the money should be used. The testator can put that information about how to use it in a letter of wishes to the trustee, thus creating a secret trust (secret because the will is a public document, and any member of the public is entitled to see it, whereas the letter of wishes is not open to the public). Sometimes a letter of wishes is also used in conjunction with a trust deed which creates an inter vivos trust. One motivation for placing family wealth on trust is to keep money or a particular piece of property in the family, preventing one person wasting the wealth or selling the property which the settlor would like passed to his or her grandchildren and future generations. However, rules against perpetuities (in other words rules against allowing trusts, apart from special cases like charities, owning property for ever), and rules against trusts which specify that property is inalienable (i.e. unable to be sold), mean that the scope for doing this is limited. These rules, particularly the rules on perpetuities, are important in practice but are not particularly important, and not always covered, on student law courses. In spite of these rules, a trust can go some way to keeping family wealth intact. If a settlor creates a trust under which the trustees must use wealth for his or her children and grandchildren, perhaps to pay school fees or buy homes, that does ensure the grandchildren will still get their share of the family wealth even if the parent is bankrupt, or wastes the money, or transfers it out of the family through re-marrying, or chooses to disinherit his children. The trust also allows a certain amount of discretion as to the way the money is used. A settlor might want his grandchildren to have some of his wealth but might want to ensure that they spend it on 'sensible' things like school fees or homes, and not waste it. If the grandchildren are young, or unborn, when the settlor dies, entrusting the power to trustees to pass the wealth to grandchildren as and when they seem likely to use it sensibly may be attractive.
A trust of this kind where the trustees have the power to exercise discretion about how to use the funds for the benefit of the beneficiaries is a discretionary trust. If the trust deed gives set instructions to the trustees about exactly what each beneficiary should receive and when, it may be called a fixed trust. The term bare trust is used for a trust where the trustee holds property on behalf of another person but is not required to do anything with it. A might hold shares or other property on behalf of B to conceal the fact B is it the 'real' owner. In the UK an old person who has to go into a nursing home or care home, if he or she owns assets, for example a house, normally has to pay the costs of staying in that care home, even if that means selling the house which his children had hoped to inherit. Whereas if he or she does not have wealth the state will pay for the care. Some people may place the house on trust to protect it in case the owner incurs a debt in this way (or in any other way) and is forced to sell the house. There are clear rules which mean that if wealth is placed on trust specifically to avoid paying for a nursing home, the trust will be void. However, a trust set up genuinely for other purposes does (subject to certain rules) have, as a by-product, so to speak, this effect of protecting the assets in it, because once the settlor has placed the wealth, for example the house, on trust, he or she no longer legally owns it, even if he or she still has the right to live in it. Any trust which is set up to keep assets safe, where they might be lost if the beneficiary held the legal title and got into debt (or if war or political upheaval leads to property being seized), may be called a protective trust . In addition, wealth placed on trust, subject to certain limitations, can be protected from inheritance tax. By placing family wealth in a jurisdiction which does not charge tax, for example in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda, the wealth in the trust will potentially not be taxed. When the beneficiaries get the wealth into their hands, in the UK for example, they will normally have to pay tax. However, this kind of offshore trust makes it possible to manage and distribute the wealth in the way which legally incurs the lowest tax ( tax avoidance ) . It may also make life easier for people who want to get hold of the money, and have it chanelled to various places around the world, while illegally evading tax (tax evasion ), although because offshore tax havens are becoming increasingly willing to hand information to tax authorities, this kind of illegal tax evasion is getting harder. . To ensure that such offshore trusts are accepted by the tax authorities as genuinely offshore entities it is usually necessary that they should be administered offshore. A letterbox company holding assets on trust ( where the assets are held by an entity registered or with its address offshore, but decisions are taken by people domiciled, living and working in , for example, England), might not be treated as an offshore trust. Therefore such trusts are usually managed by professionals in the offshore jurisdiction itself, and this kind of service brings money into the economies of some small islands, or small territories such as Liechtenstein, who can provide the legal framework, the low tax regime, and professional services which are needed. In the Cayman Island the creation of the STAR trus t, initially by the Special Trusts (Alternative Regime) Law 1997, (and the creation of comparable trusts in other offshore jurisdictions, such as Bermudan Purpose Trusts (11 )) offers trusts with much looser rules than traditional trusts. For example a STAR trust or Bermuda Purpose trust is free of the rule against perpetuities. This attracts money because STAR trusts must have Cayman Islands trust company as trustee, and Bermudan Purpose Trusts in practice are likely to use a Bermudan trust company (perhaps a subsidiary of a Bermudan law firm) as trustee.
Trusts in the present (2): use of express trusts to manage family wealth: disadvantages and solutions Placing family money on trust does have certain disadvantages. A successful entrepreneur, placing his money on trust to minimize tax, may not fully appreciate how far he is giving up his rights. The settlor gives up all his rights in the wealth, and, technically at any rate, gives up his power to decide how it will be spent or distributed. This is one of the restrictions which are removed under a STAR trust, mentioned above, which makes Cayman Islands a sensible place for wealthy people to keep money safe, without losing control of it. Under a STAR trust the settlor may choose to continue to direct the management of the assets he has placed on trust. Beneficiaries on the other hand can feel frustrated about the way 'their' money is managed by professional trustees. There is sometimes a perception that trustees are more interested in collecting their fees than in making fair decisions when exercising or declining to exercise their discretion to pass wealth to beneficiares. Beneficiaries will also be unhappy if the wealth is invested in a way which gives disappointing returns. Something of this kind happened in Nestle v National Westminster Bank (5) . The bank acted as trustee, but by choosing to invest half the money in safe fixed-interest investments they made far less return than they might have made by investing more of it in the stock market. The bank did this because they thought, wrongly, that the terms of the trust constrained them to do so. Beneficiaries who are unhappy about the investment decisions of trustees in practice find it difficult to succeed in court, and one problem is that trustees were in the past (and to a lesser extent still are) more likely to be sued successfully for loosing money through taking too much risk, than they are for failing to make money by too little risk. In this case the Court of Appeal, finding the bank (as trustee) was tot at fault, held (per Leggatt LJ) that, No testator, in the light of this example, would choose this Bank for the effective management of his investment. But the Bank's engagement was as a trustee; and as such, it is to be judged not so much by success as by absence of proven default. The importance of preservation of a trust fund will always outweigh success in its advancement. Inevitably, a trustee in the Bank's position wears a complacent air, because the virtue of safety will in practice put a premium on inactivity. Until the 1950's active management of the portfolio might have been seen as speculative, and even in these days such dealing would have to be notably successful before the expense would be justified. The very process of attempting to achieve a balance, or (if that be old-fashioned) fairness, as between the interests of life-tenants and those of a remainderman inevitably means that each can complain of being less well served than he or she ought to have been. But by the undemanding standard of prudence the Bank is not shown to have committed any breach of trust resulting in loss. The Trustee Act 2000 part II frees up trustees to invest according to normal investment criteria, rather than to 'play safe', unless settlor in the trust document excludes these provisions of the Act. There are still problems for trustees who have different kinds of beneficiaries to take into account, for example where a man leaves assets and instructs trustees to invest them and pass the interest to his wife, and after her death pass the capital to his son. The trustees will have to choose how to balance investments which pay good interest but with perhaps poor or risky performance of the capital, against assets which may promise good capital growth with low interest. The beneficiaries, whether or not they are unhappy with the way a fund is managed, are entitled to call for the trust to be 'executed', in other words for all the assets in it to pass to them. However, this can happen only if the beneficiaries are entitled to the whole beneficial interest, if they have reached the age of majority, and if they all agree. This is often called the rule in Saunders v Vautier (7) , a case where a man who inherited shares in a will, to be passed to him when he was 25. The Lord Chancellor supported his claim to have the shares transferred to him when he was 21 (the age of majority at that time).
Trusts in the present (3): use of express trusts in public settingsWhen judges and scholars talk about the role of trust law in commercial life, they generally have in mind the possibility of using constructive trusts or resulting trusts or trusts implied to exist by certain conduct, as ways of regulating business affairs or as ways of remedying wrongdoing or unfairness. This is beyond the scope of the present chapter, which is confined to express trusts. However, there are some situations in the business world where express trusts used. In common law countries pension funds are normally structured as trusts. Trusts have several advantages for the purpose. A trust is a convenient structure allowing the trustees of the fund to manage the money and exercise their discretion on behalf of, and in the interests of the beneficiaries. To minimize the risk that trustees will abuse the powers they have over the assets of the fund, as Robert Maxwell had in the case of the Mirror Group pension, the trustees are subject to public supervision. The Goode Report into the management of pension funds considered, and rejected the suggestion that trust law should be scrapped altogether for managing pensions, and proposed instead setting up a pensions regulator for occupational pension funds, and this was done by the Pensions Act 1995. The current Pensions Regulator was set up by the Pensions Act 2004. (6) A trust fund can potentially be used to administer any investment fund, particularly one which holds various assets on behalf of several beneficiaries, and the unit trust is also structured as a trust fund. Trust funds, especially purpose trusts like the STAR trusts, may be used as part of complex modern financing structures for off balance-sheet financing (that is structures designed to limit, manage and / or hide a company's exposure to risk). Investment funds, though operating in a more public context than family trusts, are still private trusts, set up to benefit particular individuals rather than the public generally. Charities are trusts for the benefit of the public at large, and charitable trusts are sometimes called public trusts. The law relating to Charities has some important differences from private trust law. In particular, it is not subject to the rules against perpetuities. In addition, as we shall when we discuss the certainties required for a trust to be valid, it must have identifiable beneficiaries, rather than being for a particular purpose without identifiable beneficiaries. Usually a trust which is set up for a purpose does not have identifiable beneficiaries. It may be called a purpose trus t. Charities are by far the most important kind of trust which are exceptions to the usual rule that a purpose trust is in valid. For the rule it is usual to quote Morrice v Bishop of Durham. (8) Money was left to the bishop in a will for benevolent purposes. It was taken as an established principle that, since there were no specifically identifiable beneficiaries, the trust would fail unless the purposes of the trust were charitable . There were traditions of case law about exactly what was and what was not charitable, and 'benevolence' was held to be too general to qualify as a recognized charitable purpose. There are a few traditional exceptions (in addition to recognized charitable purposes) to the rule against purpose trusts, as well as exceptions introduced in the trust law of some offshore jurisdictions, such as the already mentioned STAR trust. The concept of a governmental function creating a trust relationship is outside the scope of this chapter, and of no real importance for most student courses. When the Greater London Council under the leadership of left-wing Ken Livingstone introduced ludicrously cheap bus fares, the Conservative council in Bromley took it to court to stop the low fares. The House of Lords held (9) that the local government authority had a trust-like responsibility to manage ratepayers' (i.e. local taxpayers') money responsibly, and that therefore it could not waste that money on reducing bus fares. In the present author's view, that was a political fudge by the courts. Although the courts declined to stomach low bus fares, they would no doubt permit local governments to pay excessive rates to consultants who were former council employees or whose expertise is no greater than that which could be had from salaried staff. It is a fudge because the political complexion of the court will surely have a huge impact on where the court draws the draw a line between a case where it should and a case where it should not interfere with local government's careless use of taxpayers' money. However, this kind of legally unconventional decision can sometimes form the basis for a development in case law which acquires real legal significance. The idea that governmental entities hold public money on trust has a strong tradition. Long before the Chancery Court used the term 'trust' for the revitalised 'use' (as discussed earlier in this chapter), 'trustees' (so called) were appointed for the sale of bishops' lands in months before and after Parliament had secured the execution of Charles I. At that time government was too small to deal with a lot of property deals, and arguably had no legal personality which would enable it to own the title to land, so the land they had seized from the Church was given to trustees, who were instructed to sell it for the best price, and pass the money to the Parliament (who needed the money to pay the large debts they had run up, and future costs in connection with maintaining an army to fight the Civil War). However, for present purposes, the early use of the trust to help fund the English revolution, and the use of the trust concept to suppress low bus fares, are sidelights on legal history. The personal representative , that is, the administrator or (where there is will) the executor who administers a deceased estate, is in effect a trustee of the estate until the administration is complete, although the conditions under which the estate is held are not exactly the same as the conditions which govern a trust. The insolvency practitioner or trustee in bankruptcy also has a trustee-like role in the administration of a bankrupt estate. These trust-like legal structure are also beyond the scope of the present work, although a general understanding of trust law is useful in their legal analysis.
Thought-provoking issues on trusts in an international context Here are a couple of questions which are not designed for student essay practice, or for exam revision, but are designed to be more advanced questions, with no clear-cut answer, to encourage the most engaged students to think, and possibly research, more deeply about practical matters in trust law. First, suppose an English father has a house in Tuscany. The house next door comes on the market. He buys it hoping his children one day may use it when they grow up. He knows his business is having problems so he puts the house for the children on trust, declaring himself one trustee and his English lawyer the other, stating in the trust deed that the trust is made under English law. Of course he is hoping that if the worst happens and he is bankrupt his children will still get the house, and maybe he will even be able to stay in it himself, if they invite him. Several years later he is declared bankrupt by an English court. His creditors ask for the second Italian house to be included in the assets used to pay his debts, but he tells the trustee in bankruptcy it is not really his, he holds it on trust. What happens? Does the court recognize the trust and leave the house out of the bankrupt estate? Now suppose the same scenario, except that he owes a lot of money in Italy and an Italian court makes him bankrupt. Look at the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and to their Recognition (10) and work out whether the Italian court would accept that the house held on trust should be left out of his estate, or whether it should be included in the assets used to pay his creditors. Here is second problem on the taxation of offshore family trusts. If a successful business person puts their money in a trust offshore, presumably the money is no longer theirs, and they should not have to pay UK tax on it. However, what if the assets are placed on trust offshore under a local law permitting the creation of a STAR trust (or something of that kind, whatever name it goes under) (11) . This would mean that, unlike an ordinary trust, the trust can be for a mixture of individual beneficiaries, and for purposes. It might mean (as is the case with a Cayman STAR trust), that the offshore trust company appointed as trustees would be prohibited by law from revealing the fact they were trustees. And it might mean the settlor could telephone his trust company (to whom he may be paying large fees) and tell them how he thinks the assets should be managed. Under what circumstances would the settlor have to pay UK tax on the trust's income or capital gains? And, supposing the settlor, although giving telephone instructions, does not necessarily know for sure what the trustees are doing, what chance have the UK Inland Revenue got in practice of finding out what is really happening in the trust? Students should not be discouraged if they cannot give answers to these specialised questions. They are included because thinking over difficult problems promotes learning. Students who want practice with exam-type essays should look at the sample questions provided on their course, or included in some of the standard textbooks on Equity and Trusts from the major publishers.
(1) Quoted from Oxford English Dictionary (second ed., online) s.v. TRUST n. (2) W. Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford, 1756-1769) II. 237. The text is available online http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk2ch20.asp . Research note about Google Books: There are page images of Blackstone on Google Books. Google Books is a massive resource for research but it also has big problems. One problem is that because the search facility works on page images rather than computer text, it is unreliable—extremely unreliable where the quality of printing is poor and slightly unreliable where the printing is good. If Google Books fails to find a search term in a particular book, that does not mean it is not there! A second problem is that sometimes the best edition is not the one that has been chosen to be digitized. For example a student who is citing Blackstone's Commentaries will probably want to use either the first edition, or a modern scholarly edition based on the first edition. The main risk in using a later edition is that the student might attribute words to Blackstone from that edition which are not by Blackstone at all, but which may have been added by the editor of later edition. Google Books do have a copy a complete 18th century edition of Blackstone but it is not the first edition. A further problem is that bibliographic summary of the works on Google Books (particularly for older works) are very unreliable. Sometimes just looking at the Google Books image of the title page shows that the date given for the work is wrong, sometimes very wrong, so the citation, author name, correct form of title, edition number, date and so on need to be checked before they are quoted. (3) F. Bacon On Uses (London, 1642) pp5, 7. Research note on EEBO: At time of writing the author knows of no free online text of this work. Page images are available on Early English Books Online [EEBO], which students may have access to through a university subscription. The resource contains page images or almost every English book printed before 1700, and is therefore a hugely valuable resource for legal history. However, the texts are in most cases not searchable. (4) John Hopkins late Dare, Plaintiff; (1) and John Hopkins, Sarah and his four other Daughters and Others, Defendants [1738] EngR 999; (1738-9) West T Hard 606; 25 ER 1108 http://www.commonlii.org/int/cases/EngR/1738/999.pdf (5) [1992] EWCA Civ 12 (06 May 1992) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1992/12.html (6) Links to this Act and further Acts regulating UK occupational pensions are found on the website of the Pensions Regulator http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/ (7) [1841] EWHC Ch J82, (1841) Cr & Ph 240, (1841) 4 Beav 115 8; 41 ER 482 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/1841/J82.html . Research note on pdf and text versions of English Reports and other historical resources: this decision is also available as a pdf file, in the version of some of the English Reports on www.commonlii.org , referred to in a research note in Chapter 1. A text version is available on www.bailii.org . The advantage of the text version is that search facility is more reliable, whereas the search software for page images tends to be unreliable. However, the page images may give a more reliable text, because in the course of conversion from printed page to text errors tend to creep in. This was a problem with the digitization of the Law Reports and All England Reports, which caused English courts To be reluctant to accept electronic reports for use in court, though in 2001 a practice direction stated that print-outs from electronic reports may be used provided the advocate is satisfied they are not garbled. There is a link to the Practice Direction here: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/485.htm Research note on neutral citations: The vendor-neutral citation [1841] EWHC Ch J82 for the case cited in this footnote is of course anachronistic, since these neutral citations were introduced for all High Court judgments only in 2002 (see Practice Direction (Judgments: Form and Citation) (Supreme Court) [2001] 1 WLR 194 http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/816.htm ). This neutral citation for an historical case was added by www.bailii.org . It remains to be seen whether legal scholars will accept and use neutral citations added retrospectively like this. At time of writing there is no need for students to use them in their work, and they are not authoritative for use in court. (8) [1805] EWHC Ch J80, (1805) 10 Ves 522; 32 ER 947 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/1805/J80.html (9) Borough of Bromley v Greater London Counci l [1981] UKHL 7, [1982] 2 WLR 62, [1983] 1 AC 768 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1981/7.html (10) http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=59 (11) At time of writing Cayman Island laws are not available free on the net, but the question could considered in the light of Bermudan laws, which are. Legislation concerning Bermudan Purpose Trusts, particular the Trusts (Special Provisions Act) 1989, can be found on http://www.laws.gov.bm/ (12) For these terms see the Wikipedia article on 'cestui que' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cestui_que
|
| |||||||||
