Relationship Property and Trusts: the "Bundle of Rights" Theory?

<p>This dissertation examines the “bundle of rights” theory as it meets at the intersection of trust and family property law. Drawing on conceptions of property, the principles and purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act and contrasted with trust law, a theory is adopted to explain why family property law has presumptive power over trust principles. Orthodox trust principles are discussed to explain why trust assets are protected from third party claims, the importance of the laws of powers and fiduciary obligations, the problems created by settlor or appointor control and the reason a “controller” is a beneficial owner of trust assets. The dispositions of relationship property to trusts and the limits on compensatory payments are discussed alongside the significance of the abolition of gift duty, other statutory remedies and judicial responses. Case authorities are explored, similarities with Australian alter ego trusts are drawn upon, and the application of the “bundle of rights” theory is discussed with reference to the valuation of debts and occupation orders. The dissertation concludes that the “bundle of rights” theory draws on an expansive meaning of property, it is a principled approach but confined to the Act.</p>

Relationship Property and Trusts: the "Bundle of Rights" Theory?

<p>This dissertation examines the “bundle of rights” theory as it meets at the intersection of trust and family property law. Drawing on conceptions of property, the principles and purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act and contrasted with trust law, a theory is adopted to explain why family property law has presumptive power over trust principles. Orthodox trust principles are discussed to explain why trust assets are protected from third party claims, the importance of the laws of powers and fiduciary obligations, the problems created by settlor or appointor control and the reason a “controller” is a beneficial owner of trust assets. The dispositions of relationship property to trusts and the limits on compensatory payments are discussed alongside the significance of the abolition of gift duty, other statutory remedies and judicial responses. Case authorities are explored, similarities with Australian alter ego trusts are drawn upon, and the application of the “bundle of rights” theory is discussed with reference to the valuation of debts and occupation orders. The dissertation concludes that the “bundle of rights” theory draws on an expansive meaning of property, it is a principled approach but confined to the Act.</p>

11. Duty of care, skill, and independent judgment

In addition to their fiduciary obligations, directors are subject to duties of care and skill. This chapter discusses the statutory standard of care, skill, and diligence; the content of the duty; and the duty to exercise independent judgement. In looking at care and skill, key issues are the extent to which delegation is possible and the degree to which the delegating director must maintain a residual duty of supervision. The chapter considers the law’s expectations of executive and non-executive directors, including the level of knowledge that they must bring to bear and examines how the standard required reflects their differing roles in the management of the business.

The State as a Fiduciary

This chapter analyses the state’s responsibility to provide a venue for civil recourse (ordinarily, by means of a private right of action). Civil recourse theorists have explained the state’s obligation to provide for private rights of action in terms of social contracts. On this view, the state owes its citizens a means to act against a wrongdoer, given that the state has largely prohibited self-help. Such accounts are discussed along with an alternative to a social contract theory: the state may be a fiduciary to its citizens. Elaborating on the fiduciary account, this chapter suggests the state may have an obligation to provide for private law institutions of a certain type. Notably, part of the state’s responsibility may be to provide private law institutions that facilitate pursuit of those projects that individuals find meaningful. Provision for rights of redress may then be an important component of the state’s fiduciary obligations.

15. Fiduciary Duties

This chapter examines the nature of fiduciary duties and how a fiduciary relationship can be identified. It emphasizes that trustees are fiduciaries, and so are subject to fiduciary duties, but also considers other fiduciary relationships. The chapter analyses the nature and function of fiduciary obligations. It examines in detail the two core fiduciary duties of ensuring that there is no conflict between a fiduciary’s personal interest and their duty to the principal and also that a fiduciary should not profit from their fiduciary position. The chapter discusses the consequences of a breach of fiduciary duty and the available remedies for such a breach. In particular, the chapter considers when and why profits obtained by a fiduciary in breach of a fiduciary duty should be held on constructive trust for the principal, with particular reference to the receipt of bribes and secret commissions.