Nestle v National Westminster Bank plc

Last updated

Nestle v National Westminster Bank plc
Court Court of Appeal
Decided6 May 1992
Citation(s)[1992] EWCA Civ 12, [1993] 1 WLR 1260
Case history
Prior action(s)[2000] WTLR 795; Independent, July 4, 1988, (1996) 10(1) Trust law International 113, 115
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Staughton LJ, Dillon LJ, Leggatt LJ
Keywords
Trustees, duty of care, investment

Nestle v National Westminster Bank plc [1992] EWCA Civ 12 is an English trusts law case concerning the duty of care when a trustee is making an investment.

Contents

Facts

A testator died in 1922 and named his widow, two sons and wives and one grandchild as the beneficiaries. The wife got the family home as a life interest and a tax free annuity. The two sons got annuities between age 21 and 25 and life interests in half the trust with a power to appoint income to their wives and Georgina, the grandchild, got the remainder. In 1922 there was £53,963 and in 1986 when Georgina became entitled, there was £269,203. She claimed that had the fund been invested properly it would have been worth well over £1m. The trust company had failed to conduct periodic reviews of investments. They invested in tax-exempt gilts because the sons were domiciled abroad, meaning exemption from inheritance tax.

Judgment

High Court

Hoffmann J (as he then was) held that there was no breach of the duty of care. He said the following. [1]

IV. The Investment Duties of Trustees

1.The Law

There was no dispute over the general principles to be applied. First, there is the prudence principle. The classic statement is that of Lindley LJ ( Re Whiteley (1886) 33 Ch D 347, 355):

"The duty of a trustee is not to take such care only as a prudent man would take if he had only himself to consider, the duty rather is to take such care as an ordinary prudent man would take if he were minded to make an investment for the benefit of other people for whom he felt morally bound to provide."

This is an extremely flexible standard capable of adaptation to current economic conditions and contemporary understanding of markets and investments. For example, investments which were imprudent in the days of the gold standard may be sound and sensible in times of high inflation. Modern trustees acting within their investment powers are entitled to be judged by the standards of current portfolio theory, which emphasises the risk level of the entire portfolio rather than the risk attaching to each investment taken in isolation. (This is not to say that losses on investments made in breach of trust can be set off against gains in the rest of the portfolio but only that an investment which in isolation is too risky and therefore in breach of trust may be justified when held in conjunction with other investments. See Jeffrey N Gordon, The Puzzling Persistence of the Constrained Prudent Man Rule (1987) 62 NY Univ LR 52) But in reviewing the conduct of trustees over a period of more than 60 years, one must be careful not to endow the prudent trustee with prophetic vision or expect him to have ignored the received wisdom of his time.

Mr Gerard Wright, who appeared for Miss Nestle, referred me to another passage in Re Whiteley at p 350 in which Cotton LJ said:

"Trustees are bound to preserve the money for those entitled to the corpus in remainder, and they are bound to invest it in such a way as will produce a reasonable income for those enjoying the income for the present."

In 1886 what Cotton LJ had in mind was the safety of the capital in purely monetary terms. But Mr Wright submitted that in the conditions which prevail a century later, the trustees were under an overriding duty to preserve the real value of the capital. In my judgment this cannot be right. The preservation of the monetary value of the capital requires no skill or luck. The trustees can discharge their duties, as they often did until 1961, by investing the whole fund in gilt-edged securities. Preservation of real values can be no more than an aspiration which some trustees may have the good fortune to achieve. Plainly they must have regard to the interests of those entitled in the future to capital and such regard will require them to take into consideration the potential effects of inflation, but a rule that real capital values must be maintained would be unfair to both income beneficiaries and trustees.

This brings me to the second principle on which there was general agreement, namely that the trustee must act fairly in making investment decisions which may have different consequences for different classes of beneficiaries. There are two reasons why I prefer this formulation to the traditional image of holding the scales equally between tenant for life and remainderman. The first is that the image of the scales suggests a weighing of known quantities whereas investment decisions are concerned with predictions of the future. Investments will carry current expectations of their future income yield and capital appreciation and these expectations will be reflected in their current market price, but there is always a greater or lesser risk that the outcome will deviate from those expectations. A judgment on the fairness of the choices made by the trustees must have regard to these imponderables. The second reason is that the image of the scales suggests a more mechanistic process than I believe the law requires. The trustees have in my judgment a wide discretion. They are for example entitled to take into account the income needs of the tenant for life or the fact that the tenant for life was a person known to the settlor and a primary object of the trust whereas the remainderman is a remoter relative or a stranger. Of course these cannot be allowed to become the overriding considerations but the concept of fairness between classes of beneficiaries does not require them to be excluded. It would be an inhuman law which required trustees to adhere to some mechanical rule for preserving the real value of the capital when the tenant for life was the testator's widow who had fallen upon hard times and the remainderman was young and well off.

Court of Appeal

Staughton LJ held there was no breach of trust. Despite this the trust company fell ‘woefully short of maintaining the real value of the fund, let alone matching the average increase in price of ordinary shares’. The company had not acted ‘conscientiously, fairly and carefully’ and there was ‘not much for the bank to be proud of in its administration of the… trust’.

At times it will not be easy to decide what is an equitable balance’ between life tenants and remaindermen. Some regard for the facts should be had, ‘not necessarily by seeking the highest possible income at the expense of capital, but by inclining in that direction. [2]

He emphasised that ‘trustees’ performance must not be judged with hindsight: 'after the event even a fool is wise, as a poet said nearly 3,000 years ago…' and accepted evidence that equities were regarded as risky before 1959. ‘It was only in 1959 that [they became more popular].’

Dillon LJ and Leggatt LJ concurred.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ [2000] WTLR 795
  2. ↑ [1993] 1 WLR 1260, 1279

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trust (law)</span> Three-party fiduciary relationship

In law, a trust refers to a relationship in which the owner of property gives it to a designated entity, usually described as a trustee. The trustee has a duty to safeguard and use the assets of the trust solely for the benefit of another person or group of persons until distribution, pursuant to the provisions of the trust. In the English common law tradition, the party who entrusts the property is known as the "settlor", the party to whom the property is entrusted is known as the "trustee", the party for whose benefit the property is entrusted is known as the "beneficiary", and the entrusted property itself is known as the "corpus" or "trust property". A testamentary trust is an irrevocable trust that is established and funded pursuant to the terms of a deceased person's will. An inter vivos trust is a trust created during the settlor's lifetime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trustee</span> Person holding a position of trust to a beneficiary

Trustee is a legal term which, in its broadest sense, is a synonym for anyone in a position of trust and so can refer to any individual who holds property, authority, or a position of trust or responsibility for the benefit of another. A trustee can also be a person who is allowed to do certain tasks but not able to gain income. Although in the strictest sense of the term a trustee is the holder of property on behalf of a beneficiary, the more expansive sense encompasses persons who serve, for example, on the board of trustees of an institution that operates for a charity, for the benefit of the general public, or a person in the local government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fiduciary</span> Person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation, good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Probate</span> Proving of a will

In common law jurisdictions, probate is the judicial process whereby a will is "proved" in a court of law and accepted as a valid public document that is the true last testament of the deceased, or whereby the estate is settled according to the laws of intestacy in the state of residence of the deceased at time of death in the absence of a legal will.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Express trust</span> Trust which is explicitly created and not inferred from the parties conduct

In trust law, an express trust is a trust created "in express terms, and usually in writing, as distinguished from one inferred by the law from the conduct or dealings of the parties." Property is transferred by a person to a transferee, who holds the property for the benefit of one or more persons, called beneficiaries. The trustee may distribute the property, or the income from that property, to the beneficiaries. Express trusts are frequently used in common law jurisdictions as methods of wealth preservation or enhancement.

<i>Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd</i> Trusts law case

Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd [1980] 1 Ch 515 in an English trusts law case. In it Brightman J gave a comprehensive discussion of the duties of trustees in connection with companies whose shares are part of the trust property. Although it is common to hear lawyers refer to "the rule in Bartlett v Barclays Bank", the case only restated law that had been accepted since Speight v Gaunt.

<i>Re Atkinson</i>

Re Atkinson, Barbers' Company v Grose-Smith [1904] 2 Ch 160 is an English trusts law case, which lays down a rule of equity relating to the disposition by the trustees of an authorised mortgage security where the security forms part of a trust fund, and the beneficiaries of the trust fund include a tenant for life and a remainderman. Where the security is sold and the proceeds are insufficient to satisfy the principal and interest in full, it is necessary to determine the way in which the loss shall be shared as between the tenant for life and the remainderman. The sum realised by the sale must be apportioned between the life tenant and the remainderman in the proportion that the amount due for the arrears of interest bears to the amount due in respect of principal.

<i>Saunders v Vautier</i> English trusts law case

Saunders v Vautier[1841] EWHC J82, (1841) 4 Beav 115 is a leading English trusts law case. It laid down the rule of equity which provides that, if all of the beneficiaries in the trust are of adult age and under no disability, the beneficiaries may require the trustee to transfer the legal estate to them and thereby terminate the trust. The rule has been repeatedly affirmed in common law jurisdictions, and is commonly referred to as "the rule in Saunders v Vautier" for shorthand.

<i>Allhusen v Whittell</i>

Allhusen v Whitell (1867) LR 4 Eq 295 is an English trusts law case which lays down a rule of equity which requires the trustee of a trust to strike a fair balance between the beneficiaries who are tenants for life and those who are remaindermen in respect of payment of the debts of an estate. The life tenant under a will is entitled to income earned after the testator's death, but it often takes some time to ascertain and settle all of those debts. In the meantime the assets of the estate are earning income for tenant for life, whereas the life tenant should only receive income from the estate net of the debts; the rule in Allhusen v White requires the life tenant to make a contribution.

<i>Howe v Earl of Dartmouth</i>

Howe v Earl of Dartmouth (1802) 7 Ves 137 is an English trusts law case. It laid down the rule of equity in relation to the duties of a trustee in relation to a trust fund where there are successive interests in relation to the trust fund, and seeks to strike a fair balance between the rights of the life tenant and the remainderman. It is one of a number of highly technical common law rules which causes considerable angst where wills and trusts have not been professionally prepared.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interest in possession trust</span>

An interest in possession trust is a trust in which at least one beneficiary has the right to receive the income generated by the trust or the right to enjoy the trust assets for the present time in another way. The beneficiary with the right to enjoy the trust property for the time being is said to have an interest in possession and is colloquially described as an income beneficiary, or the life tenant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States trust law</span> Law regulating a wealth-holding legal instrument

United States trust law is the body of law that regulates the legal instrument for holding wealth known as a trust.

Australian trust law is the law of trusts as it is applied in Australia. It is derived from, and largely continues to follow English trust law, as modified by state and federal legislation. A number of unique features of Australian trust law arise from interactions with the Australian systems of company law, family law and taxation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English trust law</span> Creation and protection of asset funds

English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, and share a subsequent history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts have mostly been used where people have left money in a will, or created family settlements, charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investment, especially in unit trusts and in pension trusts. Although people are generally free to set the terms of trusts in any way they like, there is a growing body of legislation to protect beneficiaries or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and Charities Act 2011.

<i>Armitage v Nurse</i>

Armitage v Nurse [1997] EWCA Civ 1279 is the leading decision in English trusts law concerning the validity of exemption clauses. The Court of Appeal held that in English law trustee exemption clauses can validly exempt trustees from liability for all breaches of trust except fraud. Millett LJ gave the leading judgment.

<i>Learoyd v Whiteley</i>

Learoyd v Whiteley[1887] UKHL 1 is an English trusts law case, concerning the duty of care owed by a trustee when exercising the power of investment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trustee Act 2000</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Trustee Act 2000 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that regulates the duties of trustees in English trust law. Reform in these areas had been advised as early as 1982, and finally came about through the Trustee Bill 2000, based on the Law Commission's 1999 report "Trustees' Powers and Duties", which was introduced to the House of Lords in January 2000. The bill received the Royal Assent on 23 November 2000 and came into force on 1 February 2001 through the Trustee Act 2000 (Commencement) Order 2001, a Statutory Instrument, with the Act having effect over England and Wales.

<i>Speight v Gaunt</i>

Speight v Gaunt [1883] UKHL 1 is an English trusts law case, concerning the extent of the duty of care owed by a fiduciary.

Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch 270 is an English trusts law case, concerning the scope of discretion of trustees to make investments for the benefit of their members. It held that trustees cannot ignore the financial interests of the beneficiaries.

Re Osoba[1978] EWCA Civ 3 is an English trusts law case, concerning the construction of a trust to benefit people, rather than a purpose.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.