| Speight v Gaunt | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1883] UKHL 1, (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 1 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | [1883] EWCA Civ 1, (1883) 22 Ch D 727 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Earl of Selborne LC, Lord Blackburn, Lord Watson and Lord Fitzgerald |
Speight v Gaunt [1883] UKHL 1 is an English trusts law case, concerning the extent of the duty of care owed by a fiduciary.
Mr John Speight, a Bradford industrialist, had appointed Mr Isaac Gaunt and Mr Alfred Wilkinson as trustees for his estate in his will. The trustees employed a young broker, John Cooke, to invest £15,000 of the estate's money into company shares. The trustees gave over the money. The broker dishonestly took the money for himself, and gave excuses for the delays in getting the company shares. The truth only transpired when Cooke was declared bankrupt. The beneficiaries of Speight's trust sued Mr Gaunt for failing in his duty of care as a trustee.
Sir George Jessel MR held that because the trustee acted in the ordinary course of business, he was not liable to make good the loss occasioned by the embezzlement of the trust moneys by the broker. The key part of his judgment stated as follows. [1]
In the first place, I think we ought to consider what is the liability of a trustee who undertakes an office which requires him to make an investment on behalf of his cestui que trust. It seems to me that on general principles a trustee ought to conduct the business of the trust in the same manner that an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own, and that beyond that there is no liability or obligation on the trustee. In other words, a trustee is not bound because he is a trustee to conduct business in other than the ordinary and usual way in which similar business is conducted by mankind in transactions of their own. It never could be reasonable to make a trustee adopt further and better precautions than an ordinary prudent man of business would adopt, or to conduct the business in any other way. If it were otherwise, no one would be a trustee at all. He is not paid for it. He says, “I take all reasonable precautions and all the precautions which are deemed reasonable by prudent men of business, and beyond that I am not required to go.” Now what are the usual precautions taken by men of business when they make an investment? If the investment is an investment made on the Stock Exchange through a stockbroker, the ordinary course of business is for the investor to select a stockbroker in good credit and in a good position, having regard to the sum to be invested, and to direct him to make the investment—that is, to purchase on the Stock Exchange of a jobber or another broker the investment required. In the ordinary course, all that the broker can do is to enter into a contract—usually it is for the next account-day. Of course you may, by special bargain, make it for cash or for any other day, but the ordinary course is for the next account-day. Before the account-day arrives the purchasing stockbroker requests his principal to pay him the money, because on the account day he is himself liable to pay over the money to the vendor, whether a jobber or broker, and therefore he must have it ready for the account-day, and according to the usual course of business he sends a copy of the purchasing note to the principal stating when the money is required to be paid, and he obtains the money from him a day or two before the account-day. When he gets it he pays it over, if it is a single transaction, to the vendor, and if it is one of a number of transactions he makes out an account with his vendor and pays over or receives from him the balance on the transactions. It by no means follows, therefore, that he pays over to the vendor the sum received, indeed there may be a number of transactions, and if the balance is the other way, then he has to receive money on the account, but he must in any case have the money in order to keep himself out of cash advances. It is after payment, and very often a considerable time after payment, that is several days, that he gets the securities perfected. If they are shares or stock in a company, or railway or other company, it may be a considerable time before the transfers are lodged at the office, and it is not until the matter is ready for completion that he gets the transfer and the certificates. But in all cases, except in the case of consols and a few other such stocks, there is some interval between the payment of the purchase-money and the obtaining of the security, or of the investment purchased.
Lindley LJ and Bowen LJ gave concurring judgments.
The House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal. Lord Blackburn said the following: [2]
The authorities cited by the late Master of the Rolls, I think shew that as a general rule a trustee sufficiently discharges his duty if he takes in managing trust affairs all those precautions which an ordinary prudent man of business would take in managing similar affairs of his own. There is one exception to this: a trustee must not choose investments other than those which the terms of his trust permit, though they may be such as an ordinary prudent man of business would select for his own money; and it may be that however usual it may be for a person who wishes to invest his own money, and instructs an agent, such as an attorney, or a stockbroker, to seek an investment, to deposit the money at interest with the agent till the investment is found, that is in effect lending it on the agent's own personal security, and is a breach of trust. No question as to this arises here, for Mr. Gaunt did nothing of that kind. Subject to this exception, as to which it is unnecessary to consider further, I think the case of Ex parte Belchier [3] establishes the principle that where there is a usual course of business the trustee is justified in following it, though it may be such that there is some risk that the property may be lost by the dishonesty or insolvency of an agent employed.
The transactions of life could not be carried on without some confidence being bestowed. When the transaction consists in a sale where the vendor is entitled to keep his hold on the property till he receives the money, and the purchaser is entitled to keep his money till he gets the property, it would be in all cases inconvenient if the vendor and purchaser were required to meet and personally exchange the one for the other; when the parties are, as is very often the case, living remote from each other, it would be physically impossible.
Men of business practically ascertain how much confidence may be safely bestowed, or rather whether the inconvenience and hampering of trade which is avoided by this confidence is too heavy a premium for insurance against the risk thus incurred. When a loss such as that which occurred in Ex parte Belchier occurs from having bestowed such confidence, they doubtless re-consider all this; and when a new practice, such as that of making bankers' cheques payable to order and crossing them arises, as it has done within living memory, no doubt it is made use of in many cases to avoid incurring that risk, which was formerly practically inevitable. So that what was at one time the usual course, may at another time be no longer usual.
Judges and lawyers who see brought before them the cases in which losses have been incurred, and do not see the infinitely more numerous cases in which expense and trouble and inconvenience are avoided, are apt to think men of business rash. I think that the principle which Lord Hardwicke lays down is that, while the course is usual, a trustee is not to be blamed if he honestly, and without knowing anything that makes it exceptionally risky in his case, pursues that usual course. And I think that, independent of the high authority of Lord Hardwicke, this is founded on principle. It would be both unreasonable and inexpedient to make a trustee responsible for not being more prudent than ordinary men of business are.
Sir George Jessel, was a British judge. He was one of the most influential commercial law and equity judges of his time, and served as the Master of the Rolls. He was the first Jew to be a regular member of the Privy Council and to hold high judicial office.
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 person who holds property, authority, or a position of trust or responsibility to transfer the title of ownership to the person named as the new owner, in a trust instrument, called a beneficiary. A trustee can also refer to a person who is allowed to do certain tasks but not able to gain income, although that is untrue. 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.
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.
The prudent man rule is based on common law stemming from the 1830 Massachusetts court formulation, Harvard College v. Amory The prudent man rule, written by Massachusetts Justice Samuel Putnam (1768-1853), directs trustees "to observe how men of prudence, discretion and intelligence manage their own affairs, not in regard to speculation, but in regard to the permanent disposition of their funds, considering the probable income, as well as the probable safety of the capital to be invested."
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.
English trust law concerns the creation and protection of asset funds, which are usually held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, but also share a 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 were mostly used where people left money in a will, created family settlements, created 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 investments, especially in unit trusts and pension trusts, where trustees and fund managers usually invest assets for people who wish to save for retirement. Although people are generally free to write trusts in any way they like, an increasing number of statutes are designed 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 the Charities Act 2011.
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. Millet LJ gave the leading judgment.
A bank is a financial institution that accepts deposits from the public and creates a demand deposit while simultaneously making loans. Lending activities can be directly performed by the bank or indirectly through capital markets.
An Investment policy statement (IPS) is a document, generally between an investor and the assisting investment manager, recording the agreements the two parties come to with regards to issues relating to how the investor's money is to be managed. In other cases, an IPS may also be created by an investment committee to help establish and record its own policies in order to assist in future decision-making or to help maintain consistency of its policies by future committee members or to clarify expectations for prospective money managers who may be hired by the committee.
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.
Selling away in the U.S. securities brokerage industry is the inappropriate practice of an investment professional who sells, or solicits the sale of, securities not held or offered by the brokerage firm with which he is associated (affiliated). An example of the term expressed in a sentence is, "The broker was selling investments away from the firm." Brokers marketing securities must have obtained the appropriate securities licenses for various types of investments. Brokers in the U.S. may be "associated" with one or more Brokerage firms and must obtain licenses by passing standardized Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) exams such as the Series 6 or Series 7 exam. See List of Securities Examinations for types of securities licenses in the U.S.
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.
Guinness plc v Saunders [1989] UKHL 2 is a UK company law case, regarding the power of the company to pay directors. It required that whatever rules exist for payment in the company's articles, they must be strictly observed.
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.
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 Lucking's Will Trusts [1968] 1 WLR 866 is an English trusts law case concerning the duty of care of a trustee, and the requirement to become involved in the governance of companies in which the trust has an interest.
Harvard College v Amory (1830) 26 Mass 446 is a US trusts law case, which repeated the famous formulation of the "prudent person rule", that people in charge of other people's money must exercise due care and skill, and look after the money as if it were their own.
Belchier v Parsons (1754) 96 ER 908 is an English trusts law case, which stands as one of the earliest formulations of the prudent person rule.
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 was a decision of the Court of Appeal in Chancery. It established that, in English trusts law, third parties could be liable for a breach of trust in two circumstances, referred to as the two 'limbs' of Barnes v Addy: knowing receipt and knowing assistance.
James Roscoe (Bolton) Ltd v Winder [1915] 1 Ch 62 is an English trusts law case, concerning asset tracing.