Trustee Act 2000

Last updated

Trustee Act 2000
Act of Parliament
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (variant 1, 1952-2022).svg
Long title An Act to make fresh provision with respect to investment by trustees and persons having the investment powers of trustees, and by local authorities, and for purposes connected therewith.
Citation 2000 c. 29
Territorial extent England and Wales
Dates
Royal assent 23 November 2000
Commencement 1 February 2001
Other legislation
Repeals/revokes
Status: Current legislation
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended
Text of the Trustee Act 2000 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Trustee Act 2000 (c 29) 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.

Contents

The Act covers five areas of trust law: the duty of care imposed upon trustees, trustees' power of investment, the power to appoint nominees and agents, the power to acquire land, and the power to receive remuneration for work done as a trustee. It sets a new duty of care, both objective and standard, massively extends the trustees' power of investment and limits the trustees' liability for the actions of agents, also providing for their remuneration for work done in the course of the trust.

Background

Lawyers and academics had been pushing for reform of this area of law since at least 1982, when the Law Commission published a report advising reform of the rules over trustees delegating their powers to other people. [1] Other trusts reform came about through the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, but this did not cover most of trusts law. [2] Although there were some other small changes (such as a 1996 Statutory Instrument that extended the rights of trustees under the Trustee Investments Act 1961) little else was done. Further papers were published on similar areas in 1997 and 1999, and finally the Trustee Bill 2000 was introduced to the House of Lords in January 2000, implementing the proposals laid out in the Law Commission's 1999 report "Trustees' Powers and Duties". [3] The Act was given the Royal Assent on 23 November 2000, [4] and most of it came into effect on 1 February 2001 through the Trustee Act 2000 (Commencement) Order 2001. [5]

Act

The Act is divided into six parts, forty-three sections and four schedules, and focuses upon five specific areas of law. These are the duty of care imposed upon trustees, trustees' power of investment, the power to appoint nominees and agents, the power to acquire land, and the power to receive remuneration for work done as a trustee. [3]

Duty of care

Part I of the Act sets out a general duty of care, which trustees have towards beneficiaries. Section 1 defines this duty, which is that a trustee,

must exercise such care and skill as is reasonable in the circumstances, having regard in particular -

(a) to any special knowledge or experience that he has or holds himself out as having, and
(b) if he acts as trustee in the course of a business or profession, to any special knowledge or experience that it is reasonable to expect of a person acting in the course of that kind of business or profession. [6]

This test has both an objective and subjective element. There is an objective baseline of care that every trustee, depending on the size and responsibility of their office, to exercise "such care and skill as is reasonable in the circumstances". This codifies the common law and reflects company and insolvency law. It indicates that a professional trustee would be held to a higher standard than a family trustee. [7] The subjective element requires a court to exercise greater scrutiny if a trustee had any special skills, which takes the trustee's ability above the objective baseline. So if a trustee had a special accountancy qualification that trustee would be expected to exercise a greater than normal degree of care over the trust's accounts. [8]

According to Schedule 1, the duty of care may be excluded by the trust instrument, [9] but if it is not, it must be exercised when,

Commentators have agreed that this is largely a reiteration of the previous common law rule on the duty of care. In Speight v Gaunt , Lord Blackburn said 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", similar to an objective test. [10] It has been pointed out that the new duty of care creates problems, because it sets a fixed, objective point. It is not known where this point is, however - a professional trustee obviously cannot be held to the standards of a lay trustee, but it has been seen as equally unfair that a lay trustee would be held to the standards of a professional one. [10] This duty, unlike the previous common law duty, at no point requires the trustee to act. [11] The duty of care has been seen to be advantageous to charities compared to the old one, because it allows those charities forced to employ lay trustees to use professional agents to exercise some duties. [12]

Investment powers

Investment powers and limits on those powers are set out in Part II of the Act. Section 3(1) states that "subject to the provisions of this part, a trustee may make any kind of investment that he could make if he was absolutely entitled to the assets of the trust". [13] This is far looser than the previous provisions, which were contained in the Trustee Investments Act 1961. The 1961 Act was repeatedly criticised for its "very conservative investment policy for trustees". [14] The powers of investment trustees were given were restrictive and narrow, and at the same time the trustees were expected to go through expensive and complicated procedures to exercise them. [15] This new power of investment is treated as a default provision - it is overridden if the trust instrument itself restricts the ways trust money can be invested. [16] If the trust instrument was created prior to 3 August 1961, however, its provisions regarding investments are treated as void. The new provisions apply retrospectively, i.e. to trusts created before the passage of the Act. They do not, however, apply to trusts governed by the Charities Act 1993, Authorised Unit Trusts or occupational pension schemes. [17]

Section 4 of the Act requires trustees to look at the "standard investment criteria" when investing. These criteria are defined in Section 4(3) as the need to check the suitability of investments for the trust, and the importance of diversification. Section 4(2) requires that, having exercised their power of investment, trustees must regularly refer back to the standard investment criteria to check that they are being fulfilled. This does little more than restate what is given in the Trustee Investments Act 1961, however, and this provision has been criticised for not defining "suitable". [18] In Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch 270 Megarry VC suggested that trustees have an overriding duty to invest solely in the financial interests of beneficiaries, unless the trust instrument laid down otherwise. So even though the National Union of Mineworkers' leader, Arthur Scargill, wanted the mineworkers' pensions to be reinvested in the British Coal industry and keep jobs, the court held that because this would make less money than other investments it would be a breach of trust. Subsequent case law has qualified this controversial principle, such as Harries v The Church Commissioners for England [1992] 1 WLR 1241, and it is a point of ongoing debate. [19] It is assumed by academics that, if a trust suffered a loss as a result of a trustee investing in unsuitable areas, the trustee would be liable for breach of trust. [20]

Under Section 5, trustees are required to obtain "proper advice" before investing, unless the circumstances mean that it is inappropriate or unnecessary to do so. [21] "Proper advice" is defined in Section 5(4) as "advice of a person who is reasonably believed by the trustee to be qualified to give it by his ability in and practical experience of financial and other matters relating to the proposed investment". [17] This is an objective test, and as with much of Section 4, is almost identical to the test laid out in the 1961 Act. [22] The advice must be sought before the exercise of any investment power, and is also required if the trustee wishes to change where and how the trust is invested. [23]

Acquisition of land

Rules on the acquisition of land are covered in Part III of the Act. Until the passage of the Act, trustees had no right to purchase land with trust money, with two exceptions; first, if the trust instrument authorised or required the trustee to purchase land and second, Section 6(4) of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, which allowed trustees to buy land either as an investment or for habitation by the beneficiaries. [17]

Under Section 8 of the Act, trustees can purchase land "as an investment, for occupation by the beneficiaries or for any other reason". [21] Once this land has been purchased they are free to do with it what they could if they were the absolute owner; they can sell it, lease it or mortgage it. [21] This is a default provision, and can be made irrelevant if the trust instrument contains other rules and requirements. [24] This land may only be bought in Britain; if trustees wish to purchase land outside Britain, they must either invest in companies which own land or alter the trust instrument to allow it. [21]

Agents and delegation

Part IV of the act covers the delegation of powers to agents, and the trustees liability for their acts. This is an area that has long been criticised by practitioners and academics, particularly the provisions of the Trustee Act 1925. The Act allowed the trustees to appoint an agent in good faith, and gave them no liability for the agent's acts. In Re Vickery it was confirmed that a trustee may escape liability for an agent's acts if he acted in good faith, which was simply a test of honesty rather than reasonableness. [25]

Sections 11–20 of the 2000 Act cover the appointment of agents. Section 11(1) allows for trustees "[to] authorise any person to exercise any or all of their delegable functions as their agent", [26] with Section 11(2) defining "delegable functions" as any function other than the powers to distribute or dispose of trust assets, allocating fees or other payments, appointing a trustee or further delegating duties. [26] Section 15 requires that, where an administrative function is delegated, special conditions must be satisfied. Section 15(1) makes it mandatory to write and sign a policy agreement, which lays out guidance on how a function should be undertaken. [26]

Sections 21–23 cover the review of agents and the liability of trustees for agents actions. Section 21 identifies that review and liability occurs when the trustees appoints agents, nominees and custodians under the Act or under similar provisions in the trust instrument. Section 22 provides a duty on trustees who delegate their powers, with the duty consisting of three elements. Firstly, trustees are required to make sure that agent is suitable for the job he is employed to do. Secondly, they are required to consider whether or not to intervene in the appointment if circumstances demand it. Thirdly, trustees are required to intervene after appointment if the circumstances demand it. Section 23 establishes trustees' liability for the actions of agents; a trustee is liable for negligence if he violates the general duty of care set out in Section 1, but not otherwise. [27]

Remuneration

Part V of the Act, sections 28 to 33, deals with trustees' remuneration. Section 28 states the default position is that trustees are entitled to remuneration if it says so in the trust instrument or if a trustee acts in a "professional capacity". [28] A trust can differ from this default, but the Act confirms the recent developments in the common law from the old default position that trustees were entitled to nothing unless it was explicitly stated that they were. [29] Section 29 goes on to say that non-charitable professional trustees are entitled to "reasonable remuneration" which will be a sum that the court thinks is commensurate with the work done, along the principles of quantum meruit . This is automatic if the trustee is a corporation, [30] but will require consent of all other trustees if the trustees are natural persons. [31] Section 30 stipulates that rules on charitable trustee remuneration are to be found in a statutory instrument drawn up by the Secretary of State. Trustees will be reimbursed from the trust fund itself, [32] as will be authorised agents, nominees and custodians who are properly appointed by the trustees [33] all so long as the expenses and payable remuneration are incurred while conducting the affairs of the trust. [34]

Repeals

The Act repealed: [35]

ActExtent
Trustee Investments Act 1961 Sections 1–3,5,6,8,9,12,13,15 and 16(1), Schedules 1,2 and Paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4
Charities Act 1993 Sections 70,71, Section 86(2) paragraphs A and B
Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1893 Entire Act
Settled Land Act 1925 Sections 96, 98(1) and (2), 100
Trustee Act 1925 Part 1, Sections 21,23 and 30
Clergy Pensions Measure 1961 Section 32(2)
House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1962 The words "Subject to the following provisions of this section" in Section 1(2), (3)-(5)
Cereals Marketing Act 1965 Section 18(3)
Agriculture Act 1967 Section 18(3)
Church of England (Pensions) Measure 1988 Section 14(b)
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 Sections 6(4), 9(8), 17(1), Schedule 3, paragraph 3(4)
Cathedrals Measure 1999 Section 16(1)

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Board of directors</span> Type of governing body for an organisation

A board of directors is an executive committee that jointly supervises the activities of an organization, which can be either a for-profit or a nonprofit organization such as a business, nonprofit organization, or a government agency.

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

In law, trust is a relationship in which the holder of property gives it to another person or entity who must keep and use it solely for another's benefit. 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 created by a will and arises after the death of the settlor. An inter vivos trust is created during the settlor's lifetime by a trust instrument. A trust may be revocable or irrevocable; an irrevocable trust can be "broken" (revoked) only by a judicial proceeding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Power of attorney</span> Legal form of delegation

A power of attorney (POA) or letter of attorney is a written authorization to represent or act on another's behalf in private affairs, business, or some other legal matter. The person authorizing the other to act is the principal, grantor, or donor. The one authorized to act is the agent, attorney, or in some common law jurisdictions, the attorney-in-fact.

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

Trustee is the individual appointed to administer the property of a deceased person held in a trust, or in the custody of a Bankruptcy Court ; See Trust Administration xxx.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.

The Settled Land Acts were a series of English land law enactments concerning the limits of creating a settlement, a conveyancing device used by a property owner who wants to ensure that provision of future generations of his family.

<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.

A trust instrument is an instrument in writing executed by a settlor used to constitute a trust. Trust instruments are generally only used in relation to an inter vivos trust; testamentary trusts are usually created under a will.

<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 regulating the legal instrument for holding wealth known as a trust.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom company law</span> Law that regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006

The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian corporate law</span>

Australian corporations law has historically borrowed heavily from UK company law. Its legal structure now consists of a single, national statute, the Corporations Act 2001. The statute is administered by a single national regulatory authority, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC).

<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">United States corporate law</span> Overview of United States corporate law

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has attempted to do the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trustee Investments Act 1961</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Trustee Investments Act 1961 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers where trustees can invest trust funds. Given the royal assent on 3 August 1961, it removed the "Statutory Lists" system and replaced it with sets of specific investment areas. The Act was heavily criticised for the way it set these areas out, particularly the requirement that trusts trying to invest in multiple areas would need to be permanently divided. A 1997 Law Commission paper called its terms "overly cautious and restrictive", suggesting that some trusts were underperforming as a result. The passing of the Trustee Act 2000 effectively nullified the 1961 Act's terms in relation to trustee investment, and the 2000 Act is now the principal piece of legislation in this area.

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.

Directors' duties in the United Kingdom bind anybody who is formally appointed to the board of directors of a UK company.

Anguillan company law is primarily codified in three principal statutes:

  1. the International Business Companies Act ;
  2. the Companies Act ; and
  3. the Limited Liability Companies Act.

In Trust Law, the Duty of Prudence traditionally includes the duty of a trustee to administer a trust with a degree of care, skill and caution. The degree of care required depends both on the jurisdiction on the trustee's actual or purported skill, for example if they have an accounting background, they must exercise professional care. At a minimum, a trustee is required to act with the care of a "prudent person" would in dealing with the assets of another, given the purposes, terms, and other circumstances of the trust.

References

  1. 1 2 Shindler (2001) p.2
  2. Shindler (2001) p.1
  3. 1 2 Panesar (2001) p.28
  4. "Trustee Act 2000 (C.29)". UK Statute Law Database . Retrieved 1 October 2009.
  5. "The Trustee Act 2000 (Commencement) Order 2001 (No. 49 (C. 2))". UK Statute Law Database. Retrieved 28 November 2009.
  6. Trustee Act 2000 s 1
  7. See Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd [1980] 1 Ch 515, Companies Act 2006 s 174 (duty of care, skill and diligence) and Insolvency Act 1986 s 214 (wrongful trading)
  8. Panesar (2001) p.29; cf Re Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd (No 2) [1989] 5 BCC 569
  9. TA 2000 Sch 1, para 7; see also Armitage v Nurse [1997] EWCA Civ 1279
  10. 1 2 Panesar (2001) p.30
  11. Hudson (2009) p.331
  12. Meakin (2001) p.2
  13. Wilson (2007) p.374; nb Re Wragg [1919] 2 Ch 58, asked whether real estate could be acquired, Lawrence J suggested that acquiring assets such as antiques or gold which yield no income are not investments that trustees may acquire. The Explanatory Notes to TA 2000, para 22 suggests otherwise, and notes that trust instruments can deviate in any case.
  14. Hudson (2009) p.332
  15. Edwards (2007) p.456
  16. Ramjohn (2007) p.493
  17. 1 2 3 Ramjohn (2007) p.494
  18. Shindler (2001) p.4
  19. Langbein, J; R Posner (1980). "Social Investing and the Law of Trusts". Michigan Law Review (72).
  20. Hudson (2009) p.400
  21. 1 2 3 4 Panesar (2001) p.31
  22. Wilson (2007) p.376
  23. Hudson (2009) p.401
  24. Ramjohn (2007) p.495
  25. Panesar (2001) p.32
  26. 1 2 3 Panesar (2001) p.33
  27. Panesar (2001) p.34
  28. Hudson (2009) p.318
  29. See Hudson (2009) p.317; Re Duke of Norfolk's Settlement Trusts [1982] Ch 61, remuneration allowed if in "all the other circumstances of the case, that it would be in the interests of the beneficiaries to increase the remuneration", and Robinson v Pett (1734) 3 P Wms 249, 251, Lord Talbot LC, "if allowed, the trust estate might be loaded, and rendered of little value, Besides, the great difficulty there might be in settling the quantum of such allowance, especially as one man's time may be more valuable than that of another; and there can be no hardship in this respect upon any trustee, who may choose whether he will accept the trust, or not."
  30. TA 2000 s 29(1)
  31. TA 2000 s 29(2)
  32. TA 2000 s 31(1)
  33. TA 2000 s 32
  34. TA 2000 s 33
  35. Trustee Act 2000 Schedule 4

Bibliography