Trusts in commercial settings

Although the common law trust has historically been used as a vehicle to hold property for successive generations within a family, it has also long been a feature in many kinds of commercial arrangements.

What is a trust?

A basic definition is a legal arrangement which involves a person (the ‘settlor’) transferring legal title to assets to another person or body (the ‘trustee’) to hold for the benefit of one or more persons (the ‘beneficiaries’), which may include the settlor. The terms of the trust are usually set out in a written instrument, often in the form of a deed. The trust imposes onerous duties on the trustee; failure to fulfil those duties properly may result in the trustee being held personally liable. It is important to note that the trust itself does not have any legal personality; rather, it is the trustee who is the principal actor and carries out the purposes of the trust in his own name.

For more information, see Practice Note: An introduction to trusts for commercial lawyers.

It is important to note that the trust has certain unique characteristics

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with UU��ֱ�� or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Will set aside for lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence (Oliver v Oliver)

Private Client analysis: William Oliver died on 25 May 2018, at the age of 86 years. He was a widower, with five surviving children. The claimant, Jane, was his youngest daughter. She sought to set aside his last Will made in 2015 on the grounds that—a) it did not comply with the formalities to make a Will (see section 9 of the Wills Act 1837); and b) William lacked testamentary capacity when he made that Will; or c) the Will was procured by undue influence. The defendant, Rodney, was William's eldest surviving son and sole beneficiary of the 2015 will. He did not engage with the court process and refused to produce the original of William's penultimate Will, made in 2009. The claim was successful on the ground that William lacked testamentary capacity in 2015. The court also found that the Will was invalid on the ground of undue influence. Written by Alexandra Rogers, managing associate at Foot Anstey LLP.

Video analysis—Autumn Budget 2024: Impact on Private Clients

Private Client analysis: In this UU��ֱ��® Practical Guidance video, Malli Kini, Kelly Greig & Alex Foster, Private Client Partners at Blick Rothenberg LLP give their views on the key announcements made in the Autumn Budget 2024 for Private Clients.

Private Client weekly highlights—31 October 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Autumn Budget 2024 and key tax announcements of interest to private client practitioners; (2) Knight (as property and affairs deputy for BJB) v Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a Court of Protection case on reverse indemnity undertakings in a damages settlement; (3) G Goldsmith Ltd v HMRC, a cautionary tale about the need to obtain timely tax advice when undertaking property transactions; (4) new HMRC guidance for taxpayers on rental income; and (5) a review of the first year of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

When is a private care provider exercising a public function for the purposes of section 6 Human Rights Act 1998? (Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd)

Local Government analysis: A healthcare provider which failed to properly authorise deprivation of liberty for a patient in its care was therefore not exercising a ‘special statutory power’ and so was not exercising a public function for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). This was so despite the fact that the provider ‘appeared to believe that it had’ special statutory powers’, and that ‘a knowledgeable observer would know that the only lawful way to do what was being done was through the exercise of such a power’. In cases which fall outside the carefully circumscribed scope of section 73 of the Care Act 2014 (CA 2014), the principle in YL v Birmingham City continues to represent the present state of the law. Written by Siân McGibbon, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

UU��ֱ��