Abstract
This article examines the Court of Appeal decision in Pitt v Holt, and its implications for the rule in Re Hastings-Bass. The article argues that there are some inconsistencies between the post-Pitt position and other rules relating to the control of trustee discretion, particularly fraud on a power and the standing of trustees to sue in respect of their own breaches of trust. It also considers what is meant by saying a power is 'fiduciary', and argues that it is wrong to categorise the duty created by Pitt as fiduciary, as the Court of Appeal appears to do. Finally, it considers the reasons why settlors may wish to restore the pre-Pitt position by careful drafting, and presents a possible strategy by which they might do so.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
