Non-charitable Purpose Trusts Research Articles

From Edinburgh to Rome via The Hague: The International Appeal of the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act 2024

Abstract The Scottish legal system is independent of the English one. Two relevant differences are that the system of property rights in Scotland is based on Roman law, and equity is not a separate source of Scots law. Nonetheless, trusts have been known in Scotland since at least the 16th century. The Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act 2024, which received Royal Assent last January, is an up-to-date piece of legislation that brings Scotland to the forefront of modern trust legislation. Many solutions that have been devised in leading offshore trust jurisdictions (non-charitable purpose trusts, protectors, etc.) are now fully regulated under Scots law.

Trusts of imperfect obligation

Abstract This article seeks to briefly examine what is known about the so-called ‘trusts of imperfect obligation’—valid non-charitable purpose trusts for monuments, animals, and (probably) religious ceremonies. In particular, it considers the suggestions sometimes made that the ‘Pettingall order’ provides an enforcement mechanism for them, or that they are really ‘powers’ misclassified as ‘trusts’.

To good purpose: non-charitable purpose trusts for the specific purpose of holding shares in perpetuity in Singapore

Abstract This article considers the issue of whether Singapore should amend its trust laws to allow for non-charitable purpose trusts (NCPTs) for the specific purpose of holding company shares in perpetuity. The authors argue that such trusts should be allowed for two reasons. First, NCPTs in general should not be regarded as repugnant to the trust concept. Secondly, the practical advantages of allowing non-charitable trusts in a limited fashion outweigh the disadvantages. The article concludes by proposing possible reforms to the Singapore trust legislation.

Mr. Justice Vinelott on Unincorporated Associations and Gifts for Non-Charitable Purposes

Constructions employed to validate gifts and subscriptions to unincorporated associations include private trusts, charitable and non-charitable purpose trusts, and contracts. In this paper the author examines two English High Court decisions which throw new light on the limits of these orthodox constructions and establish a new construction -- suspended beneficial ownership coupled with an equitable obligation. The author argues that this new construction extends beyond unincorporated associations, and provides an effective means of pursuing non-charitable purposes in general.Two recent English High Court judgments from Vinelott J. in the area of the structure of and holding of property by unincorporated associations are of considerable importance and interest. These are the judgments in Re Grant's Will Trusts' and Conservative and Unionist Central Office v. Burrell (Inspector of Taxes).It is proposed to examine the implications of these judgments in the light of an earlier paper by the present author. There an early distinction was made between property regularly subscribed or donated by the members of an association, and property derived by way of gifts and the like from outside sources.

Borrower insolvency and Quistclose trusts; creditor claims following insolvency of settlor or corporate trustee; exploration of the limits of the elasticity of the private trust; beneficiary's rights to information; validity of non-charitable purpose trusts; and the jurisdictional reach of the US courts.

Dicta abound in the law reports to the effect that persons ‘engaged in business can be regarded as capable of looking after themselves’. But those dicta merely describe how things stand between parties looking out for their own interests. They are irrelevant to situations in which people, otherwise well capable of looking after themselves, engage commercially by placing trust and confidence in others. For example, the members of a law firm all might have PhDs, and years of hard-bitten commercial experience under their belts. Yet ‘a stronger case of fiduciary relationship cannot be conceived than that which exists between partners’. Another example is the Quistclose trust that arises where money is advanced for a particular purpose. In his Preface to Swadling, The Quistclose Trust: Critical Essays, Lord Millett described this as ‘the single most important application of equitable principles in commercial life’, and said that it is easily described from the commercial viewpoint as:

Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts: The Mutation of Trust Law

Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts: The Mutation of Trust Law

Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts

Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts

Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts: The Offshore Response

Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts: The Offshore Response