Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:25:22.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FIDUCIARY OWNERSHIP AND TRUSTS IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2014

Daniel Clarry
Daniel Clarry*
Affiliation:
Gonville and Caius College, University of Cambridge, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ownership is an essential feature of trusts that serves as a useful analytical and comparative tool in order to cross legal traditions and compare different legal institutions, which to a greater or lesser extent serve similar socio-economic and legal functions. The concentration on ownership enables one to burrow down into the normative roots of different legal traditions. This article comprises three substantive parts: first, characterizing ownership and the manner in which this concept distinguishes the civil and common law traditions; second, contextualizing ownership in relation to trusts from different legal systems; and, third, conceptualizing some contemporary challenges arising out of the divergent nature of ownership in the phenomenology of the trust paradigm, the value of the trust to comparative law and its effect on the civil law as a distinct tradition. It is argued that trusts necessarily involve the fiduciary administration of property and that ‘fiduciary ownership’ is a better shorthand description of the encumbered nature of trust property, rather than ‘dual’ or ‘split’ ownership, which is misleading and mistaken.

Keywords

comparative lawfiduciary ownershipinternational private lawpropertytrusts
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 901 - 933
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See eg OECD, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, OECD Guidelines on Pension Fund Asset Management (OECD 2006) (pension funds (or ‘investment trusts’) held US$15 trillion of assets in 2003, representing 80 per cent of GDP of the OECD area); cf OECD, Pension Markets in Focus (OECD Dec 2008, Issue 5).

2 Lepaulle, P, ‘Civil Law Substitutes for Trusts’ (1927) 36 YaleLJ 1126Google Scholar, 1126.

3 See also Smith, L (ed), The Worlds of the Trust (CUP 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clarry, D, ‘The Worlds of the Trust’ (2013) 27(3) Trust Law International 141Google Scholar (review); Smith, L (ed), Re-imagining The Trust: Trusts in Civil Law (CUP 2012)Google Scholar; Clarry, D, ‘Re-imagining The Trust: Trusts in Civil Law’ (2013) 2(3) CJICL 665CrossRefGoogle Scholar (review).

4 cf Michels, R, ‘The Functional Method of Comparative Law’ in Reimann, M and Zimmermann, R, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (OUP 2006)Google Scholar.

5 Blackstone, W, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Morrison, W ed, Cavendish Publishing 2001) vol 2, 3Google Scholar.

6 Salmond, JW, Jurisprudence (4th edn, Stevens and Haynes 1913), 220–1Google Scholar (‘The Definition of Ownership’); cf Austin, J, Lectures on Jurisprudence (4th edn, Campbell, Robert rev and ed, John Murray 1879) 382–3Google Scholar.

7 Johnson, DR, ‘Reflections on the Bundle of Rights’ (2007) VtLRev 247, 249–50Google Scholar.

8 See Waters, DWM, Gillen, M and Smith, L (eds), Waters’ Law of Trusts in Canada (3rd edn, Carswell 2005) 12Google Scholar. Compare Penner, JE, The Idea of Property in Law (OUP 1997)Google Scholar.

9 Penner, JE, ‘The “Bundle of Rights” Picture of Property’ (1996) 43 UCLALRev 711, 712–31Google Scholar.

10 Ibid 713.

11 Hohfeld, WN, Fundamental Legal Conceptions As Applied in Judicial Reasoning (Cook, WW ed, Yale University Press 1919) 36–41Google Scholar.

12 cf Fromm, E, Man for Himself (Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1969) 140–1Google Scholar.

13 Honoré, T, Making Law Bind (Clarendon Press 1987) 166–79Google Scholar.

14 Ibid 187–9.

15 Honoré, T, ‘Trusts: The Inessentials’ in Getzler, J (ed), Rationalizing Property, Equity and Trusts (LexisNexis 2003) 10Google Scholar (emphasis added).

16 Fratcher, WF, International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law (JCB Mohr 1973) vol 6Google Scholar, [11].

17 Watkin, TG, ‘Changing Concepts of Ownership in English Law during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: The Changing Idea of Beneficial Ownership under the English Trust’ in Dixon, M and Griffiths, GLLH (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on Property, Equity and Trusts Law (OUP 2007) 139–61Google Scholar.

18 Mowbray, J et al. (eds), Lewin on Trusts (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2008) 106Google Scholar.

19 eg Sturt v Mellish (1743) 2 Atk 610, 610; 26 Eng Rep 765, 765 per Lord Hardwicke LC; MCC Proceeds v Lehman Brothers International (Europe) [1998] 4 All ER 675, 691 per Mummery LJ.

20 Lewin, T, A Practical Treatise on the Law of Trusts and Trustees (Maxwell 1837)Google Scholar 15; Snell, EHT, The Principles of Equity: Intended for the Use of Students and the Profession (Stevens & Haynes 1868), 48Google Scholar; Spence, G, The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery (Stevens & Norton 1846) vol 2, 39Google Scholar.

21 See Salmond (n 6) 227–32.

22 Raffenne, C, ‘Why (Still) No Trust in French Law?’ in Harding, A and Örücü, E (eds), Comparative Law in the 21st Century (Kluwer 2002) 75, 77Google Scholar. See also Frankel, T, Fiduciary Law (Fathom Publishing 2008) 283Google Scholar.

23 eg GS Alexander, ‘The Dilution of the Trust’ in Smith, The Worlds of the Trust (n 3) 305, 306; Dal Pont, GE, Equity and Trusts in Australia (5th edn, Lawbook Co 2011) 483Google Scholar; Oosterhoff, AH et al. (eds), Oosterhoff on Trusts: Text, Commentary and Materials (7th edn, Carswell 2009) 36–7Google Scholar; Amos, MS, ‘The Common Law and the Civil Law in the British Commonwealth of Nations’ (1936) 50 HarvLRev 1249Google Scholar, 1264.

24 Ayerst v C&K Construction Ltd [1976] AC 167 (HL), 177 per Lord Diplock (with whom Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Kilbrandon and Lord Edmund-Davies agreed). See also Abdul Hameed Siti Kadija v De Saram [1946] AC 208 (PC (Ceylon)), 216–17 per Lord Thankerton (with whom Viscount Simon and Sir John Beaumont).

25 Code civil des français, art 544 (translation by author: ‘ownership is the right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner, provided the usage is not prohibited by law or regulations’).

26 See Akkermans, B, The Principle of Numerus Clausus in European Property Law (Intersentia 2008) 91–9Google Scholar; Waters, Gillen and Smith (n 8) 1340–1.

27 Buckland, WW, A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (3rd edn, Stein, P (ed), CUP 1963), 186–95Google Scholar; Nicholas, B, An Introduction to Roman Law (Clarendon Press 1961) 153–7Google Scholar; Thomas, JAC, Textbook of Roman Law (North-Holland Publishing 1976) 131–7Google Scholar.

28 Kasirer, N, ‘Translating Part of France's Legal Heritage: Aubry and Rau on the Patrimoine’ (2008) 38 RGD 453, 464–5Google Scholar.

29 Code civil du Québec/Quebec Civil Code, art 2.

30 Zenati, F, ‘Mise en perspectives de la théorie du patrimoine’ (2003) 4 RTD civ 667Google Scholar, 667; Kasirer (n 28) 457.

31 Quebec Research Centre of Private and Comparative Law, Private Law Dictionary and Bilingual Lexicons (Les Éditions Yvon Blais 1991) (Bilingual Lexicons) 223Google Scholar.

32 UK House of Lords: European Union Committee, The EU's Regulation on Succession: Report with Evidence (6th Report of Session 2009–10) 14.

33 See Akkermans (n 26) 6–7; Braun, A, ‘Italy’ in Glasson, J and Thomas, G (eds), The International Trust (Jordan Publishing 2006) 811Google Scholar. cf Smits, J, The Making of European Private Law (Intersentia 2002) 249–52Google Scholar.

34 Bilingual Lexicons (n 31) 254.

35 Bolgár, V, ‘Why No Trusts in the Civil Law?’ (1953) 2 AmJCompL 204Google Scholar, 210; Wright, LA, ‘Trusts and the Civil Law: A Comparative Study’ (1964) 6 UWOLRev 114Google Scholar, 116. cf Waters, Gillen and Smith (n 8) 15.

36 See Glenn, HP, Legal Traditions of the World (4th edn, OUP 2010) 150CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 P Matthews, ‘The Compatibility of the Trust with the Civil Law Notion of Property’ in Smith, The Worlds of the Trust (n 3) 335; Lupoi, M, Trusts: A Comparative Study (Dix, Simon trans, CUP 2000), 81–2Google Scholar, 179–83.

38 Bolgár (n 35) 210.

39 Bolgár (n 35) 204.

40 Alfaro, RJ, ‘The Trust and the Civil Law with Special Reference to Panama’ (1951) 33 JCompLeg 25Google Scholar, 25.

41 Raffenne (n 22) 77.

42 Gretton, G, ‘Owning Rights and Things’ (1997) 8 StellenboschLRev 176Google Scholar, 176, n 6.

43 cf Honoré (n 15) 9–11.

44 Johnston, D, The Roman Law of Trusts (Clarendon Press 1988) 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 See eg Oosterhoff et al. (n 23) 52–3. cf Lee, RW, Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law (3rd edn, 1931) 372Google Scholar.

46 Melville, RD, A Manual of the Principles of Roman Law (3rd edn, Green & Son 1921) 279–82Google Scholar; Matthews (n 37) 331–5.

47 Ibid 332–3.

48 D Waters, ‘The Future of the Trust from a Worldwide Perspective’ in Glasson and Thomas (n 33) 865.

49 See eg Quebec Civil Code, arts 1240–1255.

50 See Carey Miller, DL, ‘Transfer of Ownership’ and G Gretton, ‘Trusts’ in Reid, K and Zimmermann, R (eds), A History of Private Law in Scotland (OUP 2000) 269–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 480–517, respectively.

51 Gretton (n 50) 480–517; Gretton, ‘Trusts without Equity’ (2000) 49 ICLQ 599, 605.

52 Gretton (n 51) 608–15, 619; Reid, KGC, ‘Patrimony not Equity: the Trust in Scotland’ in Milo, JM and Smits, JM (eds), Trusts in Mixed Legal Systems (Ars Aequi Libri 2001) 19, 22–4Google Scholar, 27; Anderson, RG, ‘Words and Concepts: Trust and Patrimony’ in Burrows, A, Johnston, D and Zimmermann, R (eds), Judge and Jurist: Essays in Memory of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (OUP 2013) 355–64Google Scholar.

53 Dalrymple, J, 1st Viscount of Stair, Institutions of the Law of Scotland (I, 13, 7, 1681)Google Scholar; Reid (n 52) 21.

54 Govan New Bowling-Green Club v Geddes (1898) 25 R 485, 492 per Lord McLaren; Reid (n 52) 21.

55 Heritable Reversionary Co Ltd v Miller (1892) 12 R(HL) 43, 46 per Lord Watson; Reid (n 52) 21.

56 Reid (n 52) 21.

57 Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921 (UK) 12 Geo 5, c 58.

58 Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921, section 2.

59 Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921, section 20.

60 Inland Revenue v Clarke's Trs (1939) SC 11, 22 per Lord President Normand; Sharp v Thomson (1995) SC 455, 475 per Lord President Hope (reversed on a different point: (1997) SC(HL) 66); Reid (n 52) 22.

61 Trust Property Control Act 1988 (S Afr) No 57 of 1988, section 1; Honoré, T, ‘On Fitting Trusts into Civil Law Jurisdictions’ (2008) Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper 27/2008) 10–11Google Scholar.

62 F du Toit, ‘Jurisprudential Milestones in the Development of Trust Law in South Africa's Mixed Legal System’ in Smith, The Worlds of the Trust (n 3) 257.

63 MJ de Waal, ‘The Reception of the Trust in South African Law’ in Milo and Smits (n 52) 43, 47–8.

64 Estate Kemp v McDonald's Trustee [1915] AD 491 (S Afr SC).

65 Ibid 508.

66 ibid 499.

67 Clarry, D, ‘The Offshore Trustee en bon père de famille’ (2014) 18(1) Jersey and Guernsey Law Review 5, 26–35Google Scholar.

68 C I R v MacNeillie's Estate (1961) 3 SA 833, 840 G–H per Steyn CJ.

69 Braun v Blann and Botha NNO (1984) 2 SA 850, [65] per Joubert JA.

70 Trust Property Control Act 1988 (S Afr) No 57 of 1988, section 1.

71 Law No 24, 441 (Argentina, adopted 22 December 1994; enacted 9 January 1995) arts 1, 13 (translated by Marcos Zunino).

72 Ibid, art 73; Argentina Civil Code, art 2662 (translated by Marcos Zunino).

73 Colombian Commercial Code, art 1244 (translated by Juan Pinto).

74 Republic of Panama, Law No 1 of January 5, 1984 (Panama Trust Law) art 1; Executive Decree No 16 of October 3, 1984 (Panama) art 2a.

75 Owens, R, ‘Panama’ in Gothard, C and Shah, S (eds), The World Trust Survey (OUP 2010) 471Google Scholar.

76 Alfaro (n 40) 29.

77 Panama Trust Law (n 74) art 26.

78 Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art 2 (emphasis added).

79 Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art 24; Matthews, P and SowdenQC, T, Jersey Law of Trusts (3rd edn, Key Haven Publications 1993) 8, 99Google Scholar.

80 Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art 55(1) (emphasis added).

81 Hawksford v Giffard [1896] UKPC 63, 2, 5, 6.

82 Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007, sections 1, 80(1).

83 Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007, section 30.

84 Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007, section 75(1)(a) (emphasis added).

85 Dawes, G, Laws of Guernsey (Hart Publishing 2003) 138Google Scholar; Ashton, R, An Analysis of the Guernsey Law of Trusts (Key Haven Publications 1998) 1–3Google Scholar, 21–5.

86 See Waters, Gillen and Smith (n 8) 15.

87 Trust Property Control Act 1988 (RSA), section 1.

88 Ibid; Cameron et al., Honoré's South African Law of Trusts (5th edn, Juta & Co 2007) 272–7; Honoré (n 61) 10–11; Waters, Gillen and Smith (n 8) 1345. Compare Hayton, DJ, Kortmann, SCJJ and Verhagen, HLE (eds), Principles of European Trust Law (Kluwer 1999) 13Google Scholar.

89 Trust Property Control Act 1988 (RSA), section 1. See also Waters (n 48) 870–1; Cameron et al. (n 88) 7.

90 Cameron et al. (n 88) 276.

91 Louisiana Civil Code, 2006 RS 9, arts 1731 and 1781. ‘Title’ is not defined in the ‘Definitions’ section of the Louisiana Trust Code, which is contained in art 1725 of the Louisiana Civil Code.

92 Gruning, DW, ‘Reception of the Trust in Louisiana: The Case of Reynolds v Reynolds’ (1982) 57 Tulane LR 89, 102–21Google Scholar. cf Reynolds v Reynolds (1980) 388 So 2d 1135, 1138–39 per Summers CJ (plurality) and 1140 per Dennis J (dissent).

93 AN Yiannopoulos, ‘Trust and the Civil Law: The Louisiana Experience’ in Milo and Smits (n 52) 55, 67; Yiannopoulos, AN, ‘Property’, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise (4th edn, St Paul West 2001) vol 2, 480Google Scholar. cf Martin, EF, ‘Louisiana's Law of Trusts 25 Years after Adoption of the Trust Code’ (1990) 50 LaLRev 511Google Scholar; M McAuley, ‘Truth and Reconciliation: Notions of Property in Louisiana's Civil and Trust Codes’ in Smith, Re-imagining the Trust (n 3) 130, n 13.

94 Louisiana Civil Code, arts 1783 and 1801, respectively.

95 Louisiana Civil Code, art 1808.

96 Louisiana Civil Code, arts 1931 and 1989.

97 Louisiana Civil Code, arts 1981 to 1986.

98 Louisiana Civil Code, arts 1982 and 1983.

99 Louisiana Civil Code, arts 2091, 2094 and 2069, respectively.

100 Louisiana Trust Code, art 1731 (‘[a] trust… is the relationship resulting from transfer of title to property to a person to be administered by him as a fiduciary for the benefit of another’). Compare McAuley (n 93) 163–82.

101 Huixing, L, The Draft Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010) 73–107Google Scholar (especially arts 270–404); Lee, R, ‘Conceptualizing the Chinese Trust’ (2009) 58(3) ICLQ 655, 661–3Google Scholar; L Ho, ‘The People's Republic of China’ in Glasson and Thomas (n 33) 825–38; Waters (n 48) 872.

102 Trust Law of the People's Republic of China (Order of the President, No 50, adopted at the 21st Meeting of the Standing Committee, Ninth National People's Congress, 28 April 2001 and in effect 1 October 2001) (Chinese Trust Law), art 2 (official translation at <http://www.gov.cn/english/laws/2005-09/12/content_31194.htm>).

103 Chinese Trust Law (n 102) arts 15 and 30. cf n 177 (below) and accompanying text for the English position.

104 Chinese Trust Law (n 102) art 2.

105 Chinese Trust Law (n 102) art 15.

106 Ibid.

107 Chinese Trust Law (n 102) art 16.

108 Chinese Trust Law (n 102) art 33 (emphasis added).

109 Compare Lee (n 101) 661–3; L Ho, ‘Trust Laws in China: history, ambiguity and beneficiary's rights’ in Smith, Re-imagining the Trust (n 3) 183, 184–85, 192–217; R Lee, ‘Convergence and Divergence in the Worlds of the Trust: Duties and Liabilities under the Chinese Trust’ in Smith, The Worlds of the Trust (n 3) 406, 408–10; Ho, L, ‘The Reception of the Trust in Asia: Emerging Asian Principles of Trust?’ [2004] SingJLS 287, 293–6Google Scholar.

110 Lepaulle, P, ‘An Outsider's View Point of the Nature of Trusts’ (1928) 14 CornellLQ 52Google Scholar, 55. See also Lepaulle, P, ‘Civil Law Substitutes for Trusts’ (1926) 36 YaleLJ 1126Google Scholar; Lepaulle, P, ‘Trusts and the Civil Law’ (1933) 15 JCompLeg 18Google Scholar. cf Smith, L, ‘Trust and Patrimony’ (2009) 28 ETPJ 332Google Scholar; Battifol, H, ‘Trusts: The Trust Problem as seen by a French Lawyer’ (1951) 33 JCompLeg 18Google Scholar.

111 M Cantin Cumyn, ‘The Quebec Trust: a Civilian Institution with English Law Roots’ in Milo and Smits (n 52) 73, 76.

112 Code civil du Québec/Quebec Civil Code, art 1261.

113 Cantin Cumyn (n 111) 80.

114 Smith (n 110) 336.

115 Smith (n 110) 336–7; DWM Waters, ‘The Institution of the Trust in Civil and Common Law’ (1995) 252 Rec des Cours 113, 449.

116 Hayton, Kortmann and Verhagen (n 88) 4.

117 Quebec Civil Code, art 1266.

118 Quebec Civil Code, art 1278.

119 Quebec Civil Code, art 1261.

120 Cantin Cumyn (n 111) 76, 78, respectively. See also M Cantin Cumyn, ‘Reflections regarding the diversity of ways in which the trust has been received or adapted in civil law countries’ in Smith, Re-imagining the Trust (n 3) 20–2.

121 Royal Trust Co v Tucker [1982] 1 SCR 250, 264–273 (SCC).

122 Waters (n 48) 875; Pasquel, RM, ‘The Mexican Fideicomiso: The Reception, Evolution and Present Status of the Common Law Trust in a Civil Law Country’ (1969) 8 ColumJTransnatlL 54, 62–75Google Scholar.

123 Cantin Cumyn (n 111) 81.

124 cf Quebec Civil Code, art 947 (‘Ownership may be in various modes and dismemberments.’); Y Emerich, ‘The Civil Law Trust: A Modality of Ownership or An Interlude in Ownership?’ in Smith, The Worlds of the Trust (n 3) 21.

125 Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition (1985) (Hague Trusts Convention).

126 Lupoi (n 37) 201–5, 327–66, 368–86; Lupoi, M, ‘The Hague Convention, the Civil Law and the Italian Experience’ (2007) 21 TLI 80Google Scholar, 834.

127 Braun (n 33) 806; Lupoi (n 37) 83.

128 von Overbeck, AE, Explanatory Report on the 1985 Hague Trusts Convention (Bettmeralp 1985) 383–4Google Scholar, 397–400.

129 Hague Trusts Convention (n 125) arts 6 and 7.

130 Braun (n 33) n 34.

131 Hague Trusts Convention (n 125) arts 13, 15, 16, 18.

132 Hague Trusts Convention (n 125) art 13.

133 Swiss Private International Law Act (1987) art 149c; L Smith, ‘Stateless Trusts’ in Smith, The Worlds of the Trust (n 3) 93.

134 A Braun, ‘The Framing of a European Law of Trusts’ in Smith, The Worlds of the Trust (n 3) 282, n 20.

135 cf Smith (n 133) 94; Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 (UK); J Harris, The Hague Trusts Convention: Scope, Application and Preliminary Principles (Hart 2002) 343.

136 Hague Trusts Convention (n 125) art 18.

137 eg Lupoi (n 37) 81.

138 R Wibier, ‘Can a Modern Legal System Do without the Trust?’ in Smith, The Worlds of the Trust (n 3) 67.

139 Ibid–70.

140 ibid.

141 Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676, 684 (CA).

142 eg Anderson, H et al. , ‘The Evolution of Shareholder and Creditor Protection in Australia: An International Comparison’ (2012) 61 ICLQ 171, 197–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143 Wibier (n 138) 69, quoting Professor Meijers.

144 See Hesselink, MW, ‘The Ideal of Codification and the Dynamics of Europeanisation: The Dutch Experience’ (2006) 12 ELJ 279Google Scholar.

145 Wibier (n 138) 68–72, citing Dutch Civil Code, Book 3, arts 84(3), 276, 277(1).

146 Ibid.

147 ibid.

148 Hayton, Kortmann and Verhagen (n 88) 13, 38–43. cf Smits (n 33) 264.

149 Hayton, Kortmann and Verhagen (n 88) 13 (emphasis added).

150 Hayton, Kortmann and Verhagen (n 88) 38–39, 43, respectively.

151 von Bar, C and Clive, E (eds), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) (2009) vol 6, 5691Google Scholar (emphasis added).

152 Clarry, ‘The Worlds of the Trust’ (n 3) 145–6. Compare A Braun, ‘Trusts in the Draft Common Frame of Reference: The “Best Solution” For Europe?’ (2011) 70 CLJ 327; Braun (n 134) 277.

153 cf Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (UK).

154 cf S Grundmann, ‘Trust and Treuhand in the 20th Century’ in Helmholz, R and Zimmermann, R (eds), Itinera Fiduciae: Trust and Treuhand in Historical Perspective (Duncker & Humblot 1998) 469–93Google Scholar.

155 Smits (n 33) 264–5.

156 See Matthews, P, ‘Fiducia and the Hague Trusts Convention: The New Luxembourg Law’ (2003) 18 TLI 188Google Scholar. See also Grimaldi, M and Barrière, F, ‘Trust and Fiducie’ in Hartkamp, A et al. (eds), Towards a European Civil Code (3rd edn, Kluwer 2004) 787–805Google Scholar.

157 Loi du 19 fevrier 2007 of France, Interview in Les Echos, 26 June 2006, quoted and cited in Matthews, P, ‘The French fiducie: And Now for Something Completely Different?’ (2007) 21 TLI 17, 18, 19Google Scholar.

158 Loi du 27 juillet 2003, quoted and cited in Matthews (n 157) 18.

159 Romanian Civil Code, arts 773–91.

160 Hayton, Kortmann and Verhagen (n 88) 196–8.

161 Waters (n 48) 875.

162 See eg Grundmann (n 154); Würdinger, H, ‘The German Trust’ (1951) 33 JCompLeg 31Google Scholar; Grundmann, S, ‘Trust and Treuhand at the End of the 20th Century’ (1999) 47 AmJCompL 401Google Scholar.

163 F Barrière, ‘The Security Fiducie in French Law’ in Smith, The Worlds of the Trust (n 3) 101, 103–8, 119–23, 140. See also F Barrière, ‘The French fiducie, or the Chaotic Awakening of a Sleeping Beauty’ in Smith, Re-imagining the Trust (n 3) 222; B Mallet-Bricout, ‘The Trustee: Mainspring, Or Only a Cog, in the French fiducie?’ in Smith, The Worlds of the Trust (n 3) 141.

164 cf Hayton, DJ, Matthews, P and Mitchell, C, Underhill and Hayton: Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees (18th edn, LexisNexis 2010) 2Google Scholar.

165 Uniform Statutory Trust Entity Act 2009, Prefatory Note.

166 Uniform Statutory Trust Entity Act 2009, section 307 (Comment) (emphasis added).

167 cf Hansmann, H & Kraakman, R, ‘The Essential Role of Organizational Law’ (2000) 110 YaleLJ 387, 390–8Google Scholar, 405–6, 416–17; Sitkoff, R, ‘An Agency Costs Theory of Trust Law’ (2004) 89 CornellLRev 621, 631–3Google Scholar, 641–3.

168 Maitland, FW, ‘The Unincorporate Body’ and ‘Trust and Corporation’ in , Fisher (ed), The Collected Papers of Fredrick William Maitland (Cambridge 1911) 271–84Google Scholar and 321–404, respectively (emphasis added).

169 See Smith, L, ‘Mistaking the Trust’ (2010) 40 HongKongLJ 787, 800–2Google Scholar.

170 Matthews (n 37) 316.

171 Hogg, JE, ‘Why Not Restate the English Law of Ownership of Land’ (1921) 30 YaleLJ 581Google Scholar.

172 Salmond (n 6) 220.

173 Harris, JW, ‘Reason or Mumbo Jumbo: The Common Law's Approach to Property’ (2002) Proceedings of the British Academy 445, 454–70Google ScholarPubMed.

174 Fox, D, ‘Relativity of Title at Law and in Equity’ (2006) 65 CLJ 330, 332Google Scholar (Fox goes on to say, ‘title is best understood as referring to a claim to an asset arising from a proprietary interest’ (333), but that usage of ‘title’ in a trust context would pit the trustee (with legal title) against the beneficiary (with equitable title) in a rivalrous relationship with respect to trust property, which does not adequately describe property that is the subject of trust administration nor the roles played by each of the beneficiary and trustee in active or open trusts—see eg McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424, 456–457 per Lord Reid, Viscount Dilhorne and Lord Wilberforce).

175 Sir Megarry, R, A Manual of the Law of Real Property (Oakley, AJ (ed), 8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2002)Google Scholar lxxix (cf ‘[a]bstract of title: an epitome of documents and facts showing ownership’ (lxxv, 158); ‘ownership’ is not defined; however, ‘beneficial owner: [is] a person entitled for his own benefit and not, e.g. as trustee’ (lxxv) (original emphasis)).

176 Re Flower and Metropolitan Board of Works (1884) 27 ChD 592, 596 per Kay J; Wyman v Paterson [1900] AC 271, 288 per Lord Davey; WF Fratcher, Scott on Trusts (4th edn, 1987) [175].

177 Browne v Butter (1857) 24 Beav 159, 161–162 per Romilly MR; Lewis v Nobbs (1878) 8 ChD 591; Webb v Jonas (1888) 39 ChD 660.

178 Honoré (n 15) 11.

179 Compare Emerich (n 124) 21.

180 cf Glenn (n 36) 431–2, 435–8.

181 eg Hayton, Kortmann and Verhagen (n 88) 38–9, 43. See also (n 148) and accompanying text.

182 Hayton, Kortmann and Verhagen (n 88) 13. cf Smits (n 33) 264.

183 Smith (n 169) 788; Waters (n 115) 449; Waters (n 48) 864. See also Fox, D, ‘Non-Excludable Trustee Duties’ (2011) 17 Trusts & Trustees 17, 18Google Scholar.

184 Compare Hayton, D, ‘When is a Trust not a Trust?’ (1992) 1 JITCP 3Google Scholar; Brownbill, D, ‘When Is a Sham Not a Sham?’ (1993) 2 JITCP 13Google Scholar.

185 Hague Trusts Convention (n 125) arts 1, 2; Overbeck (n 128) 376–9. cf Convention on the Law Applicable to Agency, art 1, art 3(b); IGF Karsten, Explanatory Report on the Hague Agency Convention (Hague Conference 1978) 414–15. The Hague Trusts Convention (with 12 signatories) is relatively successful, compared with the Hague Agency Convention (with only four signatories from civilian jurisdictions—ie Argentina, France, the Netherlands and Portugal), which suggests a general unwillingness of States, especially in the common law tradition, to recognize and enforce agency relationships internationally. That same reticence is not present in the case of trusts, though.

186 Lupoi, M, ‘The Shapeless Trust’ (1995) 1 Trusts & Trustees 15Google Scholar.

187 cf McLean v Burns Philp Trustee Co Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 623, 629 per Young J; DKLR Holding Co (No 2) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1980] 1 NSWLR 510, 519.

188 eg Maitland (n 168) 272–3.

189 cf Rudden, B, ‘Things as Thing and Things as Wealth’ (1994) 14 OJLS 81Google Scholar, 82, 86; Smith (n 110) 333.

190 See eg McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424, 456–457 per Lord Reid, Viscount Dilhorne and Lord Wilberforce and above n 174.

191 Glenn v FCT (1915) 20 CLR 490, 497.

192 cf R Tunnicliffe, Offshore Trusts: Tax Rules & Trust Concepts (CCH 2003) 6.

193 FW Maitland, Equity and the Forms of Action (CUP 1910) 17 (original emphasis).

194 Senior Court Act 1981, section 49; Judicature Act 1873, section 25; Maitland (n 193) 17–18.

195 B Rudden (n 189) 89.

196 Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976, section 5, as amended by Financial Services Act 1986, section 194(1); Trustees Act 2000, Part IV.

197 See Heydon, JD and Leeming, MJ (eds), Jacob's Law of Trusts in Australia (7th edn, Butterworths 2006) 49–50Google Scholar.

198 cf Honoré (n 61) 7; The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, Trustees' Powers and Duties (Law Com, No 260; Scot Law Com, No 172) 61, n 3.

199 Gretton (n 51) 604.

200 cf Schmidt, TS, Trusts and Trust-like Devices (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1981)Google Scholar.

201 cf Harris (n 173) 454–70; Honoré, AM, ‘Ownership’ in Guest, AG (ed), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (OUP 1961) 107Google Scholar (‘Ownership is one of the characteristic institutions in human society.’); Honoré (n 13) 163 (‘Ownership is one of the key institutions of human society. It is also, in Western culture, the most important legal conception.’).

202 Waters (n 115) 432, 449.

203 cf Harris, JW, ‘Trust, Power and Duty’ (1971) 87 LQR 31, 48Google Scholar.

204 cf Sacco, R, ‘Diversity and Uniformity in the Law’ (2001) AmJCompL 171, 181Google Scholar, 182. On fiduciary loyalty, see generally Finn, PD, Fiduciary Obligations (Thomson Lawbook 1977)Google Scholar; Conaglen, M, Fiduciary Loyalty (Hart Publishing 2010)Google Scholar.

205 See eg Waters, Gillen and Smith (n 8) 16.

206 cf Hayton, Kortmann and Verhagen (n 88) 4; Honoré (n 61) 4.

207 Glenn (n 36) 155–60.

208 Vranken, M, Fundamentals of European Civil Law (2nd edn, Federation Press 2010) 41Google Scholar.

209 ibid 41–65; Adorno, TW, Negative Dialetics (EB Ashton trans, Routledge 1973) 19–24Google Scholar, 139–64, 174–7.

210 cf EN Lorenz, ‘Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas?’ (American Association for the Advancement of Science 1972); Lorenz, EN, ‘Atmospheric Predictability As Revealed by Naturally Occurring Analogues’ (1969) 26(4) Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 623Google Scholar.

211 See Glenn (n 36) 16.

212 Lepaulle, ‘An Outsider's View Point of the Nature of Trusts’ (n 110) 52.