Abstract In Perpetual Trust Ltd v Cooke the New Zealand Court of Appeal considered, for the first time at appellate level, how the general duty of care in s 29 of the Trusts Act 2019 (NZ) relates to the principle of non-intervention in discretionary trustee decisions. The Court held that s 29 is not a vehicle for a merits review. It governs how a trustee implements a discretionary decision, not whether the decision was the best available. Applying the established grounds of intervention, it reversed findings of breach of trust as to one property and upheld them as to another.
Abstract The recent decision of The General Division of the High Court (Family Division) in YFW v YFX [2026] SGHCF 22 provides a structured framework for determining whether assets placed in a trust should be taken into account in the division of matrimonial assets. The Court identified three possible approaches: excluding the trust assets from the matrimonial pool, unwinding the trust and including the assets directly, or upholding the trust while notionally attributing its value to the matrimonial pool. This Article examines the decision, including the facts of the case and factors which point the Court towards adopting a particular approach.
Abstract Two Swiss Federal Supreme Court decisions have reshaped the exposure of foreign trustees whose settlors die domiciled in Switzerland. In BGer 5A_89/2024, the court held that assets of an irrevocable discretionary structure fall outside the estate and that naming an heir as beneficiary does not trigger hotchpot under Article 626 CC, although transfers remain open to abatement. In BGer 5A_347/2024, it held that the 1-year period of Article 533(1) CC runs separately against each recipient and starts only once the forced heir knows that recipient’s identity. The article translates this into trustee practice and shows why the Singapore and Hong Kong firewalls operate only at enforcement.
Abstract Protectors have been the focus of much attention recently, as higher courts have contemplated the extent of their role. In a timely parallel, the fiduciary industry has begun to focus on the implications of invisibles clauses, which sit discreetly in the small print of banking contracts worldwide. With potentially catastrophic consequences for beneficiaries, trustees are tasked with bringing invisibles clauses to light to avoid liability for breach of fiduciary duty. How should protectors best engage with trustees on the same issue in discharge of their duties? This article considers this question in a clear and pragmatic way.
Abstract This article undertakes a functional comparison of English and Romanian law, focusing on the issue of trusts and fiducia being used to place assets beyond the reach of future creditors. In both systems, secured creditors holding pre-existing proprietary interests may directly pursue the transferred assets, whereas unsecured creditors must first seek judicial intervention to overcome the fiduciary barrier. Where prospective creditors are concerned, English law under s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and Romanian law under arts 1.562-1.565 of the Civil Code both allow the unwinding or disapplication of dispositions executed with the purpose of defeating future claims.
