{"title":"一个真正令人头痛的问题:大观诉黄案后的信托起草和正当目的规则","authors":"Tom McPhail","doi":"10.1093/tandt/ttad009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The decision of the Board of the Privy Council in Grand View v Wong has given much greater prominence to the proper purpose rule in the context of the exercise by trustees of their powers. This article argues that, while the apparent desire of the Board to control abuse of trust arrangements is understandable, the judgment risks undermining trustee decision-making and encouraging litigation and unnecessary court applications.","PeriodicalId":43396,"journal":{"name":"Trusts & Trustees","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A proper headache: trust drafting and the proper purpose rule after <i>Grand View v Wong</i>\",\"authors\":\"Tom McPhail\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tandt/ttad009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The decision of the Board of the Privy Council in Grand View v Wong has given much greater prominence to the proper purpose rule in the context of the exercise by trustees of their powers. This article argues that, while the apparent desire of the Board to control abuse of trust arrangements is understandable, the judgment risks undermining trustee decision-making and encouraging litigation and unnecessary court applications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttad009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trusts & Trustees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttad009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要枢密院在Grand View v Wong一案中的裁决，在受托人行使其权力的情况下，更加突出了正当目的规则。本文认为，虽然董事会明显希望控制信托安排的滥用是可以理解的，但该判决有可能破坏受托人的决策，并鼓励诉讼和不必要的法庭申请。
A proper headache: trust drafting and the proper purpose rule after Grand View v Wong
Abstract The decision of the Board of the Privy Council in Grand View v Wong has given much greater prominence to the proper purpose rule in the context of the exercise by trustees of their powers. This article argues that, while the apparent desire of the Board to control abuse of trust arrangements is understandable, the judgment risks undermining trustee decision-making and encouraging litigation and unnecessary court applications.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
