In some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, the duty of care owed by an executor or trustee is defined by statute. Hong Kong however relies on the common law for this purpose. Learoyd v Whiteley (1887) 12 App Cas 727 and subsequent case law shows executors and trustees must have regard to three basic duties:

(a) to act prudently and safely;
(b) to acquire the best return for the beneficiaries;
(c) to act fairly between beneficiaries.

The level of care required by executors and trustees respectively is substantially the same. Indeed, s 2 of the Trustee Ordinance (Cap 29) provides:

"... the expression[s] "trust" and "trustee" extend ... to the duties incident to the office of a personal representative ..."

The first of the three core obligations referred to above is illustrated in the context of a professional trustee by the leading case of Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd [1980] Ch 515. The bank, as trustee, was held to have breached its obligations to 'act as a prudent man of business' by allowing a board of directors to take its own decisions on investing company funds in property which subsequently went down in value. The trustee was criticised for not ensuring that it had sufficient information to safeguard the assets of the trust. The fact that the board of directors consisted of a number of professionals, including two surveyors, an accountant, and a solicitor, did not exonerate the bank from liability. The shares of the company comprised virtually the whole of the trust fund and it was held that, as a professional trustee which held itself out to have greater expertise than a lay trustee, it was the bank's duty to ensure it had the relevant information at its disposal and to take a lead in managing and safeguarding the trust assets. In the words of Brightman J:

"Just as, under the law of contract, a professional person possessed of a particular skill is liable for breach of contract if he neglects to use the skill and experience which he professes, so I think that a professional corporate trustee is liable for breach of trust if loss is caused to the trust fund because it neglects to exercise the special care and skill which it professes to have."

This does not mean that trustees and executors may only invest in risk-free securities. What is important is the risk level of the entire portfolio rather than the risk involved in any particular investment. As Hoffman J said in Nestle v National Westminster Bank plc [1994] 1 All ER 118:

"Modern trustees acting within their investment powers are entitled to be judged by the standards of current portfolio theory, which emphasises the risk level of the entire portfolio rather than the risk attaching to each investment taken in isolation."

The Duty to Acquire the Best Possible Return for Beneficiaries

In Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch 270, Arthur Scargill was the president of the English National Union of Mineworkers and was also a trustee of the miners' pension fund. Mr Scargill wanted his fellow trustees to adopt an 'ethical' investment policy which excluded investments in South Africa or energy undertakings in competition with the coal industry.

The Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, held that when the purpose of a trust is to provide financial benefits for the beneficiaries, the best interests of the beneficiaries are their best financial interests. Therefore, the duty of the trustees to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries is to generate the best available return on the trust fund regardless of other considerations. Trustees must also be wary of favouring one class of beneficiaries over another, for example by selecting high income stocks for the benefit of the life tenant to the detriment of the reversioner.

This is what happened in the New Zealand case of Re Mulligan (Deceased) [1998] 1 NZLR 481. In that case, Mr Mulligan died in 1949 leaving a will trust. His widow received a legacy and life interest in the trust fund which on her death was to be divided between Mr Mulligan's 10 nephews and nieces. The trustees were Mrs Mulligan and PGG Trust Ltd.

It emerged that Mrs Mulligan had insisted on fixed interest investments which provided her with a good income, and the other trustee was sued for failing to balance the interests of the life tenant with those of the beneficiaries in remainder. PGG Trust Ltd, as professional trustee, was shown to have been aware of the need to balance the portfolio, but had not acted in the face of Mrs Mulligan's opposition. The judge held PGG Trust Ltd was in breach of its duty as a professional trustee by having failed to insist on properly advising Mrs Mulligan as co-trustee. The trustees were jointly liable and bound to restore the value of the fund to what it would have been had a balanced portfolio of loan stocks and equities been purchased by the trustees.

Executors and trustees may however reduce the level of obligation laid upon them through means of an exoneration clause in the will or trust deed. In Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241, the English Court of Appeal held that an exoneration clause might validly exempt trustees from liability for all breaches of trust except those where the trustee is guilty of fraud or wilful default. However, such clauses are usually construed narrowly and anything not clearly within the ambit of the clause is usually treated as falling outside it. A trustee will not be able to rely on such a clause to exonerate him for a dishonest breach. In Armitage, Millett LJ commented, with respect to professional trustees, that:

"... trustees who charge for their services and who, as professional men, would not dream of excluding liability for ordinary professional negligence should not be able to rely on a trustee exemption clause excluding liability for gross negligence."

The English High Court has recently reviewed the effect of an exoneration clause in the context of a family settlement in the case of Barnes v Tomlinson [2006] EWHC 3115 (Ch). The claimants brought an action for breach of trust against the trustees of a deed of settlement which Mr Barnes had set up for the benefit of his children and grandchildren. The trust included shares in a company called Elizabethan House Trust Limited (EHT). The breaches of trust asserted included the alleged receipt of excessive emoluments from EHT whilst acting as its directors; resigning as directors of EHT when they had obligations to the beneficiaries of the trust; wrongfully accepting ex gratia payments from EHT; and failing to take any steps to remove two other directors from EHT when their trustee duties indicated they should do so. The court found entirely in favour of the defendants. Although the trustees were always subject to the core duties of honesty and good faith, the terms of the settlement deed gave the trustees full discretion in their actions. They also benefited from wide exclusion clauses (save for cases of wilful fraud or wrongdoing). The trustees had all claims against them dismissed, and were awarded indemnity costs.
It should be noted that s 60 of the Trustee Ordinance gives the court the power to wholly or partly relieve a trustee from personal liability where it appears that the trustee is or may be:

"... personally liable for any breach of trust ... but has acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust and for omitting to obtain the directions of the court in the matter in which he committed such breach ..."

However, this provision is unlikely to be used to grant relief to professional executors or trustees. In Re Waterman's Will Trusts; Lloyds Bank Ltd v Sutton [1952] 2 All ER 1054, Harman J stated: 

"A paid trustee is expected to exercise a higher standard of diligence and knowledge than an unpaid trustee."

The cases suggest that the courts have difficulty with the concept of any breach of trust by a professional trustee being characterised as reasonable so as to found a successful application under s 60.

Defending Professional Fees

Solicitors acting as professional executors or trustees are of course bound to adhere to the relevant professional standards laid down by the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159). No trustee or executor is entitled to be remunerated at all unless the will or trust deed contains an appropriate charging clause, as it is a cardinal principle that a trustee or executor should not profit from his office. In England, the Trustee Act 2000 provides that a professional trustee is entitled to reasonable remuneration notwithstanding the absence of an express charging clause. Disputes about the level of a professional trustee's remuneration may ultimately be determined by the court. In the case of a solicitor executor or trustee, this is achieved through the court's procedures for the taxation of solicitors?bills. In the case of any non-solicitor professional trustee, the court has inherent jurisdiction to determine the matter by calling for an account and enquiry.

Money Laundering and the Proceeds of Crime

It is important to remember that offshore trusts and other vehicles are often used to hold the proceeds of crime. Thus there may both civil and criminal consequences. If, for example, the proceeds of fraud are settled into trust, the trustee will hold the trust assets for the person who has been defrauded, not for the beneficiaries stated in the trust deed. He may be liable to account to the true owner of the assets if he deals with trust funds in a manner inconsistent with the title of the true owner. On the criminal side, the trustee may unwittingly commit a money laundering offence by facilitating the acquisition, retention or use of criminal property.

Conclusion

With increasing regulation in both onshore and offshore jurisdictions, professional trustees and executors have to be even more careful. Meanwhile, beneficiaries are better informed and more inclined to question the performance of professionals. In particular, the present economic climate will lead many beneficiaries to scrutinise investment performance.



Patrick Hamlin
Partner
Withers LLP
patrick.hamlin@withersworldwide.com

專業遺囑執行與託管的風險
Patrick Hamlin概述了遺產和信託的專業受託人所須承擔的基本及更高責任。

在某些司法管轄區（例如英格蘭和威爾士），遺囑執行人或受託人承擔的謹慎責任由法律界定。然而，香港在這方面卻依賴普通法。Learoyd v Whiteley (1887) (12 App Cas 727) 一案及其後的判例顯示，遺囑執行人和受託人必須關注三項基本責任：

(a) 審慎、安全行事；
(b) 為受益人獲取最佳回報；
(c) 在受益人之間公平行事。

對遺囑執行人和受託人所要求的謹慎程度基本相同。《受託人條例》（第29章）第2條規定：

「信託」及「受託人」兩詞均擴及…遺產代理人一職所附帶的職責…

在先導案例Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd ([1980] Ch 515) 中有關專業受託人的部分，說明了上述三項核心義務中的第一項。作為受託人，該銀行允許董事局自行決定將公司資金投資於其後跌價的物業，從而被裁定違反「以一名謹慎業務經營者之身分行事」的義務。該受託人被批評為未確保自身擁有充分的資料以保障信託資產。雖然董事局由若干專業人士組成，包括兩名測量師、一名會計師及一名律師，但這並不能令銀行獲得解除法律責任。該公司的股份事實上包括整個信託基金，而法院裁定，作為顯示其比普通受託人更具專門知識的專業受託人，該銀行有責任確保自身擁有相關資料，並在管理和保障該信託資產方面起領導作用。拿Brightman J的話說：

「就如同根據合約法，擁有特定技能的專業人士如果疏忽運用自身通曉的技能與經驗，便須對違約承擔法律責任。因此本人認為，如果專業的企業受託人因疏忽行使其自稱擁有的特殊謹慎與技能，而導致信託基金蒙受損失，便須承擔違反信託的法律責任。」

這並不意味著受託人和遺囑執行人僅可投資於無風險證券。重要的是整個投資組合的風險水平，而非特定投資所涉及的風險。正如Hoffman J在Nestle v National Westminster Bank plc ([1994] 1 All ER 118) 一案中所言：

「在其投資權力範圍內行事的現代受託人，有權接受當前投資組合理論標準的判斷，該理論強調整個投資組合的風險水平，而非孤立考慮各項投資的相關風險。」

為受益人取得可能的最佳回報的責任

在Cowan v Scargill ([1985] Ch 270)案件中，Arthur Scargill是英國全國礦工工會的會長，並且是礦工退休基金的受託人。Scargill希望其同業採納「合乎倫理」的投資政策，不對南非或與煤炭行業競爭的能源企業進行投資。

Vice Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry認為，假如信託的目的是為受益人提供財務利益，那麼受益人的最佳利益便是其最佳財務利益。因此，受託人按受益人最佳利益行事的責任，便是尋求信託基金可以獲得的最佳回報，而不論其他考慮為何。受託人還必須當心，不要在各類受益人中厚此薄彼，例如，為使財產終身佔有人獲益而選擇高收益股票，從而損及復歸權益持有人之利益。

紐西蘭的Re Mulligan (Deceased) ([1998] 1 NZLR 481) 案件便出現這種情況。在該案件中，Mr Mulligan於1949年辭世，留下一份遺囑信託。他的遺孀得到一份遺產及信託基金的終身權益，並在其去世後分給Mr Mulligan的10名侄兒和侄女。受託人為Mrs Mulligan及PGG Trust Ltd。

在案件中，Mrs Mulligan堅持進行能為其帶來良好收入的固定利息投資，而另一名受託人因被指未能平衡財產終身佔有人和其餘受益人之間的利益而被起訴。有證據表明，PGG Trust Ltd作為專業受託人，已經知悉均衡投資組合的需要，但沒有因應Mrs Mulligan的反對而採取行動。法官認為，PGG Trust Ltd 未能作為共同受託人而堅持向Mrs Mulligan提供適當的意見，因此違反了自身作為專業受託人的責任。受託人共同負有責任，必須將基金的價值恢復到假如受託人購買貸款股與股本證券均衡組合時的程度。

然而，遺囑執行人和受託人可以通過遺囑或信託契約中的卸責條款，減輕自身承擔的義務程度。在 Armitage v Nurse ([1998] Ch 241)案件中，英國上訴法庭認為，免責條款能有效地令受託人豁免所有信託違約責任，除非受託人犯有欺詐或蓄意違約。然而，此類條款通常作狹義解釋，未明確屬於條款範圍之中的內容，並通常被認為是在條款的範圍以外。受託人將無法依賴該等條款，使自己免除欺詐性違約的責任。在Armitage案件中，Millett LJ 就專業受託人問題發表意見稱：

「…作為專業的並收取服務費用的受託人，他們既然不會夢想自己能夠獲得免除一般性的專業疏忽法律責任，便不應當被允許倚據受託人免責條款來獲得免除嚴重疏忽的法律責任。」

英國高等法院近期就Barnes v Tomlinson ([2006] EWHC 3115 (Ch)) 案件在家庭授產安排的背景下，檢討了卸責條款的作用。各申索人對與Mr Barnes為其子女和孫兒訂立的授產契有關的受託人提起信託違約訴訟。該信託包括一家名為Elizabethan House Trust Limited (EHT)公司的股份。所主張的信託違約，包括指稱在擔任其董事期間收取EHT的過多報酬；在對信託的受益人負有義務的時候，辭去EHT董事的職務；不當地接受EHT所給予的特惠支付；未能採取措施將另外兩位董事在EHT的職務撤銷，而其受託人責任表明，他們應當如此行事。法院作出完全有利於被告人的裁定。雖然受託人總是須遵守誠實善意的基礎責任，但授產契的條款讓受託人在行動中享受完全的酌情決定權。他們還得益於廣泛的排除條款（除了蓄意欺詐或不當行為的情況）。受託人遭受的一切申索均被撤銷，並獲判給彌償訟費。

應當指出的是，《受託人條例》第60條讓法院有權完全或部分免除受託人的個人責任，假如受託人：「… 對違反信託負有或可能負有個人法律責任 … 但受託人已誠實及合理地行事，並應公平地寬宥他違反信託及沒有就他的違反所涉及的事項向法院取得指示 …」

然而，該條文不太可能用來免除專業遺囑執行人或受託人的責任。在Re Waterman's Will Trusts; Lloyds Bank Ltd v Sutton ([1952] 2 All ER 1054)案件中，Harman J指出：

「收取費用的受託人在盡責和知悉方面，被要求能夠行使較不收費受託人為高的標準。」

這些案件表明， 假如認為專業受託人可以合理和成功地運用第60條的規定， 這將會令法院難以掌握違反信託的概念。

維護專業收費

擔當專業遺囑執行人或受託人的律師，當然必須遵守《法律執業者條例》（第159章）所制定的相關專業標準。受託人或遺囑執行人均無權取得報酬，除非遺囑或信託契約包含適當的收費條款，因為受託人或遺囑執行人不應當利用職務之便獲利，乃是一項基本原則。在英國，《2000年受託人法》規定，即使不存在明確的收費條款，專業受託人仍有權獲得合理的報酬。關於專業受託人報酬水平的爭議可最終由法院裁定。假如律師擔任遺囑執行人或受託人，便可通過對律師訟費單進行評定的法院程序來達至目的。假如是由非律師的人士擔任專業受託人，則法院可以利用固有的管轄權，要求作出陳述並提出質詢來對案件作出判決。

清洗黑錢與犯罪收益

必須謹記的是，離岸信託及其他工具經常被利用來持有犯罪得益，因而可能會產生民事及刑事後果。舉例來說，如果將來自欺詐的得益交付給信託，受託人便將會為受欺詐人士（而非信託契約中指明的受益人）持有信託資產。如果他處理信託基金的方式，與擁有該等資產的真正擁有人的所有權不符，則他可能須對該真正擁有人負上法律責任。在刑事方面，受託人可能為犯罪財產的取得、保留或使用提供便利，從而在無意之中犯下清洗黑錢的罪行。

結論

隨著海內外司法管轄區的監管日益嚴格，專業受託人和遺囑執行人必須更加謹慎。同時，受益人對情況亦越來越了解及更為傾向於質疑專業人士的表現。尤其是，當前的經濟狀況會促使許多受益人細察投資的表現。

Patrick Hamlin
Partner
Withers LLP
patrick.hamlin@withersworldwide.com