criticism, see L.S. When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. He said unequivocally that knowledge learnt by a trustee in the course of his duties is not property of the trust and may be used for his own benefit unless it is confidential information which is given to him (i) in circumstances which, regardless of his position as a trustee, would make it a breach of confidence to communicate it to anyone or (ii) in a fiduciary capacity. The House of Lords maintained the strict rule that historically equity has imposed on a fiduciary. xksgD2u$N+xH)%"dU &c~m_WMnny|t80^olIv"+E] mv}f"gv UY Fe_go_eu6[xGLBdUS-?b\4?s=}GO0upAQ![*`E"~ "And it is a rule of universal application, that no one, having such duties to discharge, shall be allowed to enter into engagements in which he has, or can have, a personal interest conflicting, or which possibly may conflict, with the interests of those whom he is bound to protect. Therefore the agent must account to the trust for any profit made out of the position. Boardman v Phipps (1967) was an example of the application of strict liability. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. In my view it means that the reasonable man looking at the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case would think that there was a real sensible possibility of conflict; not that you could imagine some situation arising which might, in some conceivable possibility in events not contemplated as real sensible possibilities by any reasonable person, result in a conflict.". The majority of the House of Lords (Lords Cohen, Guest and Hodson) held that there was a possibility of a conflict of interest, because the solicitor and beneficiary might have come to Boardman for advice as to the purchases of the shares. endobj No positive wrongdoing is proved or alleged against the appellants but they cannot escape from the consequences of their acts involving liability to the respondent unless they can prove consent.: p. 112A, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appellants hold the Lester & Harris shares as constructive trustees and are bound to account to the respondentIn the present case the knowledge and information obtained by Boardman was obtained in the course of the fiduciary position in which he had placed himself. <>>> The trust assets include a 27% holding in a textile company called Lexter & Harris. WI[y*UBNJ5U,`5B1F :IK6dtdj::yj Boardman v Phipps [1967] Where an individual is in the position of agent for trustees, any knowledge acquired in such a position is trust property. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian. Flower; Graeme Henderson). This decision was followed and applied in Boardman v Phipps. However they were generously remunerated for their services to the trust. Register, Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. endobj The majority agreed unanimously that liability to account for the profits made by virtue of a fiduciary relationship is strict and does not depend on fraud or absence of bona fides, and so Phipps and Boardman would have to account for their profits. Current issues of the journal are available at http://www.journals.cambridge.org/clj. Nicholas Collins, The no-conflict rule: the acceptance of traditional equitable values?, Trusts & Trustees, Volume 14, Issue 4, May 2008, Pages 213224, https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttn009. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal's range includes jurisprudence and legal history. 31334. 7 Boardman v. Phipps [1967] 2 A.C. 46, 124 per Lord Upjohn. will. (eg- acting for multiple people) a. Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways: Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. See below. Part II describes the rationales for adopting each of the approaches to awarding allowances to dishonest fiduciaries. overrule Boardman v Phipps.3 It should be noted that the majority in Boardman v Phipps were all-too-aware that they were imposing a constructive trust on a person who had acted in good faith. His statement has . The beneficiary principle in the 21st century, Subscription prices and ordering for this journal, Purchasing options for books and journals across Oxford Academic, Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic. Key Points. Facts: Boardman was solicitor of family trust, which included a 27% holding in a textile company. Unit 11. The strict liability of fiduciaries has been the subject of criticism on the grounds that His liability to account depends on the facts. [1] The trust assets include a 27% holding in a company (a textile company with factories in Coventry, Nuneaton and in Australia through a subsidiary). They were therefore liable for the profits earned. The trust assets include a 27% holding in a textile company called Lexter & Harris. Boardman had concerns about the state of Lexter & Harris' accounts and thought that, in order to protect the trust, a majority shareholding was required. In the present case, as the purchase of the shares was entirely out of the question, Regal Hastings was said to be inapplicable. Lord Cohen said the information is not truly property and it does not necessarily follow that, because an agent acquired information and opportunity while acting in a fiduciary capacity, he is accountable. Constructive trusts, unjust enrichment, tracing 2010 Cases, Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious academic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. Boardman and Tom Phipps, one of the beneficiaries under the trust, were unhappy with the state of the . Whether or not the trust or the beneficiaries in their stead could have taken advantage of the information is immaterial: p. 111A, The question whether or not there was a fiduciary relationship at the relevant time must be a question of law and the question of conflict of interest directly emerges from the facts pleaded, otherwise no question of entitlement to a profit would fall to be considered. The residuary estate included 8000 shares in J.ester & Harris Ltd., an underperforming private company with issued share capital of 3l),000 1 ordinary shares. This is a Premium document. The Appellant Phipps was Chairman of this company and Mr. Boardman was one of its directors. Lord Denning MR, Russell LJ and Pearson LJ upheld Wilberforce J's decision and held that Boardman and Phipps had breached his duty of loyalty, which arose as they had become self-appointed agents representing the trust, by putting themselves in a conflict of interest. In this Equity Short, John Picton analyses Boardman v Phipps [1966] UKHL 2. The proposition of law involved in this case is that no person standing in a fiduciary position, when a demand is made upon him by the person to whom he stands in the fiduciary relationship to account for profits acquired by him by reason of his fiduciary position and by reason of the opportunity and the knowledge, or either, resulting from it, is entitled to defeat the claim upon any ground save that he made profits with the knowledge and assent of the other person.: The appellants obtained knowledge by reason of their fiduciary position and they cannot escape liability by saying that they were acting for themselves and not as agents of the trustees. It concludes that the conduct-based approach in Boardman v Phipps should be rejected, and that the unjust enrichment-based approach provided by Warman International Ltd v Dwyer should be Lord Upjohn also agreed with Lord Cohen that information is not property at all, although equity will restrain its transmission if it has been acquired by a breach of confidence. in. This is a famous case in which John Phipps successfully claimed that, flowing fro. All rights reserved. 25% off till end of Feb! National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth (1965) Alison Dunn; 20. Rix LJ in Foster v Bryant4 was similarly equivocal to Arden LJ about the inflexibility of the test in Boardman v Phipps. Abstract. Did Boardman and Tom Phipps breach their duty to avoid a conflict of interest, despite the fact that the company made a profit and they had obtained (some) consent from the beneficiaries? He also obtained detailed trading accounts of the English and Australian arms of the business. If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutions website, please contact your librarian or administrator. Boardman and Tom Phipps, a beneficiary of the trust, attended a general meeting of the company. However, they would be able to retain a generous remuneration for the services he performed. 1 0 obj Shibboleth / Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutions website and Oxford Academic. Don't already have a personal account? Boardman was concerned about the accounts of the company, and thought that to protect the trust a majority shareholding is required. The Trustee (T) refused to let them invest on behalf of the trust. The majority unanimously agreed that liability to account for the profits due to a fiduciary relationship is strict; it does not depend on fraud or an absence of bona fides. 3 0 obj On this, Lord Denning MR said (at 1021). John Phipps and another beneficiary, sued for their profits, alleging a conflict of interest by Boardman and Phipps. BOARDMAN and Another v. PHIPPS Viscount Dilhorne Lord Cohen Lord Hodson Lord Guest Lord Upjohn. <>>> ", The phrase "possibly may conflict" requires consideration. In my view it means that the reasonable man looking at the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case would think that there was a real sensible possibility of conflict; not that you could imagine some situation arising which might, in some conceivable possibility in events not contemplated as real sensible possibilities by any reasonable person, result in a conflict.". Boardman and Phipps did not obtain the fully informed consent of all the beneficiaries. P0Y|',Em#tvx(7&B%@m*k P0Y|',Em#tvx(7&B%@m*k . When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. His "It is perhaps stated most highly against trustees or directors in the celebrated speech of Lord Cranworth L.C. S+QMS^ kUeH|8H4W,G*3R]wHgMY&,*Hu`IcFWB For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription. Boardman v Phipps is a leading authority on the no-conflict rule. Boardman had concerns about the state of Lexter & Harris accounts and thought that, in order to protect the trust, a majority shareholding was required. A breach of a fiduciary duty is of strict liability, regardless of their intention Boardman v Phipps 1967 1. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways: Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. However, the circumstances were quite different to those in Boardman v Phipps. Viscount Dilhorne and Lord Upjohn (DISSENTING): A COI only arises and renders a fiduciary liable to account for profits made where a reasonable man, looking at all the relevant circumstances, would conclude that there was a real, sensible possibility of conflict of interest, which was not the case here. However, they were generously remunerated for their services to the trust. &Thb;ynxP\ -|tLo9sRx[8-a5& 'vd `f@). Enter your library card number to sign in. <>/ExtGState<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/Annots[ 17 0 R 22 0 R 23 0 R 25 0 R 35 0 R 36 0 R 40 0 R 42 0 R] /MediaBox[ 0 0 594.96 842.04] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> endobj Become Premium to read the whole document. Lord Cohen said the information is not truly property and it does not necessarily follow that, because an agent acquired information and opportunity while acting in a fiduciary capacity, he is accountable. Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46. by Will Chen; 2.I or your money back Check out our premium contract notes! 2.I or your money backCheck out our premium contract notes! The case for tracing forward not backward through an overdraft. Part II describes the rationales for adopting each of the approaches to awarding allowances to dishonest fiduciaries. stream Request Permissions, Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal. However, to do this he needed a majority shareholding in the company. Pettitt v Pettitt (1970) and Gissing v Gissing (1971) John Mee; 22. Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596. fiduciary he was accountable to the beneficiaries for any profit he had made. Name of Case. ), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. The majority disagreed about the nature and relevance of information used by Boardman and Phipps. S;70[`J)LQ,ecX_LK,*q3>~ B=eA* However the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to make a monetary award to S for his services to improving the value of the trust. Land law - Introduction to land law with description of its history, Introduction to Sports Massage and Soft Tissue Practices, Legal and Professional Aspects of Optometry (BIOL30231), Access to Health Professionals (4000773X), Business Data Analysis (BSS002-6/Ltn/SEM1), Introductory Chemistry (0FHH0023-0901-2018), Introduction toLegal Theory andJurisprudence, Introduction to English Language (EN1023), Cell Membranes - Lecture notes, lectures 1 - 24. Boardman was concerned about the accounts of the company, and thought that to protect the trust a majority shareholding is required. They owed fiduciary duties (to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest) because they were negotiating over use of the trusts shares. Boardman was a solicitor to trustees of a will trust. They owed fiduciary duties (to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest) because they were negotiating over use of the trust's shares. 'Rules of equity have to be applied to such a great diversity of circumstances that they can be stated only in the most general terms and applied with particular attention to the exact circumstances of each case. They suggested to Mr Fox, a trustee, that it would be desirable to acquire a majority shareholding, but Fox disagreed. This is because there is no possibility the trustee would seek Boardman's advice to purchase the shares and at any rate Boardman could have declined to act if given such request. Published by Oxford University Press. 2 0 obj <> Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46, [1966] 3 WL R 1009, [1966] 3 All ER 721. principal shareholder group, Boardman obtained information about the factories of Lester & Harris in Coventry and Nuneaton and its property in Australia. Is it a conflict? The Trustee (T) refused to let them invest on behalf of the trust. Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 437. The solicitor to a family trust (S) and one Beneficiary (B)-there were several-went to the board meeting of a company in which the trust owned shares. Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Penn v Lord Baltimore (1750) Paul Mitchell . Lord Upjohn also agreed with Lord Cohen that information is not property at all, although equity will restrain its transmission if it has been acquired by a breach of confidence. F5aE}*?fxl1oA+;{ S>"~qOf~AcW|g[ VFaxb'o Tns34}#rPDB S;70[`J)LQ,ecX_LK,*q3>~ B=eA* In 1996 Mr Clarke settled 150,000 on trust to benefit various family members including his grandchildren, Brooke and Billy. Boardman v Phipps [1966] UKHL 2 is a landmark English trusts law case concerning the duty of loyalty and the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. WI[y*UBNJ5U,`5B1F :IK6dtdj::yj The trust property included a substantial shareholding in a private company. This has fuelled a more general debate as to whether the no-conflict rule should be harsh or more flexible. Priority of trustees indemnity inter se: pari passu or first in time priority? Such persons will, however, be entitled to payment on a liberal scale for their work and skill. law since Boardman v Phipps. way. 4 0 obj But then John Phipps, another beneficiary, sued for their profits, alleging a conflict of interest. Tom Boardman was a solicitor for a family trust. He and a beneficiary, Tom Phipps, went to a shareholders' general meeting of the company. The trustees were informed of these intentions. T he respondent, JP, was a son of the testator and a beneficiary under the . &Thb;ynxP\ -|tLo9sRx[8-a5& 'vd `f@). F5aE}*?fxl1oA+;{ S>"~qOf~AcW|g[ VFaxb'o Tns34}#rPDB Sealy, Commercial Law and Commercial Reality (London 1984), pp. Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46. View your signed in personal account and access account management features. endobj For faster navigation, this Iframe is preloading the Wikiwand page for Boardman v Phipps . It was irrelevant that S had acted in an open and honest (and profitable!) Boardman v Phipps answers this question: in the affirmative. Therefore, Boardman was speculating with trust property and should be liable. Another beneficiary (P) claimed conflict of interest and demanded her share of the profit, because of S fiduciary role. Proprietary relief in Boardman v Phipps 3 the trustees, although Ethel, who suffered from senile dementia, took no active role in the trust affairs at the material time. Tom Boardman was a solicitor for a family trust. A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions. 2011 Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal But when, as in this case, the agents acted openly and above board, but mistakenly, then it would be only just that they should be allowed remuneration. This article explores how the dissenting judgment of Lord Upjohn in Boardman v Phipps has been preferred by the lower courts and why the courts have adopted such a position. The House of Lords maintained the strict rule that historically equity has imposed on a fiduciary. The other two members of the majority, Lord Hodson and Lord Guest, opined that information can constitute property in appropriate circumstances and in the current case, the confidential information acquired can be properly regarded as property of the trust. The company made a distribution of capital without reducing the values of the shares. %PDF-1.5 Citation and Court [1967] 2 AC 46. This article explores . It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide, This PDF is available to Subscribers Only. Maguire v Makaronis 1997 infers that anyone under a fiduciary obligation must foreshow righteousness of their transactions. able to bring it back to profit, and the trust fund benefited. He attended the annual general meeting of Lester &amp; Harris Ltd, a company in which the trust had a substantial shareholding. xksgD2u$N+xH)%"dU &c~m_WMnny|t80^olIv"+E] mv}f"gv UY Fe_go_eu6[xGLBdUS-?b\4?s=}GO0upAQ![*`E"~ Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & Co (a . He (and a beneficiary) purchased shares in a company in which the trust already had a substantial holding. ", The phrase "possibly may conflict" requires consideration. privacy policy. This is because there is no possibility the trustee would seek Boardman's advice to purchase the shares and at any rate Boardman could have declined to act if given such request. They owed fiduciary duties (to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest) because they were negotiating over use of the trust's shares. It depends on the circumstances. As the judge said: "it would be inequitable now for the beneficiaries to step in and take the profit without paying for the skill and labour which has produced it.". View the institutional accounts that are providing access. Fiduciary duty and the exploits of commercial enterprise often run counter to each other, while in this instance the opportunistic actions of a solicitor produces a profitable outcome for all involved, but not without a cost to the integrity of their working relationships. In the present case, as the purchase of the shares was entirely out of the question, Regal Hastings was said to be inapplicable. Grey v Grey (1677) Jamie Glister; 4. Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in. House of Lords. This article is also available for rental through DeepDyve. They realised together that they could turn the company around. The trust benefited by this distribution 47,000, while Boardman and Phipps made 75,000. His Lordship regarded Boardman to be liable because he acquired the information in the course of the fiduciary relationship and because of the fiduciary relationship. . Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223. Administrative Law. They bought a majority stake. %PDF-1.5 Boardman and another trustee, Fox, therefore . endobj This species of action is an action for restitution such as Lord Wright described in the Fibrosa case. This article explores how the dissenting judgment of Lord Upjohn in Boardman v Phipps has been preferred by the lower courts and why the courts have adopted such a position. Boardman v Phipps (1967) was a classic illustration of the principles set out in Lord Russell's statement. Lord Upjohn dissented, and held that Phipps and Boardman should not be liable because a reasonable man would not have thought there was any real sensible possibility of a conflict of interest. % With the full knowledge of the trustees, Boardman and Phipps purchased a majority stake of the shares themselves. The majority of the House of Lords (Lords Cohen, Guest and Hodson) held that there was a possibility of a conflict of interest, because the solicitor and beneficiary might have come to Boardman for advice as to the purchases of the shares. They wanted to invest and improve the company. The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. The House of Lords maintained the strict rule that historically equity has imposed on a fiduciary. Judgement for the case Boardman v Phipps The solicitor to a family trust (S) and one Beneficiary (B)-there were several-went to the board meeting of a company in which the trust owned shares. It concludes that the conduct-based approach in Boardman v Phipps should be rejected, and that the unjust enrichment-based approach provided by Warman International Ltd v Dwyer should be Boardman v Phipps is a leading authority on the no-conflict rule. His Lordship distinguished Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver by restricting Regal Hastings to circumstances concerned with property of which the principals were contemplating a purchase. CASE BRIEF TEMPLATE. our website you agree to our privacy policy and terms. Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic. By capitalizing some of the assets, the company made a distribution of capital without reducing the values of the shares. endobj Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account. Boardman and Phipps would have to account for their profits, despite the fact they had best intentions and made the Lexter & Harris a profit. But they did not obtain the fully informed consent of all the beneficiaries. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Boardman V Phipps - Judgment - House of Lords House of Lords The majority of the House of Lords (Lords Cohen, Guest and Hodson) held that there was a possibility of a conflict of interest, because the solicitor and beneficiary might have come to Boardman for advice as to the purchases of the shares. BOARDMAN v PHIPPS. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian. Lord Upjohn dissented, and held that Phipps and Boardman should not be liable because a reasonable man would not have thought there was any real sensible possibility of a conflict of interest. Boardman v Phipps (1967) Michael Bryan; 21. Boardman was speculating with trust property and should be liable. Click the account icon in the top right to: Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. 39^40. This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. The majority agreed unanimously that liability to account for the profits made by virtue of a fiduciary relationship is strict and does not depend on fraud or absence of bona fides, and so Phipps and Boardman would have to account for their profits. <> For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Lord Cohen (on a point with which Hodson and Cohen agreed): S had placed himself in a position of potential CoI, for example if the trustees asked his advice on the merits of buying more shares in the company. Boardman v Phipps [1966] UKHL 2 is a landmark English trusts law case concerning the duty of loyalty and the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. HL (majority 3-2) held that S and B would hold their acquired shares as constructive trustees for the beneficiaries. Boardman v Phipps seems like a more onerous application of rule against an unauthorised profit than that in Regal Hastings, all that is apparently required for a fiduciary to be liable is that ' a reasonable man looking at the relevant facts would think there was a real possibility of . Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. Case summary last updated at 24/02/2020 14:46 by the A fiduciary shall not profit from his position, Appeal dismissed; the defendants were liable to account for the shares and profits to the trust beneficiaries, but the liberal allowance was maintained, A fiduciary agent has to account to for any profits acquired by reason of the his fiduciary position and the opportunity or knowledge resulting from it, even if the principals could not have made the profits themselves with such opportunity or knowledge, unless the principal has given his informed consent, The profits will be held on constructive trust for the principal by the fiduciary agent, but the board may make allowance to the fiduciary agent for expenditure and work expended to acquire the profit, The defendants, Boardman and another, were acting as solicitors to the trustees of a will trust, and therefore were fiduciaries but not trustees, The trustees were minority shareholders in a private company which was being inefficiently managed, Boardman and one of the beneficiaries under the trust, in good faith, personally financed the purchase of a controlling interest in the company, in order to reorganise it to the benefit of the trust holding, Both the personal and trust holdings increased in value as a result of the reorganisation; one of the other beneficiaries therefore sought an account of the personal profits made by the defendants, Wilberforce J, in the High Court, held that the defendants were liable to account for the profit less the money spent on realising that profit; but at the same time made a liberal allowance for the work put in to realise that profit, The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, who dismissed their appeal; they subsequently appealed to the House of Lords. 3 0 obj Show all summaries ( 46 ) For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. The trust benefited by this distribution 47,000, while Boardman and Phipps made 75,000. enough, and that am attempt to take control of the company should be initiated. students are currently browsing our notes. Chase Manhattan Bank v Israel-British Bank Ltd, Industrial Development Consultants v Cooley, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boardman_v_Phipps&oldid=1123060721, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0, [1965] Ch 992, [1965] 2 WLR 839 and [1964] 1 WLR 993, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Cohen, Lord Hodson, Lord Guest and Lord Upjohn, This page was last edited on 21 November 2022, at 15:30. Coke v Fountaine (1676) Mike Macnair; 3. Final, Pharmaceutical Calculations practice exam 1 worked answers, Acoples-storz - info de acoples storz usados en la industria agropecuaria. It is not contended that the trustees had such knowledge or gave such consent. p. 117D G, The relevant rule for the decision of this case is the fundamental rule of equity that a person in a fiduciary capacity must not make a profit out of his trust which is part of the wider rule that a trustee must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict.: p. 123C, Whether there is a possibility of conflict depends on whether the reasonable man looking at the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case would think that there was a real sensible possibility of conflict: p. 124B, Note that in this case, not only did the principals, which are the trust beneficiaries, no lose anything, but they actually profited from the increase in value of shares held under the trust as a result of the actions of defendants thus it can be surmised that regardless of whether any wrongdoing or harm was caused to the principal, the fiduciary is liable for all profits acquired as a result of his position. Oxbridge Notes is operated by Kinsella Digital Services UG. (Keech v Sandford 1726) - landlord would not grant new lease to beneficiary so trustee took in his own name. The proceedings. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, co-appellant was another son of the testator, described as constructive trustees by virtue of a fiduciary relationship to the, B decided along with one of the trustees that the company was not doing well.