- Published on
SQE – Equity and Trust – The Duty of Care in Relation to the Powers of Maintenance and Advancement
Introduction
Trustees possess important statutory powers that enable them to apply trust income and capital for the benefit of beneficiaries before they become absolutely entitled to the trust property. These powers are known as the powers of maintenance and advancement and are principally governed by sections 31 and 32 of the Trustee Act 1925, as amended by the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014.
Although trustees enjoy broad discretion when exercising these powers, they must still comply with an appropriate standard of care. Unlike many other trustee functions that are governed by the statutory duty of care under section 1 of the Trustee Act 2000, the powers of maintenance and advancement remain subject to the traditional common law standard established in Speight v Gaunt.
The law therefore requires trustees to exercise these powers prudently, honestly, and in the best interests of the beneficiaries concerned.
The Applicable Standard of Care
When deciding whether to exercise the powers of maintenance or advancement, trustees are not subject to the statutory duty of care contained in section 1 of the Trustee Act 2000.
Instead, the applicable standard is derived from the common law decision in Speight v Gaunt (1883) 9 App Cas 1.
Under this principle, trustees must act as:
“A prudent man of business managing his own affairs.”
This objective standard requires trustees to act carefully and responsibly when deciding whether trust income or capital should be distributed before the beneficiary becomes absolutely entitled.
The court does not expect perfection, but it does expect trustees to act reasonably and prudently in the circumstances.
The Duty of Care in Relation to Maintenance
The power of maintenance allows trustees to apply trust income for the benefit of a beneficiary who has not yet become absolutely entitled to the trust property.
When exercising this power, trustees must consider:
However, trustees are not obliged to make maintenance payments merely because a beneficiary requests them.
The Duty of Care in Relation to Advancement
The power of advancement allows trustees to apply trust capital for the benefit of a beneficiary before the beneficiary becomes fully entitled to receive it.
Because capital distributions may permanently reduce the trust fund, trustees must exercise particular caution.
The central question is whether the advancement will genuinely benefit the beneficiary.
This does not necessarily require an immediate financial gain. The courts have adopted a broad interpretation of “benefit” and recognise educational, professional, personal, and social advantages as capable of satisfying the requirement.
Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No 1) [1964] Ch 303
An important authority on the exercise of the advancement power is Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No 1).
In this case, trustees advanced substantial sums of trust capital to the father of infant beneficiaries. The father subsequently used much of the money for his own purposes rather than for the benefit of the children.
The court held that although trustees are not required to supervise every penny after an advancement has been made, they must make reasonable enquiries before approving the payment.
Trustees should therefore satisfy themselves that the proposed advancement is genuinely intended to benefit the beneficiary.
The case illustrates that trustees cannot simply distribute trust capital without making appropriate enquiries into its proposed use.
The Requirement to Make Enquiries
Trustees are not expected to investigate exhaustively how every advancement is ultimately spent.
However, prudent trustees should obtain sufficient information to satisfy themselves that:
Example – Proper Exercise of the Advancement Power
Suppose trustees manage a trust for a 20-year-old beneficiary who wishes to attend medical school.
The beneficiary requests £50,000 from the trust fund to cover tuition fees and living expenses.
The trustees investigate the proposal, obtain details of the educational programme, and conclude that the expenditure will enhance the beneficiary’s future prospects.
The advancement is likely to be regarded as beneficial and a proper exercise of the trustees’ discretion.
Example – Improper Exercise of the Advancement Power
Assume a beneficiary requests £200,000 from the trust fund to invest in a highly speculative cryptocurrency venture.
The trustees make no enquiries regarding the proposal and approve the payment immediately.
The investment subsequently fails and the money is lost.
The trustees may be liable for breach of trust because they failed to exercise the degree of prudence required by Speight v Gaunt and Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts.
The Discretionary Nature of the Powers
A crucial feature of both maintenance and advancement is that they are discretionary powers rather than rights.
Beneficiaries cannot compel trustees to exercise these powers in their favour.
Similarly, beneficiaries cannot insist upon receiving maintenance payments or capital advancements simply because they would prefer to receive trust property earlier.
The trustees must exercise their own judgment and decide whether exercising the power would be appropriate.
Judicial Reluctance to Interfere
The courts are generally reluctant to interfere with trustees’ discretionary decisions concerning maintenance and advancement.
This reflects the principle that trustees, rather than judges, are entrusted with administering the trust and exercising discretionary powers.
Provided trustees act honestly, reasonably, and within the scope of their powers, courts will rarely substitute their own judgment for that of the trustees.
Grounds for Judicial Intervention
Although judicial intervention is rare, the courts may intervene where trustees:
Practical Difficulties in Challenging Decisions
Challenges to maintenance and advancement decisions are often expensive and difficult to pursue.
The costs of litigation may exceed the value of the disputed payment, particularly where the trust fund is modest.
Consequently, court proceedings are generally only worthwhile where:
Removal of Trustees
Persistent refusal to exercise maintenance or advancement powers appropriately may indicate deeper problems in trust administration.
In some circumstances, unreasonable conduct regarding maintenance or advancement may support an application to remove a trustee.
The court’s primary concern in such cases is whether the trustee is acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries and the proper administration of the trust.
Where trustees repeatedly fail to exercise their powers responsibly, removal may be justified.
Case Study
Facts
A trust fund worth £3 million is held for Emma, who will become absolutely entitled at the age of 25.
At age 20, Emma wishes to undertake a law degree and requests £60,000 from the trust fund to cover tuition fees and accommodation.
The trustees investigate the proposal, review the university’s admission documents, and conclude that the expenditure will benefit Emma’s education and future career.
Analysis
The trustees have exercised the power of advancement prudently.
They made appropriate enquiries, considered Emma’s interests, and concluded that the payment would be beneficial.
Their conduct satisfies the standard established in Speight v Gaunt and reflects the approach approved in Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts.
Outcome
The advancement would almost certainly be valid, and the courts would be unlikely to interfere with the trustees’ decision.
Conclusion
The powers of maintenance and advancement provide trustees with valuable flexibility in managing trust property for the benefit of beneficiaries. Although these powers are discretionary, trustees must exercise them with appropriate care and prudence. The applicable standard remains the traditional common law duty established in Speight v Gaunt, requiring trustees to act as prudent businesspersons managing their own affairs. In exercising the advancement power, trustees must ensure that any payment will genuinely benefit the beneficiary and should make reasonable enquiries into its proposed use, as demonstrated in Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No 1). While courts generally respect trustees’ discretionary decisions, they may intervene where trustees act improperly, irrationally, or contrary to their fiduciary obligations.
References
Speight v Gaunt (1883) 9 App Cas 1.
Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No 1) [1964] Ch 303.
Trustee Act 1925, ss 31–32.
Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014.
Alastair Hudson, Equity and Trusts (11th edn, Routledge 2022).
James Penner, The Law of Trusts (12th edn, Oxford University Press 2020).
Graham Virgo, The Principles of Equity and Trusts (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2024).
John McGhee (ed), Snell’s Equity (35th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024).
Introduction
Trustees possess important statutory powers that enable them to apply trust income and capital for the benefit of beneficiaries before they become absolutely entitled to the trust property. These powers are known as the powers of maintenance and advancement and are principally governed by sections 31 and 32 of the Trustee Act 1925, as amended by the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014.
Although trustees enjoy broad discretion when exercising these powers, they must still comply with an appropriate standard of care. Unlike many other trustee functions that are governed by the statutory duty of care under section 1 of the Trustee Act 2000, the powers of maintenance and advancement remain subject to the traditional common law standard established in Speight v Gaunt.
The law therefore requires trustees to exercise these powers prudently, honestly, and in the best interests of the beneficiaries concerned.
The Applicable Standard of Care
When deciding whether to exercise the powers of maintenance or advancement, trustees are not subject to the statutory duty of care contained in section 1 of the Trustee Act 2000.
Instead, the applicable standard is derived from the common law decision in Speight v Gaunt (1883) 9 App Cas 1.
Under this principle, trustees must act as:
“A prudent man of business managing his own affairs.”
This objective standard requires trustees to act carefully and responsibly when deciding whether trust income or capital should be distributed before the beneficiary becomes absolutely entitled.
The court does not expect perfection, but it does expect trustees to act reasonably and prudently in the circumstances.
The Duty of Care in Relation to Maintenance
The power of maintenance allows trustees to apply trust income for the benefit of a beneficiary who has not yet become absolutely entitled to the trust property.
When exercising this power, trustees must consider:
- the beneficiary’s financial needs;
- the beneficiary’s age and circumstances;
- the size of the trust fund;
- the interests of other beneficiaries;
- the overall purpose of the trust.
However, trustees are not obliged to make maintenance payments merely because a beneficiary requests them.
The Duty of Care in Relation to Advancement
The power of advancement allows trustees to apply trust capital for the benefit of a beneficiary before the beneficiary becomes fully entitled to receive it.
Because capital distributions may permanently reduce the trust fund, trustees must exercise particular caution.
The central question is whether the advancement will genuinely benefit the beneficiary.
This does not necessarily require an immediate financial gain. The courts have adopted a broad interpretation of “benefit” and recognise educational, professional, personal, and social advantages as capable of satisfying the requirement.
Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No 1) [1964] Ch 303
An important authority on the exercise of the advancement power is Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No 1).
In this case, trustees advanced substantial sums of trust capital to the father of infant beneficiaries. The father subsequently used much of the money for his own purposes rather than for the benefit of the children.
The court held that although trustees are not required to supervise every penny after an advancement has been made, they must make reasonable enquiries before approving the payment.
Trustees should therefore satisfy themselves that the proposed advancement is genuinely intended to benefit the beneficiary.
The case illustrates that trustees cannot simply distribute trust capital without making appropriate enquiries into its proposed use.
The Requirement to Make Enquiries
Trustees are not expected to investigate exhaustively how every advancement is ultimately spent.
However, prudent trustees should obtain sufficient information to satisfy themselves that:
- the beneficiary will benefit;
- the purpose of the advancement is legitimate;
- the transaction is consistent with the objectives of the trust.
Example – Proper Exercise of the Advancement Power
Suppose trustees manage a trust for a 20-year-old beneficiary who wishes to attend medical school.
The beneficiary requests £50,000 from the trust fund to cover tuition fees and living expenses.
The trustees investigate the proposal, obtain details of the educational programme, and conclude that the expenditure will enhance the beneficiary’s future prospects.
The advancement is likely to be regarded as beneficial and a proper exercise of the trustees’ discretion.
Example – Improper Exercise of the Advancement Power
Assume a beneficiary requests £200,000 from the trust fund to invest in a highly speculative cryptocurrency venture.
The trustees make no enquiries regarding the proposal and approve the payment immediately.
The investment subsequently fails and the money is lost.
The trustees may be liable for breach of trust because they failed to exercise the degree of prudence required by Speight v Gaunt and Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts.
The Discretionary Nature of the Powers
A crucial feature of both maintenance and advancement is that they are discretionary powers rather than rights.
Beneficiaries cannot compel trustees to exercise these powers in their favour.
Similarly, beneficiaries cannot insist upon receiving maintenance payments or capital advancements simply because they would prefer to receive trust property earlier.
The trustees must exercise their own judgment and decide whether exercising the power would be appropriate.
Judicial Reluctance to Interfere
The courts are generally reluctant to interfere with trustees’ discretionary decisions concerning maintenance and advancement.
This reflects the principle that trustees, rather than judges, are entrusted with administering the trust and exercising discretionary powers.
Provided trustees act honestly, reasonably, and within the scope of their powers, courts will rarely substitute their own judgment for that of the trustees.
Grounds for Judicial Intervention
Although judicial intervention is rare, the courts may intervene where trustees:
- act in bad faith;
- fail to consider relevant factors;
- take account of irrelevant considerations;
- misunderstand their powers;
- act irrationally;
- breach their fiduciary duties.
Practical Difficulties in Challenging Decisions
Challenges to maintenance and advancement decisions are often expensive and difficult to pursue.
The costs of litigation may exceed the value of the disputed payment, particularly where the trust fund is modest.
Consequently, court proceedings are generally only worthwhile where:
- substantial sums are involved;
- there is evidence of trustee misconduct;
- the dispute forms part of a wider challenge to the trustees’ administration of the trust.
Removal of Trustees
Persistent refusal to exercise maintenance or advancement powers appropriately may indicate deeper problems in trust administration.
In some circumstances, unreasonable conduct regarding maintenance or advancement may support an application to remove a trustee.
The court’s primary concern in such cases is whether the trustee is acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries and the proper administration of the trust.
Where trustees repeatedly fail to exercise their powers responsibly, removal may be justified.
Case Study
Facts
A trust fund worth £3 million is held for Emma, who will become absolutely entitled at the age of 25.
At age 20, Emma wishes to undertake a law degree and requests £60,000 from the trust fund to cover tuition fees and accommodation.
The trustees investigate the proposal, review the university’s admission documents, and conclude that the expenditure will benefit Emma’s education and future career.
Analysis
The trustees have exercised the power of advancement prudently.
They made appropriate enquiries, considered Emma’s interests, and concluded that the payment would be beneficial.
Their conduct satisfies the standard established in Speight v Gaunt and reflects the approach approved in Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts.
Outcome
The advancement would almost certainly be valid, and the courts would be unlikely to interfere with the trustees’ decision.
Conclusion
The powers of maintenance and advancement provide trustees with valuable flexibility in managing trust property for the benefit of beneficiaries. Although these powers are discretionary, trustees must exercise them with appropriate care and prudence. The applicable standard remains the traditional common law duty established in Speight v Gaunt, requiring trustees to act as prudent businesspersons managing their own affairs. In exercising the advancement power, trustees must ensure that any payment will genuinely benefit the beneficiary and should make reasonable enquiries into its proposed use, as demonstrated in Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No 1). While courts generally respect trustees’ discretionary decisions, they may intervene where trustees act improperly, irrationally, or contrary to their fiduciary obligations.
References
Speight v Gaunt (1883) 9 App Cas 1.
Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No 1) [1964] Ch 303.
Trustee Act 1925, ss 31–32.
Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014.
Alastair Hudson, Equity and Trusts (11th edn, Routledge 2022).
James Penner, The Law of Trusts (12th edn, Oxford University Press 2020).
Graham Virgo, The Principles of Equity and Trusts (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2024).
John McGhee (ed), Snell’s Equity (35th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024).
0 Comments