Talk:Trustee Act 2000

Accuracy
Ironholds, you have not got everything correct. As I said, I found one thing which is innaccurate, on Cowan v Scargill. Please do pay attention to the books, cases and statutes.  Wik idea  14:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have indeed been paying attention to books - see Todd and Wilson p.375 "it is clear from authorities such as Cowan v Scargill that the calculus of suitability can include within its ambit questions of moral or ethical suitability". One thing that might be causing confusion here is the sheer number of points the case brought up; it also raises issues in relation to the duty of impartiality and the duty to obtain the best return, for example. I'm not saying this is the only issue in the case, just that this is the only issue in the case worth raising at this part of the article. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What you wrote was an overcompacted misrepresentation. I'm telling you. Look at all the other sources I gave you. I doubt very much that Wilson would take your side. I added more for you. I improved the page. Here's what Megarry VC says.

[1985] Ch 270, 287 I turn to the law. The starting point is the duty of trustees to exercise their powers in the best interests of the present and future beneficiaries of the trust, holding the scales impartially between different classes of beneficiaries. This duty of the trustees towards their beneficiaries is paramount. They must, of course, obey the law; but subject to that, they must put the interests of their beneficiaries first. When the purpose of the trust is to provide financial benefits for the beneficiaries, as is usually the case, the best interests of the beneficiaries are normally their best financial interests. In the case of a power of investment, as in the present case, the power must be exercised so as to yield the best return for the beneficiaries, judged in relation to the risks of the investments in question; and the prospects of the yield of income and capital appreciation both have to be considered in judging the return from the investment. It's only when Nicholls decides Harries that it's clear ethical questions can be taken into account, so long as there is no financial detriment. You should read Rosie Thornton's article if you don't believe me.  Wik idea  15:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to include it then, but properly referenced. For future note - you do not keep reverting away from the original format after concerns have made about your changes. WP:BRD is the behavioural standard to follow. It is also best to avoid snarky, rude little edit summaries after lecturing somebody about being patronising. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Duty of care
What was written in the first section seemed to be imprecise, so I've updated it. I'm not to sure about that Shindler article - if what was written is what he'd said then it seems to be little bit behind. Hope this helps.  Wik idea  11:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 9 years is a long time in law and academia, it seems. Thanks for the update. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)