衡平法 W7 打印

W7 Beneficiary Principle W7 受益人原则

1. The Beneficiary Principle
1. 受益人原则

Core Rule: A valid trust requires ascertainable beneficiaries. There must be a legal person (human or corporation) who can enforce the trust obligation against the trustees in court. This is linked to the certainty of object requirements.
核心规则：一项有效的信托要求有可确定的受益人。必须有一个法人（自然人或公司）可以在法庭上对受托人强制执行信托义务。这与标的确定性的要求相关。
Rationale: Enforcement (someone needs standing - locus standi - to sue) and court control/supervision are essential. Without beneficiaries, the trust depends on the "whim of the trustee".
理由：强制执行（需要有人具有诉讼资格 - locus standi - 起诉）和法院的控制/监督至关重要。如果没有受益人，信托将取决于“受托人的意愿”。
Key Case: Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805)
关键案例：Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805)

Facts: A trust was established for "such objects of benevolence and liberality as the Bishop of Durham in his own discretion shall most approve".
事实：设立了一项信托，用于“达勒姆主教以其自身酌情权最认可的慈善和慷慨的对象”。
Issue: Was this a valid trust?
问题：这是一项有效的信托吗？
Held: Void. 判决：无效。
Significance: This case established the core beneficiary principle: "There must be somebody in whose favour the court can decree performance". The terms "benevolence" and "liberality" were too broad and not necessarily charitable, leaving no specific person who could enforce the trust.
重要性：本案确立了受益人原则的核心：“必须有人可以使法院能够判决履行”。“仁慈”和“慷慨”等术语过于宽泛，不一定是慈善性质，因此没有任何特定的人可以强制执行该信托。

2. Consequence of Non-Compliance: Purpose Trusts Generally Void
2. 不遵守的后果：目的信托通常无效

General Rule: Trusts established for an abstract purpose, rather than for ascertainable beneficiaries, are generally void because there is no one to enforce them.
一般规则：为抽象目的而非为可确定的受益人设立的信托通常无效，因为没有人可以强制执行它们。
Key Case: Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts [1952]
关键案例：Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts [1952]

Facts: Mr. Astor set up trusts including one "to ensure the freedom of an independent media".
事实：阿斯特先生设立了信托，其中包括一项“以确保独立媒体的自由”。
Issue: Was this purpose trust valid?
问题：这项目的信托是否有效？
Held: Void. 判决：无效。
Significance: The purpose wasn't charitable at the time. As a non-charitable purpose trust, it failed the beneficiary principle – there were no ascertainable individuals who could enforce it. Roxburgh J stated, "a court of equity does not recognise as valid a trust which it cannot both enforce and control".
重要性：当时该目的不属于慈善性质。作为非慈善目的信托，它不符合受益人原则——没有可确定的个人可以强制执行它。Roxburgh J. 法官指出，“衡平法院不承认其既不能执行也不能控制的信托是有效的”。

3. Exceptions to the Beneficiary Principle
3. 受益人原则的例外情况

A. Charitable Trusts A. 慈善信托

Valid purpose trusts. 有效的目的信托。
Enforced by the Secretary for Justice in Hong Kong on behalf of the public.
由香港律政司司长代表公众执行。
Exempt from the beneficiary principle and perpetuity rules. (Covered in detail next week ).
免受受益人原则和永久规则的约束。（下周详细介绍）。

B. Trusts of Imperfect Obligation (Anomalous Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts)
B. 不完全义务信托（反常的非慈善目的信托）

Definition & Rationale: A small, closed list of specific non-charitable purpose trusts recognised historically as exceptions. They are often justified by "human frailty" – common concerns people have near death regarding their body, soul, and pets.
定义与理由：历史上被认可为例外的一小部分、封闭式的特定非慈善目的信托。它们通常以“人性的弱点”来辩护——人们在临终前对其身体、灵魂和宠物常见的担忧。
Status: Valid but unenforceable. The trustee can choose to perform the trust, and if they do so validly, next-of-kin cannot stop them simply because it's a purpose trust. However, the trustee cannot usually be compelled by a court to perform the trust.
状态：有效但不可执行。受托人可以选择执行信托，如果他们有效地这样做，近亲不能仅仅因为它是目的信托而阻止他们。但是，受托人通常不能被法院强制执行信托。

Re Dean (1889): Lord North questioned the lack of enforceability, suggesting courts could intervene if neglect was reported, but this view is generally not followed.
Re Dean (1889)：North 勋爵质疑缺乏可执行性，他认为如果报告了疏忽，法院可以介入，但这种观点通常不被采纳。

The Three Accepted Categories (No new exceptions allowed - Re Endacott):
三个公认的类别（不允许有新的例外——Re Endacott）：

Erection and/or Maintenance of Tombs, Graves, and Monuments:
建造和/或维护坟墓、墓地和纪念碑：

Mussett v Bingle (1876): Trust to erect a monument (for wife's first husband) was valid as it falls within the exception. (The motive was irrelevant to validity).
Mussett v Bingle (1876)：建造纪念碑（为其妻子的第一任丈夫）的信托有效，因为它属于例外情况。（动机与有效性无关）。
Pirbright v Salwey (1896): Upkeep of burial enclosure valid when limited "for as long as the law allows".
Pirbright v Salwey (1896)：维持墓地围栏的费用有效，但须限制在“法律允许的范围内”。
Re Hooper (1932): Upkeep of family graves valid when limited "so long as they legally can do so".
Re Hooper (1932)：维护家族墓地的费用有效，但须限制在“只要他们在法律上可以这样做”。
Re Endacott (1960): Trust for "some useful memorial to myself" failed; the purpose was deemed too vague and uncertain for an anomalous exception.
Re Endacott 案 (1960)：设立“对我自己有用的纪念物”的信托失败；该目的被认为过于模糊和不确定，不构成反常例外。

Saying of Private Masses (and similar private prayers for the deceased):
举行私人弥撒（以及为死者祈祷的类似私人祈祷）：

Must be private; public religious services may be charitable. Accepted due to historical practice and human concerns. Includes Protestant prayers and potentially ancestor veneration.
必须是私人的；公共宗教服务可能是慈善性质的。由于历史惯例和人道关怀而被接受。包括新教徒祈祷，并可能包括祭祖。
Case: Bourne v Keane implicitly supports this.
案例：Bourne v Keane 案隐含地支持了这一点。

Care and Maintenance of Specific Animals:
特定动物的照料和维护：

Must be for specific, named animals; trusts for animals generally (e.g., wildlife conservation) may be charitable.
必须是为了特定的、具名的动物；一般性的动物信托（例如，野生动物保护）可能属于慈善信托。
Pettingall v Pettingall (1842): Established validity for testator's "favourite black mare".
Pettingall v Pettingall (1842): 确立了遗嘱人为其“最喜爱的黑色母马”设立信托的有效性。
Re Dean (1889): Trust for horses/hounds upheld, even though the 50-year term appeared to breach perpetuity rules, suggesting judicial leniency in some older cases.
Re Dean (1889): 为马/猎犬设立的信托得到支持，即使 50 年的期限似乎违反了永久规则，这表明在一些较早的案例中存在司法上的宽容。
Leona Helmsley Case (Trouble the dog): $12m trust for specific dog ("Trouble") upheld as falling within this valid category.
Leona Helmsley 案（狗“麻烦”）：为特定狗（“麻烦”）设立的 1200 万美元信托被认定属于此类有效类别。

Limitations for Validity: To be valid, a trust of imperfect obligation must meet all three conditions:
有效性的限制：要有效，不完全义务信托必须满足所有三个条件：

1. Accepted Purpose: Fall within one of the three categories above.
1. 可接受的目的：属于上述三个类别之一。
2. Perpetuity Compliance:
2. 永久性合规：

These trusts are subject only to common law perpetuity rules; statutory reforms do not apply.
这些信托仅受普通法永久规则的约束；法定改革不适用。
Period: 21 years (as no human 'life in being' applies; animal lives do not count).
期限：21 年（因为没有人“在世”适用；动物的生命不算数）。

Re Kelly (1932): Confirmed animal lives cannot be used as measuring lives for perpetuity.
Re Kelly (1932)：确认动物的生命不能用作永久性的衡量生命。

Rules: Both remoteness of vesting (purpose must start within 21 yrs) and excessive duration (trust must not possibly last > 21 yrs) apply.
规则：归属期过远（目的必须在 21 年内开始）和持续时间过长（信托不得可能持续超过 21 年）均适用。
Strictness: Void ab initio if any possibility of breach. No "wait and see". Excessive duration is a common problem, especially for ongoing maintenance or long-lived animals.
严格性：如果存在任何违反的可能性，则自始无效。没有“等待和观望”。过长的持续时间是一个常见问题，特别是对于持续维护或长寿动物。

Mussett v Bingle (1876): The monument upkeep failed because it wasn't limited in time and could have exceeded 21 years.
Mussett v Bingle (1876): 纪念碑维护失败，因为它没有时间限制，可能会超过 21 年。

Saving Clauses: Including words like "for as long as the law allows" or "for 21 years" limits the duration and saves the trust from failing the excessive duration rule.
保全条款：包括诸如“在法律允许的范围内”或“21 年”之类的措辞限制了期限，并使信托免于因期限过长而失效。

Pirbright v Salwey (1896) and Re Hooper (1932): Upkeep trusts upheld due to such saving clauses.
Pirbright v Salwey (1896) 和 Re Hooper (1932)：由于有此类保留条款，维持信托成立。

Judicial Leniency?: Cases like Re Dean (50 years for horses) and Re Haines (judge incorrectly stated cats live < 21 years) show occasional leniency but are unreliable for planning.
司法宽容？：像 Re Dean（为马匹提供 50 年）和 Re Haines（法官错误地宣称猫的寿命 < 21 年）这样的案例表明偶尔会有宽容，但对于规划来说是不可靠的。

3. Not Capricious: The purpose, method, or amount must not be useless, wasteful, absurd, nonsensical, or contrary to public policy.
3. 不得反复无常：目的、方法或金额不得无用、浪费、荒谬、无意义或违反公共政策。

M'Caig cases: Provisions failed for being pointless (e.g., building statues in a tower and sealing it off).
M'Caig 案例：条款因毫无意义而失败（例如，在塔楼中建造雕像并将其封闭）。
Brown v Burdett (1882): Direction to seal up a house for 20 years was void as useless and wasteful.
Brown v Burdett (1882)：指示将房屋封闭 20 年无效，因为既无用又浪费。
Re Wishaw (Estate of Clive Wisher): Direction to shoot healthy horses void as capricious destruction of property.
Re Wishaw (克莱夫·威舍遗产案)：指示射杀健康的马无效，因为这是对财产的任性破坏。
Leona Helmsley Case (Trouble the dog): $12m trust for dog care deemed capricious in amount; reduced by the court to $2m.
莉昂娜·赫尔姆斯利案（狗狗“麻烦”）：为照顾狗而设立的 1200 万美元信托被认为数额过于随意；法院将其减少到 200 万美元。

C. Gifts/Trusts for Unincorporated Associations
C. 为非法人社团设立的赠与/信托

Definition: A group of 2+ people joined for common, non-business purposes, with mutual obligations/rules (a contract), but no separate legal identity.
定义：为共同的非商业目的而组成的 2 人以上的群体，具有相互义务/规则（合同），但没有独立的法律身份。

Conservative & Unionist Central Office v Burrell (1982): Provided a working definition outlining these characteristics.
Conservative & Unionist Central Office v Burrell (1982)：提供了一个工作定义，概述了这些特征。

The Problem: A gift to an association is usually seen as a gift for its purposes. If non-charitable, this risks being void under the beneficiary principle (no beneficiary) and/or perpetuity rules (association might last forever).
问题：给予协会的赠与通常被视为用于其目的的赠与。如果是非慈善性质的，这可能会因受益人原则（没有受益人）和/或永久规则（协会可能永远存在）而无效。

Leahy v A-G NSW (1959): Gift failed where potential recipients were unincorporated, non-charitable (closed) religious orders lacking legal personality and public benefit needed for charity. Showed strict application can defeat donor intent.
Leahy v A-G NSW (1959)：当潜在的接受者是未注册的、非慈善的（封闭的）宗教团体，缺乏法人资格和慈善事业所需的公共利益时，赠与失败。表明严格的应用会违背捐赠者的意愿。

Construing Gifts to Validate Them: Courts try interpretations to uphold donor intent.
解释赠与以使其有效：法院尝试解释以维护捐赠者的意图。

Neville Estates v Madden (1962): Crucial case outlining 3 possible valid constructions (besides being void):
Neville Estates v Madden (1962): 重要的案例，概述了 3 种可能的有效解释（除了无效之外）：

1. Gift to Present Members as Joint Tenants: Satisfies beneficiary principle & perpetuity. Problem: Members can sever shares or the last survivor takes all, defeating the purpose of benefiting the association's activities.
1. 赠与给现有成员作为共同租户：满足受益人原则和永久性规则。问题：成员可以分割股份，或者最后幸存者获得全部股份，从而违背了使协会活动受益的目的。
2. Gift to Present Members Subject to Contractual Rules (Contractual Approach): Preferred modern method in HK/England. The gift vests in current members but is held subject to the association's rules (the contract between them). Money becomes an accretion to association funds, used according to rules. Satisfies beneficiary principle & perpetuity. Requires: Association must have rules governing funds/membership.
2. 赠与给受合同规则约束的现有成员（合同方法）：香港/英国首选的现代方法。赠与归属于现有成员，但受协会规则（他们之间的合同）的约束。资金成为协会基金的增值，根据规则使用。满足受益人原则和永久性规则。要求：协会必须有管理资金/会员资格的规则。
3. Gift on Trust for Present and Future Members: Usually fails perpetuity rules as future members' interests might vest too late or trust lasts indefinitely.
3. 以信托方式赠与给现有和未来成员：通常不符合永久性规则，因为未来成员的权益可能会过晚归属，或者信托无限期地持续下去。

Summary for HK: Try to apply the contractual approach (#2) if the association has adequate rules governing its funds and membership.
香港摘要：如果该协会有充分的规则来管理其资金和会员资格，请尝试适用合同方法（#2）。

D. The Re Denley Principle
D. Re Denley 原则

The Case: Re Denley's Trust Deed (1969). Trust for sports grounds used mainly by company employees, limited in duration by perpetuity rules.
案例：Re Denley's Trust Deed (1969)。为主要由公司员工使用的运动场设立的信托，其持续时间受永久规则的限制。
The Principle: A trust expressed for a purpose, which directly/indirectly benefits ascertainable individuals tangibly, may be valid. Those individuals have locus standi to enforce the trust, thus satisfying the beneficiary principle's enforcement rationale.
原则：为目的而设立的信托，如果直接/间接地有形地惠及可确定的人，则可能有效。这些人有权强制执行该信托，从而满足受益人原则的执行理由。
Requirements/Limitations: Benefiting individuals must be ascertainable; benefit must be tangible; trust must be limited by the perpetuity period.
要求/限制：受益人必须是可确定的；利益必须是有形的；信托必须受永久业权期限的限制。
Status: Controversial, limited scope, apply cautiously.
状态：有争议，范围有限，谨慎适用。

Re Lipinski's Will Trusts (1976): Gift for buildings for unincorporated association held valid under both contractual approach and Re Denley. The Re Denley reasoning here, especially regarding perpetuity, is considered suspect and potentially confusing. The contractual analysis was likely sufficient.
《Re Lipinski's Will Trusts》（1976）：为非法人社团建造建筑物的赠与，根据合同法途径和*Re Denley*原则均被认定为有效。此处*Re Denley*的理由，尤其是在关于永久性方面，被认为是可疑的，并且可能令人困惑。合同分析可能就足够了。

4. Summary for Unincorporated Associations
4. 非法人团体总结

When faced with a gift/trust for a non-charitable unincorporated association:
当面临针对非慈善性质的非法人团体的赠与/信托时：

Is it Charitable? If yes, no problem. If not, proceed.
它是慈善信托吗？如果是，没问题。如果不是，继续。
Prima Facie: It's a purpose trust and likely void (Leahy).
表面证据：这是一个目的信托，可能无效 (Leahy 案)。
Can it be Construed as Valid? (Neville Estates)
能否解释为有效？(Neville Estates 案)

Gift to members as joint tenants? (Usually unsuitable - defeats purpose).
作为共同承租人赠与成员？（通常不合适 - 违背目的）。
Trust for present & future members? (Usually fails perpetuities).
为现在和未来的成员设立信托？（通常违反永久业权规则）。
Contractual Approach: Gift to present members subject to rules? (Preferred method if association has rules governing funds/membership).
合同法途径：赠与给现有成员，但须遵守规则？（如果协会有管理资金/会员资格的规则，则为首选方法）。
Re Denley? (Only if purpose directly benefits ascertainable individuals AND trust is limited in perpetuity. Apply cautiously).
Re Denley 案？（仅当目的直接有利于可确定的人，且信托在永久性方面受到限制时适用。谨慎使用）。

Remember to check for compliance with certainty requirements (intention, subject matter, objects/beneficiaries) and perpetuity rules where applicable, especially for trusts of imperfect obligation and potentially Re Denley trusts.
务必检查是否符合确定性要求（意图、标的物、对象/受益人）以及永久性规则（如适用），特别是对于不完全义务信托和潜在的 Re Denley 信托。