In the hearing of the Court of Appeal, Bernard Weatherill QC for Armitage submitted that the "irreducible core" duties of a trustee include the following. :(1) a duty to inquire into the extent and nature the property and the trusts (see
Hallows v Lloyd (1888) 39 Ch D 686, 691;
Nestlé v National Westminster Bank Plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260, 1265e, 1266h, 1275e-g and
Wyman v Paterson [1900] AC 271); :(2) a duty to obey directions in the settlement unless the deviation is sanctioned by the court (see
Harrison v Randall (1851) 9 Hare 397, 407 and
Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378, 390a-b); :(3) a duty to account for his stewardship of the assets under his control; :(4) a duty to carry on the business of the trust with the degree of prudence to be expected of a hypothetically reasonably prudent man of business (see
Speight v Gaunt (1883) 9 App Cas 1, 19 and
In re Whiteley,
Whiteley v Learoyd (1886) 33 ChD 347, 355). Gregory Hill made submissions for Nurse.
Court of Appeal Millett LJ held that only a clause which purported to exclude liability for fraud would be considered repugnant and contrary to public policy. Thus the exclusion clause in favour of the trustee was allowed. This case was cited by the
NSW Supreme Court case of
Maleski v Hampson. ==See also==