Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:05:43.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE ENFORCEABILITY OF ARBITRATION CLAUSES IN TRUSTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2015

Matthew Conaglen
Get access

Abstract

This article considers the enforceability of arbitration clauses which are included in trust documentation. It focuses on two main questions. The first is whether internal trust disputes are capable of being settled by arbitration. The article offers arguments in favour of the arbitrability of such disputes. It then addresses the question of whether parties to an internal trust dispute can be forced to arbitrate, rather than litigate, where the trust documentation contains an arbitration clause. It is argued that there are real difficulties in the argument that such clauses can be enforced as arbitration agreements, under the ordinary arbitration statutes, but that the court could potentially enforce such a clause under its inherent jurisdiction to control its proceedings.

Keywords

trustsarbitrationarbitrabilitypublic policyrepugnancyinherent jurisdictionarbitration agreement
Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 450 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See e.g. Cohen, L. and Staff, M., “The Arbitration of Trust Disputes” (1999) 7 J.I.T.C.P. 203Google Scholar; the Special Issue of Trusts and Trustees devoted to the topic: (2012) 18 T. & T. 279–372; Graham, T., “The Problems with Compulsory Arbitration of Trust Disputes” (2014) 20 T. & T. 17Google Scholar; Brownbill, D., “Arbitration of Trust Disputes” (2014) 20 T. & T. 30Google Scholar.

2 See e.g. Re Nestorovski Estate (2009) 769 N.W. 2d 720 (MI CA); Belzberg v Verus Investments Holdings Inc. (2013) 999 N.E. 2d 1130 (NY CA); Rachal v Reitz (2013) 403 S.W. 3d 840 (TX SC); McArthur v McArthur (2014) 168 Cal. Rep. 3d 785.

3 Rinehart v Welker [2012] NSWCA 95, at [175].

4 See Boesch, B.W., “The ICC Initiative” (2012) 18 T. & T. 316Google Scholar.

5 There is no doubt that external trust disputes, between trustees and third parties who deal with the trustee, can be legitimately resolved through arbitration, unless the trust deed manifests a contrary intention: see Trustee Act 1925, ss. 15(f), 69(2). This would also cover cases where beneficiaries sue “in the place of the trustee” (Hayim v Citibank N.A. [1987] A.C. 730, 747), exercising the trustees' rights under a Vandepitte procedure (see Vandepitte v Preferred Accident Insurance Corp. of New York [1933] A.C. 70; Roberts v Gill [2010] UKSC 22; [2011] 1 A.C. 240), but it does not directly authorise arbitration of internal trust disputes: see Re Earl of Strafford [1980] 1 Ch. 28, 32–33.

6 See Tanning Research Laboratories Inc. v O'Brien (1990) 169 C.L.R. 332, 351; Larsen Oil and Gas Pte. Ltd. v Petroprod Ltd. [2011] SGCA 21, at [43]; [2011] 3 S.L.R. 414.

7 See e.g. Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), ss. 34(2)(b)(i), 36(1)(b)(i); International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), s. 8(7)(a); Arbitration Act (Sing), s. 48(1)(b). See also United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”), Article V(2)(a).

8 D. Sutton, J. Gill, and M. Gearing, Russell on Arbitration, 23rd ed. (London 2007), at [1-034]; Arbitration Act 1996, s. 67(1).

9 Comandate Marine Corp. v Pan Australia Shipping Pty. Ltd. [2006] FCAFC 192, at [200]; (2006) 157 F.C.R. 45. See also Larsen Oil and Gas Pte. Ltd. [2011] SGCA 21, at [44]; [2011] 3 S.L.R. 414.

10 Sutton et al., Russell on Arbitration, at [1-036]–[1-037]; D. Jones, Commercial Arbitration in Australia, 2nd ed. (Sydney, 2013), at [6.140].

11 Shearson/American Express Inc. v McMahon (1987) 482 U.S. 220, 240–41.

12 Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd. v Richards [2011] EWCA Civ 855, at [76]–[78], [92]; [2012] Ch. 333 (permission to appeal was refused (see [2012] Ch. 362), but that signifies nothing either way: Re Wilson [1985] A.C. 750, 756). See also ACD Tridon Inc. v Tridon Australia Pty. Ltd. [2002] NSWSC 896, at [191]–[194].

13 Rinehart [2012] NSWCA 95.

14 Ibid., at paras. [226]–[227].

15 Reported in C. Monro, Acta Cancellariæ (London 1847), 540.

16 Ibid., at pp. 587–88.

17 Ibid., at pp. 591–92.

18 Dawson, J., “The Privy Council and Private Law in the Tudor and Stuart Periods: I” (1950) 48 Mich.L.Rev. 393, 427CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also W. Jones, The Elizabethan Court of Chancery (Oxford 1967) 273.

19 See J.R. Dasent (ed.), Acts of the Privy Council of England: Vol. XVII (London 1898), 302.

20 See J.R. Dasent (ed.), Acts of the Privy Council of England: Vol. XIX (London 1899), 33. The commissioners were subsequently given authority to examine the trustee and other witnesses upon oath: see pp. 173–74.

21 See ibid., at p. 191. Similarly, see Hewicke v Kaysar (1574) in J.R. Dasent (ed.), Acts of the Privy Council of England: Vol. VIII (London 1894), 359.

22 Dawson, “The Privy Council”, p. 425; see also p. 427. And see Jones, The Elizabethan Court of Chancery, pp. 242, 268–269, 271, 286, 482.

23 J.A. Guy, “The Development of Equitable Jurisdictions, 1450–1550” in E.W. Ives and A.H. Manchester (eds.), Law, Litigants and the Legal Profession (London 1983), 80, 84.

24 Dawson, “The Privy Council”, p. 420. The House of Lords exercised a similar jurisdiction at times: see J.S. Hart, Justice upon Petition (London 1991), 133–34.

25 J.H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th ed. (London 2002), 111.

26 Dawson, “The Privy Council”, p. 424.

27 Auriol v Smith (1813) Turn. & R. 121 (37 E.R. 1041).

28 Differences by Arbitration 1698, 9 & 10 William III, c. 15.

29 Auriol (1813) Turn. & R. 121, 124, 126 (37 E.R. 1041).

30 Ibid., at p. 136.

31 See e.g. Encyclopædia of Forms and Precedents, 4th ed., vol. 2 (London 1964), 469–72.

32 See Pearson v Arcadia Stores Guyra Ltd. (No. 2) (1935) 53 C.L.R. 587, 590–91, 592.

33 Clough v Ratcliffe (1847) 1 De G. & S.M. 164, 178 (63 E.R. 1016).

34 S.E. Williams and F. Guthrie-Smith, Daniell's Chancery Practice, 8th ed., vol. 1 (London 1914), 689.

35 Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd. [2011] EWCA Civ 855, at [103]; [2012] Ch. 33; see also at [84], per Patten L.J. See also Assaubayev v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd. [2014] EWCA Civ 1491, at [68].

36 Auburn Council v Austin Australia Pty. Ltd. [2004] NSWSC 141, at [23]; (2004) 22 A.C.L.C. 766; Hi-Fert Pty. Ltd. v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc. (No. 5) (1998) 90 F.C.R. 1 (FC), 14.

37 Willesford v Watson (1873) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 473, 480 (L.C. & L.JJ.).

38 See e.g. Raukura Moana Fisheries Ltd. v The Ship “Irina Zharkikh” [2001] 2 N.Z.L.R. 801, at [45].

39 Rinehart [2012] NSWCA 95, at [176]; see also at [210], per McColl J.A. This also resonates with the historical approach discussed by Dawson: see text accompanying note 26 above.

40 ACD Tridon Inc. [2002] NSWSC 896, at [192]. See also Larsen Oil and Gas Pte. Ltd. [2011] SGCA 21, at [44]; [2011] 3 S.L.R. 414; and the text accompanying note 9 above.

41 Hall v Coulter [2014] NICh 23, at [20]. See also Chapman v Chapman [1954] A.C. 429, 474; McLean v Burns Philp Trustee Co. Pty. Ltd. (1985) 2 N.S.W.L.R. 623, 633; Re Rabaiotti 1989 Settlement [2000] W.T.L.R. 953, 970 (J.R.C.); Saipem S.p.A. v Rafidain Bank [2007] EWHC 3119 (Ch), at [35]; Rinehart [2012] NSWCA 95, at [173]; Crociani v Crociani [2014] UKPC 40, at [36]; (2014) 17 I.T.E.L.R. 624; G. Thomas and A. Hudson, The Law of Trusts, 2nd ed., (Oxford, 2010), at [24.05]; Halsbury's Laws of England, 5th ed., vol. 98, (London 2013) at [652]; L. Tucker, N. Le Poidevin, and J. Brightwell, Lewin on Trusts, 19th ed. (London 2015), at [23-020].

42 D.J. Hayton, Underhill and Hayton's Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees, 18th ed. (London, 2010), at [86.1]; Halsbury's Laws of England, at [660].

43 McLean (1985) 2 N.S.W.L.R. 623, 633. See also Thomas and Hudson, The Law of Trusts, at [21.35].

44 Re MF Global UK Ltd. (No. 3) [2013] EWHC 1655 (Ch), at [26]; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 3874; Re Worldspreads Ltd. [2015] EWHC 1719 (Ch), at [24]; Re GB Nathan & Co. Pty. Ltd. (1991) 24 N.S.W.L.R. 674, 677; Halsbury's Laws of England, at [642]; Tucker et al., Lewin on Trusts, at [27-076].

45 Re Duke of Norfolk's Settlement Trusts [1982] Ch. 61, 75–79 & 80 (CA); Foster v Spencer [1996] 2 All E.R. 672, 678–80; Thomas and Hudson, The Law of Trusts, at [21.07].

46 McPhail v Doulton [1971] A.C. 424, 444, 457. See also Klug v Klug [1918] 2 Ch. 67, 70–71; Re Just (dec'd) (1971) 7 S.A.S.R. 508, 514; Mettoy Pension Trustee Ltd. v Evans [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1587, 1617–18.

47 Halsbury's Laws of England, at [645]; Tucker et al., Lewin on Trusts, at [45-010]. The limits of this particular power are discussed in Chapman [1954] A.C. 429.

48 Letterstedt v Broers (1884) 9 App. Cas. 371 (PC), 386. See also Chapman [1954] A.C. 429, 443.

49 Re Chetwynd's Settlement [1902] 1 Ch. 692, 693; Re Wrightson [1908] 1 Ch. 789, 798; Re Harrison's Settlement Trusts [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1492, 1497; Monty Financial Services Ltd. v Delmo [1996] 1 V.R. 65, 76; Porteous v Rinehart (1998) 19 W.A.R. 495, 507–08. See also Forshaw v Higginson (1855) 20 Beav. 485, 487 (52 E.R. 690); Hayton, Underhill and Hayton's Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees, at [70.16], [71.32]; Thomas and Hudson, The Law of Trusts, at [22.33], [22.63], [22.67]; Tucker et al., Lewin on Trusts, at [13-062], [13-066].

50 Re New [1901] 2 Ch. 534 (CA), 544–45; Tucker et al., Lewin on Trusts, at [45-005].

51 Re Downshire Settled Estates [1953] Ch. 218 (CA), 232.

52 Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805) 10 Ves. 522, 539 (32 E.R. 947). See also Re Astor's Settlement Trusts [1952] Ch. 534, 549; Chapman [1954] A.C. 429, 446; McPhail [1971] A.C. 424, 440.

53 Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd. [2003] UKPC 26, at [36]; [2003] 2 A.C. 709; see also at [51], [66]. See also CPT Custodian Pty. Ltd. v Commissioner of State Revenue [2005] HCA 53, at [17]; (2005) 224 C.L.R. 98.

54 Public Trustee v Cooper [2001] W.T.L.R. 901, 922.

55 Raguz v Sullivan [2000] NSWCA 240, at [46]; (2000) 50 N.S.W.L.R. 236. This tradition appears to have begun in the seventeenth century: see Williams, G., “The Doctrine of Repugnancy – II: In the Law of Arbitration” (1944) 60 L.Q.R. 69Google Scholar.

56 Kill v Hollister (1746) 1 Wils. K.B. 129, 129 (95 E.R. 532).

57 Street v Rigby (1802) 6 Ves. 815, 818 (31 E.R. 1323). See also Mitchell v Harris (1793) 2 Ves. Jun. 129, 137 (30 E.R. 557); Gourlay v Duke of Somerset (1815) 19 Ves. 429, 431 (34 E.R. 576); Agar v Macklew (1825) 2 Sim. & St. 418, 423 (57 E.R. 405); J. Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, 13th ed., vol. 2, by M. Bigelow (Boston 1886), 793–94; E.P. Hewitt and J.B. Richardson, White & Tudor's Leading Cases in Equity, 9th ed. (London 1928), 394; G. Jones & W. Goodhart, Specific Performance, 2nd ed. (London 1996), 189. However, if an arbitration had been conducted, and an award had been made, courts of equity would order specific performance of the award (see Story at pp. 794–95) unless the award was “exceptionable” for fraud, partiality, misconduct or error on the face of the award: see Story at pp. 786–93.

58 Czarnikow v Roth, Schmidt & Co. [1922] 2 K.B. 478 (CA), 489.

59 Evanturel v Evanturel (1874) L.R. 6 P.C. 1, 29.

60 Jones, Commercial Arbitration in Australia, at [10.360]; see also at [6.130].

61 Raguz [2000] NSWCA 240, at [50]–[51]; (2000) 50 N.S.W.L.R. 236.

62 See e.g. Plews v Baker (1873) L.R. 16 Eq. 564; Gillett v Thornton (1875) L.R. 19 Eq. 599, 604. Despite its name, the statute applied to courts of equity as well: Re Warner & Powell's Arbitration (1866) L.R. 3 Eq. 261, 266.

63 Section 4.

64 9 & 10 William III, c. 15.

65 See M.J. Mustill and S.C. Boyd, Commercial Arbitration in England, 2nd ed. (London 1989), 433, 437.

66 Ibid., at p. 447.

67 Czarnikow [1922] 2 K.B. 478 (CA), 484.

68 The House of Lords had already held that it was not an illegitimate ouster of the court's jurisdiction for parties to an agreement to stipulate that no right of action accrued until an arbitral award had been obtained on the dispute: Scott v Avery (1856) 5 H.L.C. 811 (10 E.R. 1121).

69 See Czarnikow [1922] 2 K.B. 478 (CA), 485–89, 487, 489, 491.

70 Mustill and Boyd, Commercial Arbitration in England, pp. 447–48.

71 Ibid., at p. 452; M. Kerr, “The Arbitration Act 1979”, p. 46.

72 Arbitration Act 1979, ss. 1(2), 1(3).

73 Ibid., s. 3(1).

74 Ibid., s. 3(6).

75 Arbitration Act 1996, s. 45(1).

76 Ibid., s. 69(2).

77 Ibid., s. 69(1). The statute provides, similarly to the 1979 Act, that exclusion agreements for domestic arbitrations are only effective where entered into after the arbitration has commenced (see s. 87(1)), but this provision has not been brought into force.

78 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32, at [17]; (2014) 88 A.L.J.R. 814; see also at [92], [118]. And see Brodie v Singleton Shire Council [2001] HCA 29, at [31]; (2001) 206 C.L.R. 512.

79 Kerr, M., “The Arbitration Act 1979” (1980) 43 M.L.R. 45Google Scholar, 45.

80 Erven Warnink Besloten Vennootschap v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. [1979] A.C. 731, 743; Esso Australia Resources Ltd. v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67, at [18]–[28]; (1999) 201 C.L.R. 49; Beatson, J., “Has the Common Law a Future?” [1997] C.L.J. 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar; W.M.C. Gummow, Change and Continuity (Oxford, 1999), 1–3, 11–18; Beatson, J., “The Role of Statute in the Development of Common Law Doctrine” (2001) 117 L.Q.R. 247Google Scholar.

81 Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd. [1993] A.C. 334, 352.

82 Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlev Von Appen G.m.b.H. v Voest Alpine Intertrading G.m.b.H. [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279 (CA), 286.

83 Re Wynn [1952] 1 Ch. 271.

84 Referring to Scott (1856) 5 H.L.C. 811 (10 E.R. 1121), as to which see note 68 above.

85 Re Wynn [1952] 1 Ch. 271, 276.

86 Ibid., at p. 278.

87 Ibid., at pp. 278–79.

88 This refers to the question of whether the National Health (Scotland) Service Act 1947 had the effect that the relevant hospital had been taken over by the state.

89 Board of Management of Dundee General Hospitals v Walker 1952 S.C. (HL) 78, 86 (also reported in [1952] 1 All E.R. 896).

90 Ibid., at p. 94. Similarly, Lord Denning M.R. famously suggested that uncertainty in trusts could be “cured” by giving someone else the power to resolve doubt: Re Tuck's Settlement Trusts [1978] 1 Ch. 49, 60–62. However, the authority of this decision is weak, given Eveleigh L.J. disagreed (at p. 66) and Lord Russell refused to decide the point (at p. 65). The case was actually decided on the basis that the clause was not uncertain.

91 Board of Management of Dundee General Hospitals 1952 S.C. (HL) 78, 92.

92 Rinehart [2012] NSWCA 95, at [173].

93 Ibid., at paras. [175], [177].

94 Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (WA), s. 38(1).

95 Ibid., ss. 38, 40.

96 Commercial Act 2012 (WA), s. 34A(1); see also s. 34.

97 Jones, Commercial Arbitration in Australia, at [10.550].

98 Arbitration Act 1996, s. 69.

99 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 5. See similarly Arbitration Act 1996, s. 1(c).

100 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 11(3). See also Arbitration Act 1996, ss. 17(3), 18.

101 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 13(4). See also Arbitration Act 1996, s. 24.

102 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 16(9). See also Arbitration Act 1996, ss. 32, 67.

103 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 17J(1) (although see also s. 17(1)).

104 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 19(6).

105 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 27. See also Arbitration Act 1996, s. 44.

106 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 27A.

107 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), ss. 27H–27I.

108 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 27J. See also Arbitration Act 1996, s. 45.

109 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), ss. 34, 36. See also Arbitration Act 1996, s. 68.

110 Rinehart [2012] NSWCA 95, at [167].

111 Ibid., at paras. [168]–[169], [214]–[215].

112 Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd. [2011] EWCA Civ 855, at [41]–[43], [96]; [2012] Ch. 33. See also Shearson/American Express Inc. (1987) 482 U.S. 220, 226–27, 238–39.

113 Assaubayev v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd. [2014] EWCA Civ 1491, at [19].

114 Ibid., at paras. [65]–[69].

115 Ibid., at paras. [68]–[69].

116 Ibid., at para. [31] (quoting Re Grey [1892] 2 Q.B. 440, 443).

117 Rhodes v Muswell Hill Land Co. (1861) 29 Beav. 560, 563–64 (54 E.R. 745). The clause can be valid if it shows that the parties' intention was that the arrangement was merely binding in honour: e.g. Rose and Frank Co. v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd. [1925] A.C. 445.

118 Permanent Trustee Co. v Dougall (1934) 34 S.R. (N.S.W.) 83, 86–87.

119 See e.g. Re Wynn [1952] 1 Ch. 271, 275, 278.

120 Williams, G., “The Doctrine of Repugnancy – I: Conditions in Gifts” (1943) 59 L.Q.R. 343Google Scholar, 343.

121 Permanent Trustee Co. (1934) 34 S.R. (N.S.W.) 83, 87.

122 Evanturel (1874) L.R. 6 P.C. 1.

123 Nathan v Leonard [2002] EWHC 1701 (Ch), at [10], [15]; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 827.

124 Raukura Moana Fisheries Ltd. [2001] 2 N.Z.L.R. 801, at [38].

125 Sutton et al., Russell on Arbitration, at [2-002].

126 Arbitration Act 1996, s. 6(1). See also Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 7(1).

127 Such agreements must generally be in writing, although the writing may merely evidence the agreement and need not be signed: see Arbitration Act 1996, s. 5; Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s. 7.

128 Similarly, see Re Nestorovski Estate (2009) 769 N.W. 2d 720 (MI CA), 732.

129 Rinehart [2012] NSWCA 95, at [177].

130 Cohen and Staff, “The Arbitration of Trust Disputes”.

131 Cohen, L. and Poole, J., “Trust Arbitration – Is It Desirable and Does It Work?” (2012) 18 T. & T. 324Google Scholar.

132 Poidevin, N. Le, “Arbitration and Trusts: Can It Be Done?” (2012) 18 T. & T. 307, 309Google Scholar.

133 Cohen and Staff, “The Arbitration of Trust Disputes”, p. 219; Cohen and Poole, “Trust Arbitration”, p. 327. Cohen and Poole recognise that this highlights the importance of the arbitration clause being drafted so as to constitute an agreement, as distinct from a direction by the settlor: see p. 327.

134 Cohen and Staff, ibid., at p. 221.

135 Arbitration Act 1996, s. 82(2). See Cohen and Poole, “Trust Arbitration”, pp. 327–28; Cohen and Staff, ibid., at p. 221. This statutory formulation can be traced at least as far back as the Common Law Procedure Act 1854, s. 11.

136 Trust Law Committee, “Arbitration of Trust Disputes” (2012) 18 T. & T. 296, 300Google Scholar. The discussion paper is not publicly available.

137 Ibid., at p. 296.

138 Ibid., at p. 301.

139 Ibid., at p. 300.

140 See also Le Poidevin, “Arbitration and Trusts”, p. 307 (note 4), citing the example of contracts.

141 See also ibid., at p. 308.

142 Law of Property Act 1925, s. 72(3).

143 See Rye v Rye [1962] A.C. 496.

144 Re Astor's Settlement Trusts [1952] Ch. 534, 542; Murphy v Murphy [1999] 1 W.L.R. 282, 295; Hayton, Underhill and Hayton's Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees, at [1.1(6)].

145 See Hayton, ibid., at paras. [8.166]–[8.167].

146 Cf. Graham, “The Problems with Compulsory Arbitration”, p. 21.

147 Cohen and Poole, “Trust Arbitration”, p. 328.

148 Ibid.

149 Linden Gardens Trust Ltd. v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd. [1994] 1 A.C. 85, 103.

150 See Ramput (Panama) S.A. v Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (The “League”) [1984] 2 Lloyds Rep. 259, 262; Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlev Von Appen G.m.b.H. [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279 (CA), 285.

151 This would, however, be the case in any event as the obligations of a trustee are obligations attached to the office of trustee, rather than purely contractual obligations, and so are capable of binding successor trustees notwithstanding the lack of any contractual privity.

152 Tanning Research Laboratories Inc. (1990) 169 C.L.R. 332, 342.

153 Re Transphere Pty. Ltd. (1986) 5 N.S.W.L.R. 309, 311. See also DKLR Holding Co. (No. 2) Pty. Ltd. v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (New South Wales) (1982) 149 C.L.R. 431, 474.

154 Mustill and Boyd, Commercial Arbitration in England, pp. 136–37.

155 See P. Watts (ed.), Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency, 19th ed. (London 2010), at [9-012]; Siu v Eastern Insurance Co. Ltd. [1994] 2 A.C. 199 (PC), 207.

156 Montgomerie v United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Association Ltd. [1891] 1 Q.B. 370, 371.

157 Mustill and Boyd, Commercial Arbitration in England, p. 136. Similarly, see Jones, Commercial Arbitration in Australia, at [4.380], which merely cites Mustill and Boyd as authority.

158 See Conaglen, M. and Nolan, R., “Contracts and Knowing Receipt: Principles and Application” (2013) 129 L.Q.R. 359Google Scholar.

159 Nisshin Shipping Co. Ltd. v Cleaves & Co. Ltd. [2003] EWHC 2602, at [36]; [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 38.

160 Sutton et al., Russell on Arbitration, at [2-015]–[2-016].

161 See Mustill and Boyd, Commercial Arbitration in England, pp. 461–62.

162 Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. [1993] A.C. 334, 352. See also Etri Fans Ltd. v NMB (UK) Ltd. [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1110, 1114; Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd. v Unex Corp. (1994) 38 Con. L.R. 63; Al-Naimi v Islamic Press Agency Inc. [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 522 (CA), 525, 528; A. v B. [2006] EWHC 2006 (Comm), at [107]; [2007] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 591; Joint Stock Co. “Aeroflot Russian Airlines” v Berezovsky [2013] EWCA Civ 784, at [73]; [2013] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 242. Cf. Harris v Reynolds (1845) 7 Q.B. 71 (115 E.R. 414).

163 Roussel-Uclaf v GD Searle & Co. Ltd. [1978] R.P.C. 747 (ChD), 754.

164 See also Le Poidevin, “Arbitration and Trusts”, pp. 310–11.

165 Rockware Glass Ltd. v MacShannon [1978] A.C. 795, 817–18; Texan Management Ltd. v Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co. Ltd. [2009] UKPC 46, at [49]–[55]; cf. Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co. Inc. v Fay (1988) 165 C.L.R. 197, 232–33, 239–240.

166 See text accompanying notes 15–21 above.

167 See e.g. Cooper v Allaine (1562) in Monro, Acta Cancellariæ, p. 342; Palmer v Dean of Canterbury (1584) in Monro, Acta Cancellariæ, p. 540.

168 See e.g. Mompesson v Ley (1589) in Dasent, Vol. XVII, pp. 301–02; Gurlin v Gurlin (1590) in Dasent, Vol. XIX, p. 33; Yonge v Yeo (1590) in Dasent, Vol XIX, pp. 190–91.

169 See C. Monro, Acta Cancellariæ, p. 587, emphasis added.

170 See ibid., at p. 592.

171 See ibid.

172 Jones, The Elizabethan Court of Chancery, p. 251.

173 Anton Piller K.G. v Manufacturing Processes Ltd. [1976] 1 Ch. 55 (CA), 58, 60.

174 Technically, the court does not force the parties to arbitrate. But the stay of proceedings clearly encourages that outcome: see Brownbill, “Arbitration of Trust Disputes”, pp. 32–33.

175 Rachal (2013) 403 S.W. 3d 840 (TX SC), 846 (note 5).

176 Belzberg (2013) 999 N.E. 2d 1130 (NY CA), 1133.

177 Ibid., at p. 1134.

178 Rachal (2013) 403 S.W. 3d 840 (TX SC), 845.

179 ACD Tridon Inc. [2002] NSWSC 896, [122]–[123].

180 Belzberg (2013) 999 N.E. 2d 1130 (NY CA), 1133.

181 Ibid., at pp. 1133, 1136.

182 See e.g. Halsall v Brizell [1957] 1 Ch. 169, 183.

183 Tito v Waddell (No. 2) [1977] Ch. 106, 290.

184 Ibid., at p. 303.

185 Ibid., at pp. 299, 302.

186 Lady Naas v Westminster Bank Ltd. [1940] A.C. 366.

187 See Tito [1977] Ch. 106, 292, 302, 309.

188 Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 A.C. 310, 322.

189 Cheslyn v Dalby (1836) 2 Y. & C. Ex. 170, 197 (160 E.R. 357).

190 Corin v Patton (1990) 169 C.L.R. 540, 557.

191 See e.g. Rachal (2013) 403 S.W. 3d 840 (TX SC), 844.

192 Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav. 115, 116 (49 E.R. 282).

193 See the discussion in Matthews, P., “The Comparative Importance of the Rule in Saunders v. Vautier” (2006) 122 L.Q.R. 266Google Scholar. See also Chapman [1954] A.C. 429, 445, 455.

194 Chapman, ibid., at p. 451.

195 Re Downshire Settled Estates [1953] Ch. 218 (CA), 234. See also Hartigan Nominees Pty. Ltd. v Rydge (1992) 29 N.S.W.L.R. 405 (CA), 436.

196 Crociani [2014] UKPC 40, at [35]; (2014) 17 I.T.E.L.R. 624.

197 Ibid., at paras. [35]–[36].

198 Rinehart [2012] NSWCA 95, at [179].

199 Strong, S., “Arbitration of Trust Disputes: Two Bodies of Law Collide” (2012) 45 Vand.J.Trans.L. 1157, 1205Google Scholar.

200 Mustill and Boyd, Commercial Arbitration in England, p. 32.

201 Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, p. 786.

202 Ibid., at p. 792.

203 Ibid., at pp. 792–93.

204 M. Herbert, “The Arbitration of Trust Disputes” [2012] P.C.B. 138.

205 The increasing adoption of legislation making trust arbitration clauses enforceable (see Arbitration Act, Cap. 387 (Malta), Article 15A; Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007, s. 63; Trustee Act 1998 (Bahamas), ss. 91A–91C; Florida Statutes, Title XLII, Ch. 731, s. 401; Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 14, Ch. 11, s. 10205), and the calls to extend that to England (see Trust Law Committee, “Arbitration of Trust Disputes”; Herbert, “The Arbitration of Trust Disputes”, p. 138) and New Zealand (see New Zealand Law Commission, Review of the Law of Trusts: A Trusts Act for New Zealand (Rep. 130, 2013) R42(2)), indicate that others are of that view. See also Cohen and Staff, “The Arbitration of Trust Disputes”, p. 203.

206 Crociani [2014] UKPC 40, at [36]; (2014) 17 I.T.E.L.R. 624.