Piercing the veneer of the trust in the South African Trust Law: Liability of trustees of a business trust for fraudulent trading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The trust, whichever form it is moulded in, is a useful instrument for estate planning. However, many family businesses nowadays take the form of a business trust without any change in the circumstances surrounding it. This submits the trust to diatribe and suspicion because the protection the trust offers is often exploited. In Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa v Parker and Others 2005 (2) SA 77 (SCA) it was obiter the court's view that it might be necessary to extend well‐established company law principles also to trusts. The court referred to the Turquand principle and the principle of “piercing the corporate veil”. The motivation is that assets allegedly vesting in the trustees of a trust, in fact belong to one or more of the trustees personally. This view may have obvious and important implications in case of the sequestration of the trustee's estate. It implies that the assets concerned may be used in satisfaction of the trustee's debts because “in fact it belongs to the trustee”. However, it may also be used in satisfaction of debts “to the repayment of which the trustees purported to bind the trust”. Thus, if the trust's estate is sequestrated, the assets may be used in satisfaction of the trust's debts. If the personal estate of the trustee is sequestrated, these assets may be utilized in satisfaction of the trustee's personal debts. Consequently it is relevant to ask the question whether the trustee's personal estate (irrespective of sequestration) would be liable for restitution in favour of the beneficiaries for these actions in breach of trust in competition with the creditors of the trustee. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".