SpringerLink
Log in

Trust Law in Macao: An Organisational Law Account

  • Article
  • Published:
European Business Organization Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing on the experiences of its East Asian forerunners, Macao’s Legislative Assembly introduced the Trust Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region (Macao Trust Law) on 3 November 2022, with the dual aim of encouraging the public’s use of trusts during asset transactions and regulating the conducting of trust business in Macao. As a newly enacted law, it is hardly surprising that there is a current lack of scholarly treatises examining its structure and provisions. This article is the first English-language analysis of the Macao Trust Law from an organisational law perspective. It has two parts. The first part explores how organisational laws’ internal administration and asset partitioning rules are manifested in the context of Macao trusts, and identifies the problems associated with their observance. The second part discusses the implications of this organisational law analysis, proposing ways to address the problems identified in the Macao Trust Law and explaining the rationale behind these proposals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The United Kingdom has three legal systems: English law, applying in England and Wales, Northern Ireland law, applying in Northern Ireland, and Scots law, applying in Scotland. When reference is made to English trust(s) in this article, it particularly means the trust(s) created under English law.

  2. Maitland (2003), p 52.

  3. AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors (2014) 3 WLR 1367, [70].

  4. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc (2013) 1 BCLC 613, 623.

  5. Virgo (2020), p 49.

  6. Ho (2004), p 287.

  7. Lee (2009), p 656; Ho et al. (2013), p 80. For the purpose of this article, ‘China’ refers to the People’s Republic of China, excluding the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan Region.

  8. Tamaruya (2017), p 2238; Liew (2022), pp 78–80.

  9. Wu (2020), pp 442–63; Wu (2022), p 238; Ho (2004), p 293.

  10. Basic Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region, Legislative Assembly, 31 March 1993. For an account of the legal system in Macao, see Ip (2019), p 84; Castellucci (2012), pp 695–706.

  11. Trust Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region, Legislative Assembly, 3 November 2022.

  12. Explanatory Statement on the Macao Special Administrative Region Trust Law, Legislative Assembly, 2022.

  13. Blake (2001), p 268.

  14. Dagan (2020), p 195.

  15. See Part 2.2.

  16. On the unique features of Czech trusts, see Popovici (2016), p 931; Ambruz (2016), p 1017.

  17. For an analysis of the legal difficulties in transplanting English trusts to Liechtenstein’s legal system, see Schurr (2018), pp 511–15.

  18. Xu and Wu (2022), p 394.

  19. Opinion on the Macao Special Administrative Region Trust Law, Legislative Assembly, 25 October 2022, p 3.

  20. See Part 2.1.

  21. See Part 3.

  22. Sitkoff (2013), p 428.

  23. Hansmann and Mattei (1998), p 479; Thompson (2003), p 1324; Hansmann and Kraakman (2000a), pp 810–11; Ricks (2017), p 1351.

  24. Patterson (2010), p 929; Cooper (2008), p 1172; Liew (2021), pp 713–14.

  25. Nelson v Greening & Sykes (Builders) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1358, [75].

  26. Tey (2009), pp 194–95; Hayton (1999), pp 574–75; Underhill et al. (2007), p 835; Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society (1998) 1 WLR 896, 903.

  27. Liew (2021), p 714.

  28. In the context of English charitable trusts with no beneficiaries, the transfer of the trust asset to the trustee will give rise to the legal title being vested in the charity trustee, with the Attorney General acting as the representative of the beneficial interest. See Weth v Attorney-General (1999) 1 WLR 686, 691; **g (2022a), p 32. Current case law and literature only say that the Attorney General acts as the representative of the beneficial interest. They do not say that the Attorney General is vested with the equitable title of the trust asset. It is unclear whether the Attorney General, qua representative, also enjoys equitable title to the trust asset. If not, who should own the equitable title to the trust asset? This question remains unresolved.

  29. Civilian lawyers tend to interpret the approach of vesting legal titles in trustees and equitable titles in beneficiaries as a ‘division or split of title’. See Martinez (1982), p 1718; Hefti (1956), p 561. This interpretation has recently been criticised as misleading: an equitable interest is not carved out of a legal estate but impressed or engrafted onto it. See Clarry (2014), p 903; Burrows (2013), para. 4.150; DKLR Holding Co (No 2) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) (1982) 40 ALR 1, 36; Akers v Samba Financial Group [2017] AC 424, [50].

  30. Under the entrustment approach, settlors are allowed to reserve the legal title to the trust asset for the whole life cycle of a trust. Here, the trustee is more akin to an agent of the settlor than to a trustee as understood in common law jurisdictions. See Hsu (2016), p 188; Lyu (2015), pp 454–55; Gao (2014), p 353; Lee (2009), p 660; Ho et al. (2013), p 85. An alternative view argues that the term ‘entrust’ should not be understood in its literal, semantic meaning. A holistic review of the Chinese Trust Law suggests that, although the term ‘entrust’ is used, the creation of a Chinese trust denotes the transfer of the legal title of the trust asset to the trustee. See Qu (2003), p 345; Zhang (2015), pp 510–11.

  31. Chen (1986), p 64.

  32. Opinion on the Macao Special Administrative Region Trust Law, Legislative Assembly, 25 October 2022, pp 3–4.

  33. Trust Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region, Legislative Assembly, 3 November 2022, Arts. 5, 7.

  34. Ibid., Art. 34.

  35. Finn (1989), p 97.

  36. Dagan (2017), p 73. Relational justice originates from the thinking that individual autonomy cannot be understood in a purely abstract manner, but rather it should be analysed as involving both individual capabilities and social interactions. See Boyte (2014), p 723.

  37. Dagan (2016a), p 652.

  38. Rostirolla v Fiakos (No 2) [2002] FCA 1562, [74].

  39. Miller (2011), p 269.

  40. Trust Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region, Legislative Assembly, 3 November 2022, Art. 18.

  41. FHR European Ventures LLP v Mankarious (2014) 3 WLR 535, [33].

  42. For an account of the English trust law’s duty of loyalty, see Yip and Low (2021), pp 15–36; Conaglen (2005), pp 459–78. For an account of the Chinese trust law’s duty of loyalty, see **g (2020), pp 350–66.

  43. Conaglen (2010), p 211.

  44. Re Corbenstoke Ltd (No 2) [1990] BCLC 60, 64; Grower (2021), p 23.

  45. In English and American law, self-dealing transactions by the trustee are rescindable regardless of whether they are carried out at a fair price. On the English law position, see Conaglen (2014), p 492; McFarlane and Mitchell (2015), p 559. On the American law position, see Alexander (2000), p 776; Hoover (1956), p 25.

  46. Opinion on the Macao Special Administrative Region Trust Law, Legislative Assembly, 25 October 2022, p 61.

  47. In English law, should the trust asset suffer damage because of the trustee’s breach of the no-conflict rule, the court may award reparative equitable compensation. However, this compensation remedy is only of secondary importance, playing a supplementary role to the remedy of rescission. See Conaglen (2005), p 463.

  48. **g (2020), p 368.

  49. Trust Law of the People’s Republic of China, National People’s Congress, 28 April 2001, Art. 26.

  50. For an analysis of the account of profit remedy in English and American law, see Yip and Low (2021), p 12; Virgo (2020), p 466; Bogert (1987), pp 346–47; Bogert and Bogert (1993), p 241.

  51. McLeod and Ryman (2020), p 86.

  52. Yip and Low (2021), p 19.

  53. Langford (2016), p 517; Bogert (1987), pp 346–47; Bogert and Bogert (1993), p 241.

  54. Scott v National Trust for Places of Historical Interest or Natural Beauty (1998) 2 All ER 705, 713.

  55. Gartside v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1968] AC 553, 617–18; Turner (2018), pp 249–50.

  56. **g (2022b), p 241. See also Turner (2018), p 250.

  57. Hudson (2021), p 34.

  58. Breakspear v Ackland (2008) 3 WLR 698, 720; Murphy v Murphy (1999) 1 WLR 282, 292; Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Comrs [1974] AC 133, 199; Turner (2018), p 250.

  59. See Part 1.

  60. Dagan (2020), p 192.

  61. Opinion on the Macao Special Administrative Region Trust Law, Legislative Assembly, 25 October 2022, p 64.

  62. Ibid.

  63. Sales (2018), p 125.

  64. Virgo (2020), p 502.

  65. Liew (2017), p 4.

  66. Scott and Fratcher (1987), p 472; Bogert (1987), p 337; Bogert and Bogert (1993), p 187; Restatement (Second) of Trusts (USC), § 187 (Comment j); Restatement (Third) of Trusts (USC), § 50 (Comment c).

  67. See, e.g., Carrier v Carrier, 226 NY 114, 125 (NY Ct App, 8 April 1919); Re Estate of Mayer, 176 Misc 2d 562, 563 (NY, 7 April 1998); Conlin v Murdock, 43 A 2d 218, 219 (NJ, 12 July 1945); Caswell v Lenihan, 126 NE 2d 902, 904 (Ohio Sup Ct, 18 May 1955).

  68. See, e.g., Re Kaminester’s Will, 184 NYS 2d 237, 239 (NY, 20 January 1959); Re Estate of Mendelson, 220 NW 2d 33, 35 (Mich Sup Ct, 25 June 1974).

  69. Langbein (2004), p 1106. For an account of the trust’s mandatory rule, see Sitkoff (2013), p 433; Hansmann and Mattei (1998), p 449; Millard (2005), pp 382–83; Gallanis (2011), pp 235–36.

  70. Owen v Owen [2016] FCCA 2130, [29].

  71. Section 222(2) of the Second Restatement of Trusts provides that ‘[a] provision in the trust instrument is not effective to relieve the trustee of liability for breach of trust committed in bad faith or intentionally or with reckless indifference to the interest of the beneficiary, or of liability for any profit which the trustee has derived from a breach of trust’.

  72. Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241.

  73. Ibid., 245.

  74. Ibid., 253–54.

  75. Fox (2011), p 19; Lee and Yip (2020), p 150; Wei (2009), p 480.

  76. Spread Trustee Co Ltd v Hutcheson (2012) 2 AC 194, [129].

  77. Civil Code of the Macao Special Administrative Region, Legislative Assembly, 3 August 1999.

  78. See Part 2.2.1.

  79. Langbein (1995), p 641.

  80. Miller (2011), p 270.

  81. Dagan (2020), p 197.

  82. Ibid., p 186.

  83. Trust Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region, Legislative Assembly, 3 November 2022, Art. 35.

  84. Ibid., Art. 32.

  85. Ibid., Art. 34.

  86. Scott v National Trust for Places of Historical Interest or Natural Beauty (1998) 2 All ER 705, 712.

  87. For an account of Article 12, See Part 2.1.1.

  88. For an account of Article 26, See Part 2.1.1.

  89. Re Rabaiott’s Settlement [2000] WTLR 953, 933; Samuels (1965), p 222.

  90. Lee and Yip (2020), p 19.

  91. Edge v Pensions Ombudsman [2000] Ch 602, 633; Scott v National Trust for Places of Historical Interest or Natural Beauty (1998) 2 All ER 705, 718–719.

  92. Liew (2021), pp 713–14.

  93. See Part 2.1.1.

  94. Langbein (2004), p 1106; Sitkoff (2013), p 433.

  95. Bathurst v Scarborow [2004] EWCA Civ 411, [30].

  96. Bryan (2016), p 379.

  97. For an account of the agency problem in the trust setting, see Sitkoff (2003), pp 648–82; Sterk (2005), pp 2771–87.

  98. Macaulay (1963), p 67.

  99. Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (No 2) [2009] EWHC 2141, [52].

  100. Ong v ** [2015] EWHC 1742 (Ch), [255].

  101. See Part 2.1.1.

  102. Dagan (2016b), p 400.

  103. Dagan (2020), p 196.

  104. Sitkoff (2013), p 439.

  105. Sitkoff (2003), p 633.

  106. Ibid.

  107. Hansmann and Kraakman (2000b), p 393.

  108. Sitkoff (2013), p 435.

  109. Lee (2013), p 411.

  110. Strickland v Symons (1883) 22 Ch D 666, 671.

  111. Hansmann and Kraakman (2000b), p 416.

  112. For an account of the overreaching doctrine, see Fox (2002), pp 95–100; Nolan (2002), pp 172–73.

  113. Penner (2016), para. 2.61.

  114. Virgo (2020), pp 592–93.

  115. Cheng (2009), pp 69–70.

  116. The trust laws of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan also include the trust asset independence doctrine. See Wu (2020), p 459.

  117. The TAI doctrine shares the similar logic of the separate-patrimony-based approach, which has been explored by scholars in other civilian or mixed jurisdictions. For an account of the patrimony approach, see Gretton (2000), p 609l; Schmieman (2015), pp 229–31; Smith (2013), p 285.

  118. Trust Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region, Legislative Assembly, 3 November 2022, Art. 11.

  119. Ibid., Art. 6.

  120. Wu (2020), p 463.

  121. Sitkoff (2013), p 439.

  122. Hansmann and Mattei (1998), p 457.

  123. Ibid.

  124. Langbein (1997), p 188.

  125. Liew (2021), p 694.

  126. Raczynska (2013), p 465.

  127. Astor v Scholfield [1952] Ch 534, 535.

  128. Gretton (2000), p 613.

  129. Nolan (2016), p 473; Henderson (2018), pp 26–7; Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805) 32 ER 947, 954.

  130. Nolan (2016), p 490.

  131. See Part 2.

  132. For an analysis of the organisational characteristics of American and English trusts, see Silberstein-Loeb (2015), p 193; Sitkoff (2003), pp 627–633.

  133. A country’s institutional context influences the interpretation and application of its legal rules. See Castellucci (2012), pp 703–704; Cotterrell and Sarat (2006), p 161; Friedman (1969), pp 29–30.

  134. All jurisdictions have some gap between aspirational rules and their practical enforcement. See Khaitan (2015), p 13.

  135. See Part 2.1.1.

  136. Ibid.

  137. Ibid.

  138. Lee and Yip (2020), p 150.

  139. Opinion on the Macao Special Administrative Region Trust Law, Legislative Assembly, 25 October 2022, pp 30–32.

  140. Uniform Trust Code (Last Revised or Amended in 2010) (USC) § 1008(a)(1).

  141. See Part 2.1.2.

  142. See Part 2.1.1.

  143. Woodland-Ferrari v UCL Group Retirement Benefits Scheme [2003] Ch 115, 132.

  144. See Part 2.1.

  145. See Part 2.2.

References

  • Alexander GS (2000) Cognitive theory of fiduciary relationships. Cornell Law Rev 85(3):767–785

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambruz V (2016) The rule in Saunders v Vautier and the Czech trust law. Eur Rev Priv Law 24(6):1011–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake M (2001) Distributive justice, state coercion, and autonomy. Philos Pub Aff 30(3):257–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogert GT (1987) Trusts, 6th edn. West Publishing, Eagan

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogert GT, Bogert GG (1993) The law of trusts and trustees (sections 511-550), 2nd edn. West Publishing, Eagan

  • Boyte AN (2014) The conceits of our legal imagination: legal fictions and the concept of deemed authorship. NYUJ Legis Public Policy 17(3):707–762

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan M (2016) The inferred trust: an unhappy marriage of contract and trust? Curr Legal Probl 69(1):377–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrows AS (2013) English private law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Castellucci I (2012) Legal hybridity in Hong Kong and Macau. McGill Law J 57(4):665–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen TP (1986) The Chinese notariat: an overlooked cornerstone of the legal system of the People’s Republic of China. Int Comp Law Q 35(1):63–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng TI (2009) Law of things in the Macau Civil Code: an extension of the Romano-Germanic system built upon the classical concept of ownership. In: Oliveira JC, Cardinal P (eds) One country, two systems, three legal orders: perspectives of evolution. Springer, Berlin, pp 51–73

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clarry D (2014) Fiduciary ownership and trusts in a comparative perspective. Int Comp Law Q 63(4):901–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conaglen M (2005) The nature and function of fiduciary loyalty. Law Q Rev 121:452–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Conaglen M (2010) Fiduciary loyalty: protecting the due performance of non-fiduciary duties. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Conaglen M (2014) Proprietary remedies for breach of fiduciary duty. Camb L J 73:490–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper JA (2008) Empty promises: settlor’s intent, the Uniform Trust Code, and the future of trust investment law. Boston U Law Rev 88:1165–1216

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterrell R, Sarat AD (2006) Law, culture and society: legal ideas in the mirror of social theory. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagan H (2016a) Between regulatory and autonomy-based private law. Eur Law J 22(5):644–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagan H (2016b) The utopian promise of private law. Univ Toronto Law J 66(3):392–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagan H (2017) The challenges of private law: a research agenda for an autonomy-based private law. In: Barker K, Fairweather K, Grantham R (eds) Private law in the 21st century. Hart, Oxford, pp 67–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagan H (2020) Autonomy and property. In: Dagan H, Zipursky BC (eds) Research handbook on private law theory. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 185–202

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Finn P (1989) Contract and the fiduciary principle. UNSW Law J 12(1):76–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox D (2002) Overreaching. In: Birks P, Pretto A (eds) Breach of trust. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 95–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox D (2011) Non-excludable trustee duties. Trusts & Trustees 17(1):17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman LM (1969) Legal culture and social development. Law Soc Rev 4(1):29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallanis TP (2011) The new direction of American trust law. Iowa Law Rev 97:215–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao LY (2014) The development of private trusts in Mainland China: legal obstacles and solutions. Trusts & Trustees 20(4):350–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gretton GL (2000) Trusts without equity. Int Comp Law Q 49(3):599–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grower JAW (2021) What does it mean to be a fiduciary? Camb Law J 80:21–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann H, Kraakman R (2000a) Organizational law as asset partitioning. Eur Econ Rev 44(4):807–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann H, Kraakman R (2000b) The essential role of organizational law. Yale Law J 110(3):387–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann H, Mattei U (1998) The functions of trust law: a comparative legal and economic analysis. NYU Law Rev 73(2):434–479

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayton D (1999) English fiduciary standards and trust law. Vand J Transnatl Law 32:555–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Hefti P (1956) Trusts and their treatment in the civil law. Am J Comp L 5(4):553–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson SL (2018) The role of the courts today in the administration of trusts. In: Nolan RC, Low KFK, Tang HW (eds) Trusts and modern wealth management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ho L (2004) The reception of trust in Asia: emerging Asian principles of trust? Sing J Legal Stud 2004(2):287–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho L, Lee R, ** J (2013) Trust law in China: a critical evaluation of its conceptual foundation. In: Ho L, Lee R (eds) Trust law in Asian civil law jurisdictions: a comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 80–98

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover ER (1956) Basic principles underlying duty of loyalty. Clevel State Law Rev 1:7–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu C (2016) Eastern trusts, western contracts: the transition from contract to trust in China’s trust industry. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 17:173–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson J (2021) Mere and other discretionary objects in Australia. In: Liew YK, Harding M (eds) Asia-Pacific trusts law: theory and practice in context. Hart, Oxford, pp 19–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Ip EC (2019) Hybrid constitutionalism: the politics of constitutional review in the Chinese special administrative regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • **g H (2020) The duty of loyalty in Chinese trust laws. J Equity 13:347–372

    Google Scholar 

  • **g H (2022a) Conceptualising the Chinese charitable trust. J Equity 16:28–55

    Google Scholar 

  • **g H (2022b) Enforcing charitable trusts: a study on the English necessary interest rule. Leg Stud 42:228–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khaitan T (2015) A theory of discrimination law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Langbein JH (1995) The contractarian basis of the law of trusts. Yale Law J 105:625–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langbein JH (1997) The secret life of the trust: the trust as an instrument of commerce. Yale Law J 107:165–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langbein JH (2004) Mandatory rules in the law of trusts. Northwest Univ Law Rev 98(3):1105–1128

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford RT (2016) Best interests: multifaceted but not unbounded. Camb Law J 75(3):505–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee R (2009) Conceptualizing the Chinese trust. Int Comp Law Q 58(3):655–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee R (2013) Convergence and divergence in the worlds of the trust: duties and liabilities of trustees under the Chinese trust. In: Smith LD (ed) The worlds of the trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 406–427

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee R, Yip M (2020) Exclusion of duty and the irreducible core content of trusteeship: a re-assessment. J Equity 14:131–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Liew YK (2017) Rationalising constructive trusts. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Liew YK (2021) Justifying Anglo-American trusts law. Wm & Mary Bus Law Rev 12:685–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Liew YK (2022) Choice of law for cross-border trust disputes in Japan: the case for adopting the Hague Trusts Convention. J Intl Comp Law 9(1):75–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyu K (2015) Re-clarifying China’s trust law: characteristics and new conceptual basis. Loyola Los Angeles Int Comp Law Rev 36:447–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay S (1963) Non-contractual relations in business: a preliminary study. Am Soc Rev 28(1):55–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maitland FW (2003) The unincorporate body. In: Runciman D, Ryan M (eds) State, trust, and corporation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 52–61

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez IA (1982) Trust and the civil law. La Law Rev 42(5):1709–1720

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane B, Mitchell C (2015) Hayton and Mitchell: text, cases and materials on the law of trusts and equitable remedies, 14th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod C, Ryman E (2020) Trust, autonomy, and the fiduciary relationship. In: Miller PB, Harding M (eds) Fiduciaries and trust: ethics, politics, economics, and law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 74–86

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Millard KD (2005) The trustee’s duty to inform and report under the Uniform Trust Code. Real Prop Probate Trust J 40:373–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller PB (2011) A theory of fiduciary liability. McGill Law J 56(2):235–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan RC (2002) Vandervell v IRC: a case of overreaching. Camb Law J 61(1):169–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan RC (2016) The execution of a trust shall be under the control of a court: a maxim in modern times. Can J Comp Contemp Law 2(2):469–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson BD (2010) The Uniform Trust Code revives the historical purposes of trusts and reiterates the importance of the settlor’s intent. Creighton Law Rev 43:905–944

    Google Scholar 

  • Penner JE (2016) The law of trusts, 10th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Popovici A (2016) Trust in Quebec and Czech law: autonomous patrimonies? Eur Rev Priv Law 24(6):929–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qu CZ (2003) The doctrinal basis of the trust principles in China’s trust law. Real Prop Probate Trust J 38:345–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Raczynska M (2013) Parallels between the civilian separate patrimony, real subrogation and the idea of property in a trust fund. In: Smith LD (ed) The worlds of the trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 454–480

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ricks M (2017) Organizational law as commitment device. Vand Law Rev 70(4):1303–1352

    Google Scholar 

  • Sales P (2018) Exemption clauses in trusts. In: Davies PS, Douglas S, Goudkamp J (eds) Defences in equity. Hart, Oxford, pp 121–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels A (1965) Disclosure of trust documents. Mod Law Rev 28(2):220–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmieman E (2015) Dual patrimony Dutch style: the magic spell for introducing the trust in the Netherlands? In: Valsan R (ed) Trusts and patrimonies. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 221–243

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schurr FA (2018) Trusts in civil law environments: can civil law jurisdictions such as Liechtenstein deal with core issues of trust law? In: Nolan RC, Low KFK, Tang HW (eds) Trusts and modern wealth management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 510–528

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scott AW, Fratcher WF (1987) The law of trusts (IIA), 4th edn. Little, Brown and Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberstein-Loeb J (2015) The transatlantic origins of the business trust. J Leg Hist 36(2):192–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitkoff RH (2003) An agency costs theory of trust law. Cornell Law Rev 89:621–684

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitkoff RH (2013) Trust law as fiduciary governance plus asset partitioning. In: Smith LD (ed) The worlds of the trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 428–453

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith L (2013) Scottish trusts in the common law. Edinb Law Rev 17(3):283–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterk SE (2005) Trust protectors, agency costs, and fiduciary duty. Cardozo Law Rev 27:2761–2806

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamaruya M (2017) Japanese law and the global diffusion of trust and fiduciary law. Iowa Law Rev 103:2229–2261

    Google Scholar 

  • Tey TH (2009) Letters of wishes. Sac Law J 21:193–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson RB (2003) Agency law and asset partitioning. Univ Cincinatti Law Rev 71(4):1321–1344

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner PG (2018) The entitlements of objects as defining features of discretionary trusts. In: Nolan RC, Low KFK, Tang HW (eds) Trusts and modern wealth management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 242–276

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Underhill A, Hayton DJ, Matthews P, Mitchell C (2007) Underhill and Hayton law relating to trusts and trustees, 17th edn. LexisNexis Butterworths, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Virgo G (2020) The principles of equity & trusts, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wei TTZ (2009) The irreducible core content of modern trust law. Trusts & Trustees 15(6):477–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu YC (2020) Trusts reimagined: the transplantation and evolution of trust law in Northeast Asia. Am J Comp Law 68(2):441–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu YC (2022) Debtor rehabilitation and the asset-partitioning effect of security trusts: the Korean Supreme Court’s position revisited. In: Liew YK, Harding M (eds) Asia-Pacific trusts law: theory and practice in context. Hart, Oxford, pp 237–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu WM, Wu ZC (2022) Regulation-driven legal doctrines of investment trusts in China. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 23:391–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yip M, Low KFK (2021) Reconceptualising fiduciary regulation in actual conflicts. Melb Univ Law Rev 45(1):323–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang RQ (2015) A better understanding of dual ownership of trust property and its introduction in China. Trusts & Trustees 21(5):501–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is submitted exclusively to your journal and has not been previously published elsewhere (either in whole or in part).

Funding

This work is not supported by any sources of funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

    Hui **g

Authors
  1. Hui **g
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui **g.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no financial or non-financial interests directly or indirectly related to this work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

**g, H. Trust Law in Macao: An Organisational Law Account. Eur Bus Org Law Rev (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-023-00294-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-023-00294-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation