译者|吴礼奇 GULC LLM candidate.
一审|戚若音 UCB LLM.
二审|董辰 中国政法大学研究生.
编辑|
徐晓彤 UNSW LL.M.

责编|
陈逸漩 中国人民大学本科生

背景
普通法中的信托传统上要求确定的信托受益人(certainty of object)，否则将会导致信托设立无效。但是随着信托受托人享有自由裁量权(discretionary trust)的实践，英格兰及威尔士地区的法院对这种信托采取了更灵活的态度。
先例
McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424, per Lord Wilberforce.
“[I]t does not follow that execution [by the court] is impossible unless there can be equal division.  … [T]o hold that a principle of equal division applies to trusts such as the present is certainly paradoxical. Equal division is surely the last thing the settlor ever intended: equal division … would … produce a result beneficial to none. … [T]he court, if called upon to execute the trust power, will do so in the manner best calculated to give effect to the settlor’s or testator’s intentions. It may do so by appointing new trustees, or by authorising or directing representative persons of the classes of beneficiaries to prepare a scheme of distribution, or even, should the proper basis of distribution appear by itself directing the trustees so to distribute.”
“这并不意味着法院只能平均分配信托的财产。在类似于本案的情况中适用平均分配显然是自相矛盾的。平均分配是信托分配的最后手段：平均分配…将…产生任何人都不受益的结果…如果由法院解决这一问题，法院应当尽最大可能的满足信托设立者或遗嘱人的意愿。为了达成这一目标，法院可以指定新的受托人，或者授权或指示受益人的代表编制分配方案，甚至，如果（信托指示）本身存在合理分配的基础，法院可以直接指示受托人依此执行。”
本案判决
（1）Stamp LJ
“Validity or invalidity is to depend upon whether you can say of any individual – and the accent must be upon that word ‘any’, for it is not simply the individual whose claim you are considering who is spoken of – ‘is or is not a member of the class’, for only thus can you make a survey of the range of objects or possible beneficiaries”
“(信托创设的)有效或无效性取决于是否可以找到任何一个受益人，在此我必须强调‘任何一个’，因为（法庭）并不仅是在考虑个人的主张，法庭考虑的应当是他‘属于或不属于受益人（这一范围）’，因为只有这样，法院才可以确定收益人的范围或可能的受益人。”
（2）Sachs LJ
“… [T]he court is never defeated by evidential uncertainty … and it is in my judgment clear that it is conceptual certainty to which reference was made when the "is or is not a member of the class" test was enunciated. (Conceptual uncertainty was in the course of argument conveniently exemplified, rightly or wrongly matters not, by the phrase "someone under a moral obligation" and contrasted with the certainty of the words "first cousins.") Once the class of persons to be benefited is conceptually certain it then becomes a question of fact to be determined on evidence whether any postulant has on inquiry been proved to be within it: if he is not so proved, then he is not in it.”
“法院从未妥协于证据上的不足[1]…在我的判决中清楚地表明“是否属于受益人的范围”的判定是由概念的确定性决定的。（概念的不确定性在辩论的过程中被‘负有道德义务的人’这一短语被体现出来，并与‘表亲’体现的确定性形成了鲜明的对比）一旦受益人特征的范围被确定，接下来的问题是依靠产生于事实的证据判断申请人是否能证明其属于受益人的范围：如果他不能证明，则他不是。”
（3）Megaw LJ
“To my mind, the test is satisfied if, as regards at least a substantial number of objects, it can be said with certainty that they fall within the trust; even though, as regards a substantial number of other persons, if they ever for some fanciful reason fell to be considered, the answer would have to be, not ‘they are outside the trust’, but ‘it is not proven whether they are in or out’. What is a ‘substantial number’ may well be a question of common sense and of degree in relation to the particular trust …”
“我认为只要有足够数量的受益人就可以认为他们是在信托的范围中，并因此满足了信托有效性测试的条件。即使有相当一部分其他人由于各种不寻常的理由没有被考虑为受益人，对于他们的回答并不是‘他们在信托范围之外’而是‘无法证明他们是否在信托内’。至于‘足够数量’的标准应当依照常识以及信托的具体情况而定。
总结
本案的三位法官针对信托是否需要确定的受益人问题给出了三种路径。Stamp LJ 认为概念和证据上都需要确定性，即任何概念或证明上的不确定性都会导致信托设立失败。


Sachs LJ 认为应当有概念上的确定性即对于“受益人的范围”要有准确的定义。申请人应当提供证据证明自己属于受益人的范围。


Megaw LJ 采取了最为灵活的态度。他认为只需要一个大致的概念能够确定足够数量的受益人即可。
（图片来源于网络）
学者评价
“Stamp LJ’s approach is most consistent with the test propounded by Lord Wilberforce … [it does not] involve a return to the fixed list test … the second part of Lord Wilberforce’s crucial dictum makes it clear that it is not necessary to ascertain the whole of the class. But the first part of the dictum makes clear that it must be possible to say of any given person that he or she was or was not within the class. If this cannot be shown … the trustees could not be sure whether they should distribute to that person or not, and also what the range of the class might be. The trust should consequentially be held to be void for uncertainty of objects …. But although Stamp LJ’s approach is the most consistent with the given postulant test propounded by Lord Wilberforce, it does mean that discretionary trusts are more likely to be found to be void, and this would not be consistent with the fundamental principle that the settlor’s … intent will be respected if at all possible by upholding the trust. In light of that policy, the approach of Sachs LJ is to be preferred, because this removes evidential certainty as a means of invalidating trusts.”[2]
“Stamp LJ的路径与Lord Wilberforce[3]确立的判断方法最为接近… 这一路径并不意味着回到传统的要求，即信托应当有确定的受益人名单…Lord Wilberforce判决的第二部分清楚地指明（信托的有效）并不需要明确整个受益人的范围。但是（Lord Wilberforce）判决的第一部分明确指出依照信托协议应当能指出具体的一个人是否属于受益人。如果受益人范围的概念不能确定，那么，受托人则不能确定是否将信托利益分配给特定的申请人，受托人也不能确定可能的受益人范围。那么信托则应当由于受益人概念不确定性而无效。但是，正是因为Stamp LJ的方法与Lord Wilberforce类似，这也意味着自由裁量信托更容易被法院认定为无效。但是，这就与尊重委托人意图并且（法院）尽最大可能帮助其实现的基本原则不符。按照这种原则，Sachs LJ的路径最为适合，因为他去除了证据上的不确定性导致信托设立无效的情况。”
脚注
[1] 译者注：evidential uncertainty 在英国信托法中指如何确定一人是否属于信托受益人的方法不确定。
[2]Graham Virgo, The Principles of Equity & Trust (4th.ed. OUP 2020).
[3] 译者注：此处指McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424
继续阅读
阅读原文