<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Purpose Trusts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rowenameager.com/2009/05/29/purpose-trusts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rowenameager.com/2009/05/29/purpose-trusts/</link>
	<description>Barrister &#38; Property Law Lecturer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 08:44:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: RM</title>
		<link>http://rowenameager.com/2009/05/29/purpose-trusts/#comment-97</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[RM]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:15:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rowenameager.com/?p=45#comment-97</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Purpose trusts&quot; has the capacity to be an enormous topic! If you are looking at the general arguments for and against the recognition of purpose trusts in the English jurisdiction then you need look no further than the case law which gives credence to the beneficiary principle in order to find support for the idea that we should not be susceptible to the introduction of purpose trusts generally. If you want to look at the case for allowing purpose trusts you might well consider whether or not we have got them already (arguably we have so many exceptions to the beneficiary principle already that the argument for resisting the purpose trust is no longer sustainable - a tenuous argument, however, in my view). I don&#039;t know that I can be of very much assistance in respect of such a general enquiry - I would suggest looking at some of the more &quot;substantial&quot; texts on the topic and then use the references therein to search for further, more specialist material (ie footnote references) - Snell and Lewin would be good starting points I suspect. An electronic database search would probably also throw up plenty more to be going on with. Forgive me if I am teaching &quot;grandma to suck eggs&quot; - I don&#039;t know the nature of your project (ie whether it is simply an essay or intended for publication). Good luck...

RM]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Purpose trusts&#8221; has the capacity to be an enormous topic! If you are looking at the general arguments for and against the recognition of purpose trusts in the English jurisdiction then you need look no further than the case law which gives credence to the beneficiary principle in order to find support for the idea that we should not be susceptible to the introduction of purpose trusts generally. If you want to look at the case for allowing purpose trusts you might well consider whether or not we have got them already (arguably we have so many exceptions to the beneficiary principle already that the argument for resisting the purpose trust is no longer sustainable &#8211; a tenuous argument, however, in my view). I don&#8217;t know that I can be of very much assistance in respect of such a general enquiry &#8211; I would suggest looking at some of the more &#8220;substantial&#8221; texts on the topic and then use the references therein to search for further, more specialist material (ie footnote references) &#8211; Snell and Lewin would be good starting points I suspect. An electronic database search would probably also throw up plenty more to be going on with. Forgive me if I am teaching &#8220;grandma to suck eggs&#8221; &#8211; I don&#8217;t know the nature of your project (ie whether it is simply an essay or intended for publication). Good luck&#8230;</p>
<p>RM</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: charles</title>
		<link>http://rowenameager.com/2009/05/29/purpose-trusts/#comment-96</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[charles]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:19:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rowenameager.com/?p=45#comment-96</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear RM

Thanks for your bog it is always very interresting to read your analysis on legal issues.
i am currently doing a piece on Purpose trusts in the uk. the piece is meant to be a dialogue for and against purpose trusts in the uk and i am wondering whether you could direct me in annecdotes about the issue to spice up my piece.
any information on the issue is welcome.

thanks in advance

regards]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear RM</p>
<p>Thanks for your bog it is always very interresting to read your analysis on legal issues.<br />
i am currently doing a piece on Purpose trusts in the uk. the piece is meant to be a dialogue for and against purpose trusts in the uk and i am wondering whether you could direct me in annecdotes about the issue to spice up my piece.<br />
any information on the issue is welcome.</p>
<p>thanks in advance</p>
<p>regards</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

