XN000022-1997-04-30 — Page 33

-

12 -

Trustee (Amendment) Bill 1997 introduced into LegCo

Following is the speech by the Attorney General, Mr Jeremy Mathews, in moving the second reading of the Trustee (Amendment) Bill 1997 in the Legislative Council today (Wednesday):

Mr President,

I move that the Trustee (Amendment) Bill 1997 be read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to re-enact in an up-dated form certain technical provisions of the law relating to charities and to the disposition of property which are currently applied in Hong Kong by virtue of the Application of English Law Ordinance. The provisions in question are found in the Charities Procedure Act 1812 and the Illusory Appointments Act 1830.

The 1812 Act relates to trusts established for charitable purposes. At common law the Crown assumed the role of protector of charities in the general public interest. That responsibility has been discharged in practice by the Attorney General who may initiate proceedings against charitable trustees in order to secure the proper management of the trust.

However, the Attorney General is only able to exercise this power effectively if alleged abuses affecting charitable trusts are brought to his attention. The Charities Procedure Act 1812 created a procedure for doing this which can be invoked by two or more persons who complain of a breach of a charitable trust, provided they have the Attorney General's consent. Procedural provision to give effect to the Act is contained in Order 120 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

By clause 3 of the bill this procedure is preserved by placing it in the appropriate context of the Trustee Ordinance, while clause 4 makes consequential changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court.

The other enactment which this Bill seeks to re-enact in local form is the Illusory Appointments Act 1830. At common law, before that Act was passed, if an owner of property conferred on another person (for example, by a provision in his will) a power to distribute that property amongst a number of specified beneficiaries, an exercise of that power of appointment would be invalid and fail if one or more of the intended objects received only an insubstantial, illusory or nominal share, or if one or more objects, whether deliberately or inadvertently, received nothing at all.