“…– indeed it is perhaps the foundational principle of all trust law. Two examples by eminent Chancery judges will suffice. In Re Courage Group’s Pension Schemes [1987] 1 WLR 495 Millett J had to consider the proposed exercise by trustees of pension schemes of their powers to amend the schemes. In a much-cited passage he said at 505E:…”
“…alysis does not involve literalism but includes a purposive construction when that is appropriate. As Millett J stated in In re Courage Group’s Pension Schemes [1987] 1 WLR 495, 505 there are no special rules of construction applicable to a pension scheme but “its provisions should wherever possible be construed to give reasonable and…”
“…purpose for which it is conferred, and not for any extraneous or ulterior purpose” (to quote from Millett J’s judgment in In re Courage Group’s Pension Schemes [1987] 1 WLR 495, at 505), manifested in the trust context in the “fraud on a power” doctrine. This means, Mr Ham said, that any exercise of his voting rights by a member of a …”
“… applied in at least two reported cases to exercises of a power of amendment contained in the trusts of a pension scheme. In Re Courage Group's Pension Schemes [1987] 1 WLR 495, Millet J (as he then was) held that it would be ultra vires and unlawful for a power of amendment to be used in order to substitute for the existing employer …”