Nestle v National Westminster Bank Plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260 (CA)

Facts

  • The case concerned the management of the Nestle family trust by National Westminster Bank as trustee over a period of 60 years.
  • Claimants, beneficiaries of the trust, argued the trustee failed to achieve optimal investment returns by maintaining an unduly cautious investment approach.
  • The trust was established to provide long-term financial security for the beneficiaries, necessitating investment growth over time.
  • National Westminster Bank primarily invested trust assets in fixed-income securities, allocating little to equities.
  • The investment approach was arguably sensible in the trust’s early years but became more conservative over time, potentially limiting asset growth.
  • The court examined how the trustee balanced risk and reward, considered the asset mix, and assessed the adequacy of the investment plan in response to changing market conditions.

Issues

  1. Whether National Westminster Bank, as trustee, failed in its duty of care by not achieving the best possible investment returns for the trust.
  2. What standard of care, skill, and diligence was required from the trustee in managing trust assets, particularly given its professional status.
  3. Whether honest mistakes or cautious investment approaches amount to a breach of trustee duty when judged in hindsight.
  4. The extent to which trustees are responsible for losses or suboptimal outcomes caused by market changes or reasonable decisions.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that National Westminster Bank had not failed in its duty of care as trustee.
  • The bank’s conservative investment plan, while perhaps excessively cautious, was not unreasonable given the trust’s circumstances and objectives.
  • Trustees are expected to act with the care, skill, and diligence of a prudent investor, but are not guarantors of the best possible results.
  • The trustee’s honest errors or prudent but imperfect decisions do not automatically amount to a breach of duty, especially when acting within the trust’s powers and with attention to beneficiaries’ interests.
  • The judgment emphasized that trustee conduct should not be judged solely with the benefit of hindsight.
  • Trustees must exercise their powers with care, skill, and attention, giving due regard to the purposes of the trust and the needs of beneficiaries.
  • Professional trustees may be held to a higher standard reflecting their specialist knowledge and experience.
  • Trustees are permitted a reasonable degree of discretion in investment strategy, provided decisions are honest, reasonable, and consistent with the terms of the trust.
  • Trustees are not liable for losses or underperformance resulting from honest mistakes or changes in the market, so long as their actions meet the requisite standard of care.
  • Performance evaluation should consider the context of the time, not merely in retrospect.

Conclusion

Nestle v National Westminster Bank Plc established that trustees must act with prudence, care, and skill, particularly when investing trust assets over the long term. The decision affirms that trustees are not strictly liable for investment outcomes, provided they operate honestly, reasonably, and within the scope of their authority, and it continues to guide the assessment of trustee responsibility in English trust law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal