On 21 August 2025, the UNSW Faculty of Non-public and Business Legislation, the Journal of Fairness and Allens collectively hosted the 2025 Journal of Fairness Convention. This yr’s one-day Convention centered on vital questions on the intersection of fairness, trusts and personal worldwide regulation. It featured 4 papers delivered by judges and students, every of which was adopted by ample time for insightful questions and dialogue amongst over 30 judges, attorneys and students attending the workplace of Allens in (wet) Sydney.
After the Acknowledgement of Nation and welcoming deal with by Professor Ying Khai Liew (College of Melbourne), The Honourable Andrew Bell (Chief Justice of New South Wales) delivered opening remarks, emphasising the significance of personal worldwide regulation and the appliance of its guidelines in fairness and trusts within the fashionable world financial system. Drawing references from outdated and new instances and tutorial supplies, the Chief Justice mentioned the tensions amongst varied potential selections of regulation for fairness and trusts, and highlighted the more and more vital function of the query of characterisation when analysing equitable doctrines and cures.
The primary paper by Professor Richard Garnett (College of Melbourne) and The Honourable Andrew Bell centered on the enforcement of trusts in worldwide litigation. Professor Garnett thought-about non-public worldwide regulation ideas utilized by frequent regulation courts to disputes particularly involving trusts with connections to civil regulation jurisdictions. Drawing from a wealth of judicial selections, Professor Garnett examined the approaches taken by frequent regulation jurisdictions to problems with jurisdiction and relevant regulation in relation to each categorical and constructive trusts. The Chief Justice additional thought-about the query of jurisdiction clauses (significantly in Crociani v Crociani [2014] UKPC 40, [2015] WTLR 975) and arbitrability within the enforcement of trusts in non-public worldwide regulation. It was famous that there’s fertile floor for future instances to develop extra refined guidelines.
The second paper by Professor Tiong Min Yeo (Singapore Administration College) thought-about the issues and approaches within the characterisation of equitable doctrines. Beginning with the normal choice-of-law methodology, Professor Yeo mentioned a number of difficulties when characterising equitable doctrines, most notably that these equitable doctrines usually cross doctrinal classes in home regulation and useful classes in selection of regulation. Taking a useful characterisation perspective of personal worldwide regulation, Professor Yeo recommended how the case is argued and the features of the doctrine being pleaded. This was illustrated by reference to constructive and ensuing trusts, which may fall in both the class of property or the regulation of obligations, or each, relying on the problem earlier than the courtroom. A number of instances confirmed that courts have but to have interaction intimately with the query of characterisation.
The third paper by Professor Man Yip (Singapore Administration College) seemed on the equitable origins and personal worldwide regulation developments of the anti-suit injunction. Professor Yip emphasised the in personam, discretionary nature of the injunction, involving issues of comity and unconscionability. Professor Yip revealed and mentioned varied themes of fairness inside the fashionable framework of the anti-suit aid, together with the completely different conceptions of comity, the recourse to equitable concepts corresponding to ‘conscience’ (in ‘unconscionable conduct’), and the completely different bases for the grant of anti-suit aid (equitable jurisdiction vs inherent jurisdiction). The shut relationship between fairness and comity was additional demonstrated by anti-suit injunctions granted in help of overseas litigation or arbitration.
The fourth paper by Affiliate Professor Adeline Chong (Singapore Administration College) investigated the extent of the function of the lex situs in trusts claims. After explaining the rationales for making use of the lex situs to questions of property typically, Professor Chong supplied an in-depth account of the choice-of-law method underneath the Hague Trusts Conference (the HCCH Conference of 1 July 1985 on the Legislation Relevant to Trusts and on their Recognition) for categorical trusts, together with the situs as a consider figuring out the relevant regulation of the belief, and the relevance of the lex situs when the relevant regulation of the belief just isn’t the lex situs, significantly if the lex situs doesn’t recognise trusts or the proprietary facets of trusts. Professor Chong then turned to frequent regulation guidelines on ensuing and constructive trusts, mentioning tensions between making use of the lex fori, the lex situs, and the regulation governing the reason for motion, occasion or obligation. Amongst these approaches, it was recommended that the lex situs needs to be accorded a main function in figuring out whether or not a belief may be created within the first place, earlier than different legal guidelines – corresponding to these governing the reason for motion, occasion or obligation, or these governing the connection between the events – come into play.
General, the Convention has supplied all attendees with a lot meals for thought. It’s evident that these points haven’t any clear and straightforward solutions, and deserve additional judicial and tutorial consideration.
Readers who’re within the subject might want to seek the advice of, as a place to begin, Professor Yeo’s monograph, Alternative of Legislation for Equitable Doctrines (Oxford College Press 2004), in addition to varied judicial selections which have been steadily featured all through the Convention, together with (in chronological order, and positively not being an exhaustive record):
