§ Lord Denningasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the second Answer of the Baroness Denton of Wakefield on 28th Februarly (H.L. Deb., Cols. WA 17–18), whether the effect of article 5, subsection (1), was to appoint the Guildford Diocesan Board of Finance as the custodian trustee of the Trust's assets and to leave the management of those assets to other trustees, called managing trustees; such being the result of section 4, subsection (2), subsection (b) of the Public Trustee Act 1906 and the case of Forster 1955, chancery 359; with the result that the Vicar and Church Wardens were properly appointed to be managing trustees of the Sunday School Funds; and that other persons (other than the custodian trustees) were to be managing trustees of the School Funds.
§ Baroness Denton of WakefieldThe effect of Article 5(1) of the Diocese of Guildford (Educational Endowments) Order 1990 was to appoint the Guildford Diocesan Board of Finance in so far as it was not already the trustee, as trustee of the foundations, the trust assets of the foundations, and of the school funds established by article 4 of the order. The Guildford Diocesan Board of Finance was already the trustee of the foundation known as East Molesey Church of England School. The Guildford Diocesan Board of Finance was appointed as an ordinary trustee of the trust assets. No managing trustees were appointed in respect of the trust assets. Section 4(2) (b) of the Public Trustee Act 1906 and the case ofForster-v-Williams Deacon's Bank Ltd (1935) Ch 359 relate to the appointment of the Public Trustee or another trust corporation specifically as custodian trustee of a trust. The order appoints the Guildford Diocesan Board of Finance as trustee, not custodian trustee, of the trusts. The vicar and churchwardens were appointed trustees, not managing trustees, of the Sunday school funds. No other persons were appointed as trustees of the school funds.