Soton Equity and Trusts - alastairhudson.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The maximum period (under the case law) for the vesting of interests under trusts: a life or lives in being + 21 years. 2) Trusts created after 16 July 1964 *ss. 1, 3 and 4 of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964. The parties “wait and see” for a statutory limitation period whether or not the trust comes to an end, further to s.3. If it does not, then the class closing rules in s.4 apply so as to close the beneficial class to any future members. 3) Trusts created after 6 April 2010 Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 (a) The ambit of the Act Section 1 describes the ambit of the PAA 2009, subject to the notion in s.1(1) that “The rule against perpetuities applies (and applies only) as provided by this section” (b) (c) (d) Hence, the Act applies to trusts with successive interests; trusts subject to some condition precedent (such as “the beneficiary must reach the age of 21”); trusts subject to some condition subsequent (such as “provided that the beneficiary does not marry”); wills with successive interests; and powers of appointment. The statutory perpetuity period s.5(1): ‘The perpetuity period is 125 years (and no other period).’ Section 5(2): s.5(1) applies “whether or not the instrument … specifies a perpetuity period; and a specification of a perpetuity period in that instrument is ineffective”. Section 6: the starting point for measuring the period of 125 years is the time at which the relevant instrument takes effect. Trusts which would otherwise be invalid Section 7: “wait and see” until the statutory period has expired and then any unused parts of the trust come to an end. Section 8 then introduces a “class closing” rule to eliminate beneficiaries once the statutory perpetuity period has been reached. Non-charitable purpose trusts Section 18 provides that nothing in the Act affects the rule that “limits the duration of non-charitable purpose trusts” Summary Definitions Re Hay’s Settlement Trusts Fixed Trusts IRC v Broadway Cottages Mere powers Re Gulbenkian Discretionary trusts McPhail v Doulton Personal powers Re Hay’s Settlement Trusts Alternative approaches Re Baden No 2 Re Barlow Re Tuck’s ST Re Coxen 22
Topic 3. THE BENEFICIARY PRINCIPLE & UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS I. THE BENEFICIARY PRINCIPLE Question: when will a trust be void for want of a beneficiary, and what manner of beneficiary will be necessary? General reading: Hudson, Chapter 4; Martin 385-414; Pettit 58- 65 Commentary: Gravells (1977) 40 M.L.R. 397 Matthews, ‘The New Trust: Obligations without Rights?’ and Waters, ‘The Protector: new wine in old bottles?’, both in Trends in Contemporary Trust Law (ed. A.J. Oakley, 1996), Ch. 1. (A) The nature of the beneficiary’s rights in the trust fund Reading: Hudson, section 4.1 1) The principle in Saunders v Vautier **Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115 Re Bowes [1896] 1 Ch 507 Re Smith [1928] Ch 915 (could compel transfer to beneficiaries even where two classes of beneficiaries under discretionary trusts) In re Holt’s Settlement [1969] 1 Ch 100, 111, per Megarry J: ‘If under a trust every possible beneficiary was under no disability and concurred in the re-arrangement or termination of the trusts, then under the doctrine in Saunders v Vautier those beneficiaries could dispose of the trust property as they thought fit; for in equity the property was theirs. Yet if any beneficiary was an infant, or an unborn or unascertained person, it was held that the court had no general inherent or other jurisdiction to concur in any such arrangement on behalf of that beneficiary.’ 2) The proprietary rights of beneficiaries Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115 Re Nelson [1928] Ch 920 Stephenson v Barclays Bank [1975] 1 All ER 625 (beneficiary able to take separate share from the trust where property naturally divisible) Lloyds Bank v Duker [1987] 3 All ER 193 (prevention of removal of interest because loss of majority shareholding for other beneficiaries) 3) The nature of the rights of objects of discretionary trusts Reading: Hudson, section 4.1.4 Prof Geraint Thomas, Powers (2 nd ed, Sweet & Maxwell, 2011), para 6-268 Thomas & Hudson, The Law of Trusts (OUP, 2004), p.184 et seq., & p.1587 et seq. Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115 Gartside v IRC [1968] AC 553, at 617, per Lord Wilberforce CPT Custodian Pty Ltd v Commissioner of the State Revenue [2005] HCA 53 Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Carey (No.6) [2006] FCA 814 4) Protective trusts (note only) Re Detmold (1889) 40 Ch D 585 (all property to be transferred to wife in the event of bankruptcy) 23
Page 1 and 2: University of Southampton Law Schoo
Page 3 and 4: Lay-out of materials These “Lectu
Page 5 and 6: Formative assessment - (i.e. non-as
Page 7 and 8: How to study for this module 1. Uni
Page 9 and 10: Common law and equity were always d
Page 11 and 12: (E) The rudiments of express trusts
Page 13 and 14: Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsc
Page 15 and 16: (2) Trusts as opposed to merely mor
Page 17 and 18: (3) after all valid claims in (2) h
Page 19 and 20: Topic 2. CERTAINTY OF OBJECTS Readi
Page 21: 10) Mechanisms for eluding the “a
Page 25 and 26: (C) Alternative interpretations of
Page 27 and 28: **Leahy v. Att.-Gen. for New South
Page 29 and 30: purpose of blocking the house up an
Page 31 and 32: Topic 4. THE CONSTITUTION OF TRUSTS
Page 33 and 34: Richards v. Delbridge (1874) L.R. 1
Page 35 and 36: *s. 53 (1) (b): "A declaration of t
Page 37 and 38: Topic 5. THE DUTIES OF TRUSTEES & B
Page 39 and 40: [Considered in detail in relation t
Page 41 and 42: (a) to any special knowledge or exp
Page 43 and 44: ule does not afford the right to th
Page 45 and 46: Burrell v Burrell [2005] EWHC 245,
Page 47 and 48: (F) Judicial control of trustees’
Page 49 and 50: 1) Specific Restitution Harris v Ke
Page 51 and 52: EQUITY & TRUSTS PART II TRUSTS IMPL
Page 53 and 54: Topic 6. RESULTING AND QUISTCLOSE T
Page 55 and 56: (b) (c) father and child Bennet v.
Page 57 and 58: II. QUISTCLOSE TRUSTS Reading: Huds
Page 59 and 60: e. … other commercial-contract la
Page 61 and 62: (c) The nature of the constructive
Page 63 and 64: (b) where the company is a public c
Page 65 and 66: 6) Profits from theft Reading: Huds
Page 67 and 68: Topic 8. TRUSTS OF HOMES General Re
Page 69 and 70: (5) Each case will turn on its own
Page 71 and 72: Ferguson, ‘Constructive trusts -
Page 73 and 74:
*Pascoe v. Turner [1979] 2 All ER 9
Page 75 and 76:
inging up the children is no doubt
Page 77 and 78:
first sight this may seem surprisin
Page 79 and 80:
(ii) Cases looking to the character
Page 81 and 82:
*Niru Battery Manufacturing Co v Mi
Page 83 and 84:
Hudson, 20.5.2. Hudson, Securities
Page 85 and 86:
C. EQUITABLE TRACING Reading: Hudso
Page 87 and 88:
D. REMEDIES AFTER TRACING Reading:
Page 89 and 90:
e) Is change of position now equita
Page 91 and 92:
2) The four heads of charity in Pem
Page 93 and 94:
(c) (d) (e) Gifts for relief of dis
Page 95 and 96:
(D) Advancement of education. Readi
Page 97 and 98:
(H) Requirement of the exclusivity
Page 99 and 100:
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON EQUITY
Page 101 and 102:
Polly Peck International v Nadir (N
Page 103 and 104:
Concepts Contract Torts Property Fi
Page 105 and 106:
of what has been called unjust enri
Page 107 and 108:
actions, then the claimant should b
Page 109 and 110:
o Recovery of an enrichment will no
Page 111 and 112:
£200,000 on Static plc shares whic
show all

Soton Equity and Trusts - alastairhudson.com

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?