Soton Equity and Trusts - alastairhudson.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cf. Midland Bank v Wyatt [1995] 1 FLR 696 (sham and Insolvency Act 1986, s. 423) Trustee Act 1925, s.33 5) Resettlement or variation of trusts (note only) Variation of Trusts Act 1958 In re Holt’s Settlement Trusts [1969] 1 Ch 100 (B) The beneficiary principle. Reading: Hudson, section 4.2 1) The general principle *Morice v. Bishop of Durham (1804) 9 Ves. 399; (1805) 10 Ves 522. "There can be no trust, over the exercise of which this court will not assume control ..If there be a clear trust, but for uncertain objects, the property... is undisposed of... Every...[non-charitable] trust must have a definite object. There must be somebody in whose favour the court can decree performance" (per Lord Grant M.R.). Bowman v Secular Society Ltd [1917] AC 406 2) The strict, traditional principle **Leahy v. Att.-Gen. for New South Wales [1959] A.C. 457 (trust for ‘such order of nuns’ as trustees shall select) – this case is considered in detail below. 3) Illustrations of the traditional general principle Re Nottage [1885] 2 Ch 649 (yachting cup held to be for the purpose of promoting yachting and not for the benefit of people who participated) Re Wood [1949] 1 All ER 1100 *Re Astor’s S.T. [1952] Ch. 534. (‘trust’ intended inter alia for ‘the maintenance of … good understanding sympathy and co-operation between nations’ & for the maintenance of high standards in newspapers (The Observer) = void purpose trust (per Roxburgh J) because (1) the terms used are too uncertain (2) a trust must have a beneficiary (3) these purposes are not charitable) Re Shaw (development of a new alphabet = void purpose trust) Re Endacott [1960] Ch. 232 ("no principle has greater sanction or authority"). **Leahy v. Att.-Gen. for New South Wales [1959] A.C. 457 (This case is considered again below – trust over a small farmhouse and a sheep station for an “order of nuns” constituted a void purpose trust .) **Re Grant’s WT [1979] 3 All ER 359 (gift “for the benefit of the HQ of the Chertsey CLP” = void purpose trust; see below). 4) Effect of the beneficiary principle An abstract purpose trust will be void and so all of the equitable rights in the property will remain with the settlor. A trust will only be valid if it is for the benefit of people. In this section we have considered examples of the strict, traditional principle. However, there are other interpretations which are considered in the next section. 24
(C) Alternative interpretations of the beneficiary principle Reading: Hudson, section 4.2 It is important to understand that whereas the traditional principle continues in effect, there have nevertheless been alternative analyses accepted by some courts of ostensibly similar factual circumstances. Your role here is to understand the effect of applying these various approaches to factual circumstances, who wins and who loses in such circumstances, and why different courts might take different approaches. 1) Interpreting what is ostensibly a purpose trust as being a trust for the benefit of persons **Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] l Ch. 373 (trust “directly or indirectly for the benefit of individuals” = people trust and therefore valid.): I think there may be a purpose or object trust, the carrying out of which would benefit an individual or individuals, where that benefit is so indirect or intangible or which is otherwise so framed as not to give those persons any locus standi to apply to the court to enforce the trust, in which case the beneficiary principle would, as it seems to me, apply to invalidate the trust, quite apart from any question of uncertainty or perpetuity. Such cases can be considered if and when they arise. The present is not, in my judgment, of that character … Where, then, the trust, though expressed as a purpose, is directly or indirectly for the benefit of an individual or individuals, it seems to me that it is in general outside the mischief of the beneficiary principle. 2) Interpret the power to be something other than a trust a) Transfer interpreted to be a gift **Re Lipinski’s W.T. [1976] Ch. 235, Oliver J:- There would seem to me to be, as a matter of common sense, a clear distinction between the case where a purpose is prescribed which is clearly intended for the benefit of ascertained or ascertainable beneficiaries, particularly where those beneficiaries have the power to make the capital their own, and the case where no beneficiary at all is intended (for instance, a memorial to a favourite pet) or where the beneficiaries are unascertainable: as in the case, for instance, of In re Price [1943] Ch. 422. If a valid gift may be made to an unincorporated body as a simple accretion to the funds which are the subject matter of the contract which the members have made inter se - and Neville Estates Ltd. v. Madden [1962] Ch. 832 and In re Recher's Will Trusts [1972] Ch. 526 show that it may - I do not really see why such a gift, which specifies a purpose which is within the powers of the association and of which the members of the association are the beneficiaries, should fail. Cocks v Manners (1871) LR 12 Eq 574 (similar facts to Leahy but different interpretation, trust held by Mother Superior deemed to be gift in favour of individual nuns) b) Transfer interpreted to be for other purposes Re Osoba [1979] 2 All ER 393 – (“for the maintenance and training of my daughter up to university …” interpreted as a gift to the three women mentioned in the instrument) Re Abbott Fund [1900] 2 Ch 326 – (trust for the maintenance of old ladies – surplus funds on heir death held on resulting trust – i.e. impossible purpose = resulting trust) c) Use of the principle in Saunders v Vautier Re Bowes [1896] 1 Ch 507 – (use of Saunders v Vautier to allow human beneficiaries to displace settlor’s stated intention) 25
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 and 22: 10) Mechanisms for eluding the “a
Page 23: Topic 3. THE BENEFICIARY PRINCIPLE
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?