automatic RT Flashcards
Vandervell v IRC
A transferred shares through company to college with intention of declaring dividends on the shares, he had not defined who should get the beneficial interest therefore as beneficial owner he was subject to pay tax on the shares
Re Lane’s Trust
husband & wife put £1000 into trust w/ intention it be used to benefit their children, they had no children, husband died, RT arose in favour of wife’s executor and husbands administrator
Re Andrew’s Trust
trust set up for education of clergyman’s children, when they were educated court held no RT arose and the surplus should be divided equally among the children
Re Osoba
trust was to be used for the training fo daughter up to university level and for the maintenance of settlor’s mother, mother predeceased settlor & daughter finished her education, q was whetehr surplus resulted back to settlors estate or went to daughter, Megarry VC held you must look at who T intended to benefit, overriding intention of T was to provide for mother & daughter, surplus went to daughter, no RT arose
Re Aboot’s Fund Trust
fund subscribed for the maintenance of 2 ladies, survivor died, RT in favour of donors
Re Gillingham Bus Disaster
cadets killed in traffic accident, appeal for donations to provide for the disabled and for memorial, surplus funds gathered, held despite impracticalities, donors donated for specific purpose, on the purpose being attained/no longer practicable, each donor had interest by way of ART, only if there was a general charitable intention could application of cy-pres be taken
Re West Sussex Constabulary Widows
held proceeds from donations & legacies were to be held on ART for donors or their estates, proceeds form collection boxes & raffles went to Crown as absolute gift
Re Hobourn Aero Components
held the surplus was to be divided
amongst all members, past and present proportionate to their contributions - very arbitrary & impractical task
Tierney v Tough
rejected the RT approach and instead held the
surplus should be distributed amongst the existing members in proportion to their contributions
Feeney v MacManus
involved the dissolution of GPO dining club, P secretary & treasury sought direction as to how to distribute remaining property, Johnston J held entire fund must be distributed in equal shares amongst
members at the time of dissolution and personal reps of those who had died since that date, concluded it would be impossible to determine the proportions which each subscribed to clubs funds therefore distribution had to be on an equal basis as ‘equity equals equality.’
Re Bucks Constabulary Widows
involved fund for widows & children of deceased police force, when constabulary ended, Walton J held provided there is no other method of distribution prescribed by the contract, the surplus should be divided equally amongst alive members at the time of dissolution
