EQUITY & TRUSTS Flashcards

1
Q

To create a valid trust you must satisfy the three certainties

A

Knight v Knight

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Precatory words are not sufficient for certainty of intention

A

Lambe v Eaves

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Certainty of intention - ‘in full confidence’ held to only impose a moral obligation

A

Re Adams

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Certainty of intention - ‘absolutely in full confidence’ deemed sufficient

A

Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Solicitor followed an outmoded precedent which no longer satisfied certainty of intention. Held to be valid because of the deliberate use of precedent

A

Re Steele’s Will Trusts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Certainty of subject matter: ‘the bulk of my said residuary estate’ not sufficient

A

Palmer v Simmonds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Certainty of subject matter: ‘reasonable income from my other properties’ was held to be certain because reasonable is a yardstick that the court can employ to calculate what that would be

A

Re Golay

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Certainty of subject matter: segregation of tangible property is required

A

Re London Wine

Re Goldcorp Exchange

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Certainty of subject matter: segregation of intangible property is not required

A

Hunter v Moss (shares)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Certainty of subject matter: a trust of the residue of an estate. Property is left to brother on terms that ‘at his death anything that is left, that came from me’ was to pass to specified persons. Held, valid. The brother had a life interest, the captial could not be touched by the brother thus the subject matter was certain at the date the trust was created.

A

In the Estate of Last.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Certainty of subject matter: a trust of the residue of an estate. Wife leaves to the husband stock for his own use on terms that ‘the remaining part of what is left that he does not want for his own wants’ should be bequeathed to specific individuals. Held: not valid due to total uncertainty of subject matter

A

Sprange v Barnard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Certainty of subject matter: beneficial interest must be certain. Two houses left to sisters. Maria was to choose a house and the other was to be held on trust for Charlotte. Maria predeceased the testator prior to making a selection. Held: the trust failed after this.

A

Boyce v Boyce

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Certainty of object: Fixed Trust and complete list test

A

Morice v Bishop of Durham & IRC v Broadway Cottages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Certainty of object: Discretionary Trust and ‘any given postulant test’

A

Lord Wilberforce in McPhail v Doulton & conceptual clarity. adopted from Re Gulbenkian and rules for powers.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Certainty of object: Discretionary Trust - examination of any given postulant test

A

Re Baden No 2 Stamp is strict, Sachs is Slack, Megaw is in the middle.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Conceptual Certainty - Fixed and Discretionary: ‘deserving relatives’ conceptually uncertain

A

Public Trustee v Butler

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Conceptual Certainty - Fixed and Discretionary: other cases

A

Re Baden No 2, Re Barlow, Re Wrights Will Trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Evidential Certainty only applies to fixed trusts

A

Sachs in Re Baden No 2

19
Q

Evidential uncertainty can be made certain through the use of an expert

A

Re Tucks Settlement Trust

20
Q

Certainty of Object - administrative unworkability/capriciousness - class of 2.5 million too large

A

Ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan CC

21
Q

leading case on constitution. 3 options for constitution: absolute gift; transfer of legal title to a trustee; self-declaration of trust

A

Milroy v Lord. the settlor must have done ‘everything…necessary in order to transfer the property and render the settlement binding’. In this case, shares needed signing of transfer forms and registration.

22
Q

Father declares trust for son but not valid because endorsement is needed for cheques

A

Jones v Lock

23
Q

the lease had not been legally assigned - strict application of Milroy v Lord so no trust

A

Richards v Delbridge

24
Q

Expansion of the rule. the transferor had done ‘everything in his power’ to transfer the shares

25
Expansion of the rule. the transferor had done 'everything in his power' to transfer the shares
Re Rose
26
equity has tempered the wind to the shorn lamb by utilising the constructive trust. a broader approach may be taken where it is unconscionable for the donor to deny that a transfer occured
Pennington v Waine. Virgo suggests this should be viewed as proprietary estoppel but there isn't really detriment!
27
Attempt to qualify Pennington v Waine
Zeital v Kaye
28
Exception to the rule that equity will not assist a volunteer - fortuitous vesting
Strong v Bird: if incomplete gift made during donors lifetime and donee then made executor to donor's will the gift is complete and beneficiaries have no claim on property
29
Extension of rule in Strong v Bird to trusts
Re Ralli's WT
30
Exception to the rule that equity will not assist a volunteer: Donatio Mortis Causa rules (gift made in contemplation of death, conditional on death and there is delivery of the property
Cain v Moon
31
Keys sufficient as delivery of property in DMC
Sen v Heddley
32
Savings book sufficient to represent money in savings account for DMC
Birch v Treasury Solicitor
33
SECRET TRUSTS: FST communication must be before death
Ottaway v Norman; Wallgrave v Tebbs
34
HST communication must be before or contemporaneously with the will
Re Keen; Blackwell v Blackwell
35
FST & HST acceptance can be expressed through acquiescence
Ottaway v Norman; Moss v Cooper
36
A FST with precatory words in the will can only be HST
Irvine v Sullivan
37
ST beneficiary can witness the will
Re Young
38
Formalities required for ST of land?
Ottaway v Norman (FST) not mentioned | Kasperbuar v Griffiths (HST) required
39
Disclaimers
Blackwell v Blackwell - should appoint a new one | Re Maddock - can't exist if trustee disclaims
40
Per Megarry LJ 'Dehors the will'
Re Snowdon
41
HS trustee can't be a beneficiary
Re Rees' WT
42
Addition to ST must be communicated. (fresh communication in case of codicil)
Re Cooper
43
Oral communication of FST valid in NZ
Brown v Pourau
44
ST communication can be in a sealed letter left for after death
Re Keen