Express Trust - 2 Certainty Of Subject Matter Flashcards
1
Q
What does certainty of subject matter relate to?
A
The property
2
Q
Palmer v Simmonds 1854
A
the bulk of my … estate’
- In the deed, all shares given to trustee, so transfer, but actual declaration was bulk of estate was held on that trust
- But you’ve got to now divide shares into a bulk and then the rest, what is a bulk?
- No certainty of subject matter so court said they cant uphold a trust - so became a gift of all his shares
3
Q
Re Kolb’s WT [1962]
A
blue chip securities’
‘residue’
- Blue chip securities devised to someone, the non blue chip shares should be reinvested in blue chip shares
- Expert evidence was conflicting, no one knew what was blue chip share and what wasn’t
- Residue is a technical term though, its just what’s left after everything disposed of
4
Q
Re Golay’s WT [1965]
A
to enjoy one of my flats during her lifetime and to receive a reasonable income from my other properties’
- One of the flats is too vague, what is a reasonable income?
- Court didn’t strike down trust, reasonable was technical legal term which meant objectively reasonable - was this just an over sympathetic judge? Or is court capable of working out what is reasonable?
- Textbook say the certainty is much narrower in this case rather than in the Re Kolb case, but still got to ask, is the law consistent?
5
Q
Identifying parties respective shares
Burrough v Philcox (1840)
A
- Beneficiaries to be mans nieces and nephews - proportions of what they inherit were to be the survivor of his 2 children, first child dies, then 2nd child dies without deciding where properties should go
- 2 possible outcomes, either trust invalid and since it was self declares goes back to mans estate, or the trust is valid but how to decide which nieces and nephews get what
- Court upheld trust, applied maxim equality is equity, so each beneficiary took equal share
- More pragmatic and less technical approach - court found it to be reasonable outcome
6
Q
Identifying parties respective shares
Boyce v Boyce (1849)
A
- Harsher approach by courts
- Divides 2 houses on his wife for life on trust, on condition she gives on in her will for daughter maria, and then other house goes to daughter charlotte
- Maria dies without making choice, so what does charlotte get
- Gift fails, ‘maria sabotages all gift’
Modern approach points more to burrough case though
7
Q
Identifying parties respective shares
e Knapton [1941]
A
- One house to each niece nephew, one to sister one to brother - but didn’t say which house
- Court had little difficulty in saying gift was a good one
- Said there would be priority, nieces and nephews decide first, then other decide, then if they cant make it a lottery of which one they get
- More common sense in equity now
