Formalities of Trust Flashcards
What does s53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 say?
A declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by someone who is able to declare such trust
What are the two ways in which we can understand s53(1)(b) as applying?
-Proving a declaration of trust (that is COULD/SHOULD exist)
-Proving the validity of an express trust (that it DOES exist)
What does the case of Rochefoucauld v Boustead tell us about s53(1)(b)?
Equity will not allow a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud, i.e. where a person tries to use the statute and say a trust does not exist simply because there is no writing this is not valid
What further cases confirm Rochefoucauld v Boustead?
Bannister v Bannister
Ong v Ping, says it is a rule of evidence and a trust need not be declared by a trust deed alone
What case can be used to justify the validity stance?
Hodgson v Marks, says that where there is no writing an express trust fails and a resulting one arises instead
What does s53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925 tell us?
A disposition of an equitable interest must be in writing signed by the person disposing of it, or by his agent who is lawfully authorized to do so
What is meant by disposition?
Akers v Samba, whilst the word is linguistically capable of meaning the destruction or termination of an interest it does not extend this far here and instead is more like a transfer
What does Grey v IRC tell us about s53(1)(c)?
Where a beneficiary makes a direction to a trustee that the right on trust be held for another, this must be proven with writing. The oral declaration in this case was not sufficent
What does Vandervell v IRC tell us about s53(1)(c)?
A direction to the trustee to transfer both the legal and beneficial ownership (i.e. to extinguish the original right) is not a disposition that requires writing
What does Re Vandervell No2 tell us about s53(1)(c)?
The creation of an express trust replacing a resulting trust is not a disposition that requires writing
Contradicts Grey v IRC, seems to be distinguished on the grounds that the trust was resulting into express rather than express into express
What does Nelson v Greening & Sykes tell us about s53(1)(c)?
Where a sub trust is created, the intermediate trustee does not lose their equitable interest therefore it is not a disposition
What does does Neville v Wilson tell us about a disposition?
An oral contract does amount to a disposition under s53(1)(c) however it can be exempt due to s53(2)
