Head 20: Unlawful purposes

Question 1

McCaig’s Trs v Kirk Session of United Free Church of Lismore 1915 SC 426

(purposes contrary to public policy)

Answer 1

The trust said that McCaig Tower was to be filled with gigantic bronze statues of the McCaigs.
 The tower was to act as a mausoleum for the McCraigs and would not be open to the public.
 The daughter argued that the trust did not confer any benefit so was invalid. She wanted the trust invalidated as if the trust was invalidated then she would inherit the money.
 Held that this was a waste of money and is against public policy.
 (it may have been different if they were open air statues that the public could go and see)

Question 2

Campbell Smith’s Trs v Scott 1944 SLT 198

purposes contrary to public policy

Answer 2

 Testator left large sum of money £500,000 in today’s money for a worthy statute to be built in a reasonably conspicuous area in Edinburgh to commemorate the royal scots regiment.
 This was held to be of public benefit since the city has been linked with the regiment for many centuries. SO the trust was VALID.

Question 3

Sutherland’s Trs v Verschoyle 1968 SLT 43

Answer 3

• Instructed the trustees to devote the trust estate to setting up a gallery in St. Andrews with her “valuable” art collection.
• Realistically her art collection did not have much value and was not connected in such a way to give any educational or insightful insight into the art whatsoever.
• Held that setting up the gallery was so wasteful as to be contrary to public policy.