S1 Cases Flashcards
Chambers v Fahy 1931
3 certaintees, the property wasn’t taken beneficially. It was taken on trust.
Re Humphrey’s Estate 1916
If a trust is intended, language needs to be certain. Precatory Words are not enough. “I wish”, “I desire”
Re Bayley 1945
Wasn’t void of uncertainty. “Irish relatives”. The testator doesn’t have to name every single beneficiary
Re Blake 1995
Interferring w/ Parental Duties
Raise as Roman Catholic religion.
Gift = void
Re Trust of the Abbott Fund 1900
Resulting trust for the subscribers
What was their intent?
Re Andrew’s Trust 1905
the subscribers’ had parted with the money
the intention was to benefit the children
Re Foord 1922
sister died, left over money went to the sister’s estate.
it was a gift.
intention of gift and words of endearment- she was a beneficiary
wording of the will was looked at
Re Slattery 1917
life insurance policy on someone else
money belonged to the one who paid it and had physical control over the policy
Owens v Greene 1932
Joint Deposit Cases
falied to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust
uncle set up account w/nephew who’s name is on the account
when the uncle died, money held on resulting trust for his estate.
Lynch v Burke 1990
Rebuts the presumption of resulting trust
Overruled Owens v Greene
has the same facts accept niece was present and when account was opened and signed for it
niece got the money
Re Grimes 1937
Presumption of Advancement
son’s wife was entitled to the securities by presumption of advancement
Re McEnery: O’Connell v AG 1941
Family cannot benefit from a charitable trust
the trust didn’t benefit the community or the public
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co. Ltd 1951
trust created for the benefit of the children of employees and former employees
not for the public benefit
if there’s a connection between the executors & the beneficiaries, there can’t be a public benefit
Dingle v Turner 1972
the relief of poverty
“poor employees”
was charitable
O’Brien v Sheil 1873
Presumption of Advancement
- Where a father purchases property in the name of his child or transfers it into the child’s name, the presumption of advancement will apply.
Re Worth Library 1995
Cy-près Doctrine
- book collection donated for the benefit the hospital
- the original prupose had ended so they should continue with a similar purpose
Certainty of Objects
- the requirement for living identifiable persons as beneficiaries is loosened.
Arnott v Arnott 1924
Trustees who are difficult to deal with are subject to removal
- trustee refused to agree with anything
Moore v McGlynn 1894
Conflict of Interest of the Trustee
- the shop that the trustee was supposed to run, was very similar to his own shop
- removed him as a trustee
Spencer v Kinsella 1996
The Welfare of the beneficiary can cause the removal of trustees
Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co. Ltd 1980
-where a series of transactions of a breaching trustee are related, one transation could effect another
Cowan v Scargill 1985
The duty of the trustee is to maximise the interests of the beneficiary
Chaine-Nickson v Bank of Ireland 1976
Beneficiary’s right to information in a discretionary trust
- trustee could be violating the duty of loyalty
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns 1996
DEFAULT RULE: equal shares of liability
- the beneficiaries can sue just one trustee or more
- the default rule will be put aside to make the trust whole
- THE TRUST WILL NOT FAIL ON ACCOUNT OF A TRUSTEE
Bahin v Hughes 1886
If a trustee is in knowlegdge of a breach and keeps silent, they are equally liable
French v Graham 1860
The beneficiary can share in the liabilty but only to the limit of their interest in the trust
- Digby French, Edward French and Graham
AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co. 2014
3rd party liability of solicitors for negligence
Gabbett v Lawder 1883
“no person in a fiduciary capacity shall be allowed to retain any advantage gained by him in his character as a trustee”
Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid 1994
bribes are automatically held on constructive trust for the beneficairy the moment the bribe was accepted.
Sherrard v Barron 1923
A constructive trust will be enforced if an agent takes advantage of services provided to his principal without the principal’s knowledge and makes a profit for himself.
Agents are required to fully disclose to their principals any and all transactions in which they are profiting off of their principals, whether directly or indirectly.
Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan Kok Ming 1995
Dishonest Assistance of a 3rd Party
- just focus on if the third party did something wrong
- You don’t have to establish liability of the primary party/trustee
- constructive trust will be put on the 3rd party
Murray v Murray 1996
- the sister’s nephew and girlfriend living the man’s house and not letting him in.
- he paid 25% of the mortgage and she paid 75% of it
- she was making the monthly payments so the house was mostly hers
- it was a failed gift cause she died.
H.K.N. Invest Oy v Incotrade Pvt Ltd 1993
Constructive trust imposed on employees of Incotrade to return the money back to Incotrade so they can return it to HKN
Keech v Sandford 1726
Profits and property acquired by trustee in breach of fiduciary duty is held on constructive trust for the beneficiary.
Parkes v Parkes 1980
The husband argued that he should have the property because he paid for it.
The court said that they can’t give him relief because he tried to avoid taxes
So the wife gets to keep the property.
The court wanted to stay clean
-Needs to be a connection between impropriety and relief sought for maxim to apply
Feeney v MacManus 1937
Even distribution of remaining funds on an equal basis
Re Diplock 1948
Equity will not suffer a wrong (contrary to the law) to be without a remedy
- equity will intervene to protect a right that for some reason is not enforceable at common law
- there must be pre-existing equitable remedy
Tinsley v Milligan 1994
Illegality Defence
- can’t rely on illegal act to establish claim
Patel v Mirza 2016
OVERRULLED Tinsley v Milligan
- range of factors to determine whether they can rely or not.
- more fair and clear
Re Parker 1966
“necessitous nephews and nieces”
- a class of beneficiaries
Re Doyle 1972
- In fact the daughter said that she did not become aware of the condition until after her father’s death.
- Kenny J, answering questions raised by the executor on a construction summons, held that this condition was void as being impossible to perform.
- He also held, however, that the condition was void as being contrary to Article 44.2.1° of the Constitution
