Three Certainties Flashcards
Armitage v Nurse (Millet LJ)
“there is an irreducible core of obligations owed by the trustees to the beneficiaries and enforceable by them which is fundamental to the concept of a trust. If the beneficiaries have no rights enforceable against the trustees, there are no trusts.”
Bisrat v Kebede
“equity never allows a trust to fail for want of a trustee”
Brynes v Kendle
CERTAINTY OF INTENTION - S’s intention is judge objectively (even if subjectively he didn’t intend it and he hates the wife)
Richards v Delbridge (Jessel MR)
- General donative intention is insufficient (needs to be clear)
“It is true that the settlor need not use the words ‘I declare myself a trustee’ but he must do something that is equivalent to it and use expressions which have that meaning” - you have to be clear
Paul v Constance
it wasn’t clear here, but court decided it was a trust
Lambe v Evans
- an intention to impose a legally binding duty is necessary
- can’t say ‘well i hope/wish/am confident that’
- docile words cannot create a trust
- precatory words don’t give rise to a trust
Re Brace, Re Freud
precatory words don’t give rise to a trust
Re Adams and Kensington Vestry
a testimony transfer from a husband to his widow “in full confidence that she will do what is right as to the disposal thereof between [S’s] children” did not manifest an intention (objectively) to impose a legally binding duty on T and so does not give rise to a trust
Needs to be segregation of alleged trust property
Henry v Hammond
Azam v Iqbal
if no requirement of segregation of trustee’s own funds and trust fund then it’s not a trust
Re Lewis’s of Leicester
If there are several beneficiaries, and their trust properties are mixed, a trust can still be found, as long as the trust properties are not mixed with the trustee’s own money
Palmer v Simmonds (1854)
Certainty of subject matter - “bulk of my estate” is not good enough
Boyce v Boyce (1849)
S bequeathed two houses on T on trust to convey whichever house Maria should choose to Maria and to convey the other to Charlotte; Maria died before S so she did not make a selection. TRUST VOID because uncertainty of subject matter
Re London Wine Co [1986]
There needs to be a clear trust property, it can’t be some of many – needs to be exactly which ones (wine boxes)
Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd
- No trust because subject matter was insufficiently clear
- Lord Mustill – need for identification is not “some legal technicality” but depends on the “very nature of things”
MacJordan Construction Ltd v Brookmount Erostin Ltd
- No segregation of money
- If you have some things in a bulk but not all of it, it is not a valid declaration of a trust unless you take out the part that is meant to be trust property and take it somewhere else
Hunter v Moss
- says shares, you don’t need to segregate trust property
- can say you have some of my shares
Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) [2010]
confirmed hunter v moss
Re Gulbenkian’s ST [1970]
non-fiduciary powers, certainty of objects
- is or is not test
- HL rejected view that it’s only necessary to show one person is clearly within the class
- You need to show who falls within the class and who doesn’t
Re Hay’s Settlement Trusts [1982
Megarry VC (for fiduciary powers, certainty of objects requires a few more things) I. To consider periodically whether or not he should exercise the power II. To consider the range of objects of the power III. To consider the appropriateness of individual appointments
Re Baden (Megaw LJ)
there is no need for T to ascertain all the possible objects, as long as a substantial number of objects can clearly be identified, T can proceed to consider how to exercise the power to select particular objects as recipients of part of the Fund
Re Baden’s Deed Trust (no,1)
is or is not test for discretionary trusts
