Trusts - Beneficiary Principle Flashcards
Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts
A beneficiary is necessary to enforce the trust.
Purpose must not be useless or capricious
Morice v Bishop of Durham
The beneficiary principle is that “there must be somebody in whose favour the court can decree performance”. Human, individual needed for a non-charitable trust to be valid.
Leahy v A-G NSW
A person can be a corporation or company.
A distinction drawn between charitable purpose trusts (valid) and non- charitable purpose trusts (invalid)
A distinction between gifts to an unincorporated association as gifts to individual members (valid) and gifts to an unincorporated association for the purposes of the association (void for perpetuity)
- form of gift, number of members, likelihood of intending to be owners of the property to consider
Panter v Rowellian Football Society Club
A football club was not a company but an unincorporated association
- no separate legal personality
- on the face of it cannot benefit under a trust.
Re Denley
Set that for a trust to be valid it must among other things
- be certain
- comply with perpetuity rules
- not offend public policy.
Dealt with situations outside the scope of the beneficiary principle - to confine it to purpose or object trusts which were abstract or impersonal. If there was a benefit to individuals, a purpose trust could still be valid despite lack of beneficiary. Need
- ascertainable individuals
- non abstract purpose (plus certainty and perpetuity period compliance)
Re Endacott
Set 4 anomalous cases where non- charitable purpose trusts would be upheld (trust of imperfect obligation)
1) for erection and maintenance of graves and monuments
2) for maintenance of particular animals
3) for the saying of masses in private
4) for promotion of fox hunting (now unenforceable Hunting Act 2004)
Re Shaw
Refused to extend categories of trusts of imperfect obligation.
Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell
Defined unincorporated associations
- 2 or more people
- common purpose
- in organisation which has rules identifying who has control of it and its funds and upon what terms it can be joined or left at will.
Re Grant’s Will Trust
May be a gift for the present members whom may claim their shares immediately (rare)
Rules of association must allow members to deal with property (contractual analysis) - in this case had to consult higher authorities for their approval so gift failed.
Re Lipinski’s Will Trusts
A pure purpose trust to an unincorporated association was (pragmatically) held valid when the trustees could abandon the stated purpose (as long as a tribute was upheld).
- gift stated in memory
- with a sole purpose
- suggested continuity
Neville Estates v Madden
Set the leading view.
Where gift is for present members they are subject to their contractual rights and duties towards each other (rules of the club)
Cannot sever shares, accrue to other members on death or resignation.
Not open to uncertainty or perpetuity objections
Unless precluded by rules/terms from dividing the gift between them on grounds that they are solely entited in equity.
Re Recher’s Will Trust
Applied the contractual analysis.
Can be used even when the purpose of the society has ceased.
If the society has ceased to exist though, the gift fails
Practically, Property usually held by company officers on trust for members as normally inconvenient to be vested in members. This is a bare trust and contractual analysis is still valid.
Hanchett-Stamford v AG
Contractual analysis favoured by courts.
As sole surviving member was absolutely entitled to association’s assets. On basis property of association is the property of its members. On dissolution those who are members at the time are entitled to the assets free from contractual restrictions
Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund
Where purpose fails the surplus money is held on resulting trust for donors (if donations)
Re Trusts of the Abbott Fund
Where the purpose is fulfilled, the surplus is held on resulting trust for the donors.
