Trusts group 1 Flashcards
Knight v Knight
Private express trusts need 3 certainties
Richards v Dellbridge
Trusts no need technical language
Tito v Waddell
Use of word trust ≠ conclusive
Re Adams & Kensington Vestry
Precatory words ≠ sufficient – ‘in full confidence’
Steele’s WT
If T. Found from precatory words, then Trust = valid;
If a T. Is determined under old law, new law will uphold it, even if T. Not supported by Modern law;
Comiskey
Whole document examined to determine if intention existed to impose T on done
s. 22 Admin. Justice Act
Where contrary intention shown – presumption = absolute gift to done
Paul v. Constance
Bank account case – ‘money as much mine as yours’ = intention for T.
Midland Bank v White
Shame intention: Declaration of T. Made but kept safe & revealed when business failed – was ‘kept up sleeve for rainy day’
Snook
Sham = acts done intended to give 3ps or Crts appearance of creating legal obligation different from actual obligations
Lamb v Eames
Difference b/twn imperiative words (which create a trust) and precatory words (suggest moral obligation) “she may think best”
Re London Wine Co
Cannot be a trust for unidentified property;
Palmer v Simmonds
Certainty of subject matter – ‘bulk of my estates’ ≠ certain
Boyce v Boyce
If subject matter = certain but shares = uncertain & T’ee has no discretion then T. Fails and property held on RT for S’or
GoldCorp Exchange
Certainty Subject Matter – Leading case – if no identifiable subject matter then T. Fails.
Hunter v Moss
Uncertainty of subject matter in Choses in action (money/shares) – b/c they are identical
Vandervell No. 2
Trust must be for ascertainable B’ees;
What does Crt need to give effect to Settlor’s intention?
Crt can infer T. From conduct
IRC v Broadway cottages
Certainty objects - Fixed Trust – Test = “is test”: must be able to draw up complete list of B’ees so as to ascertain quantum each B’ee gets
McPhail v Doulton
Certainty objects –D.T./powers Test = “is/is not” – can it be said with certainty that any individual IS or IS NOT a member of the class;
Administrative unworkability – If equal division = impossible then execution = impossible;
Crt can appoint new T’ees to give effect to S’or’s intention;
Baden No. 2
Conceptual uncertainty – test – CRT never defeated by evidential uncertainty;
‘Relatives’ & ‘dependants’ = conceptually certain if CRT can construe words as meaning ‘next of kin’;
Gulbenkian
Crt can determine S’or’s intention;
If Class = certain, whereabouts/existence of object – irrelevant;
Dundee Hospital
‘friends’ ≠ conceptually certain;
Re Gibbard
“old friends’ = conceptually certain
Locker’s Settlement
Crt can direct T’ees to exercise their discretion if T’ees haven’t
