Trusts group 1

Question 1

Knight v Knight

Answer 1

Private express trusts need 3 certainties

Question 2

Richards v Dellbridge

Answer 2

Trusts no need technical language

Question 3

Tito v Waddell

Answer 3

Use of word trust ≠ conclusive

Question 4

Re Adams & Kensington Vestry

Answer 4

Precatory words ≠ sufficient – ‘in full confidence’

Question 5

Steele’s WT

Answer 5

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;

Question 6

Comiskey

Answer 6

Whole document examined to determine if intention existed to impose T on done

Question 7

s. 22 Admin. Justice Act

Answer 7

Where contrary intention shown – presumption = absolute gift to done

Question 8

Paul v. Constance

Answer 8

Bank account case – ‘money as much mine as yours’ = intention for T.

Question 9

Midland Bank v White

Answer 9

Shame intention: Declaration of T. Made but kept safe & revealed when business failed – was ‘kept up sleeve for rainy day’

Question 10

Snook

Answer 10

Sham = acts done intended to give 3ps or Crts appearance of creating legal obligation different from actual obligations

Question 11

Lamb v Eames

Answer 11

Difference b/twn imperiative words (which create a trust) and precatory words (suggest moral obligation) “she may think best”

Question 12

Re London Wine Co

Answer 12

Cannot be a trust for unidentified property;

Question 13

Palmer v Simmonds

Answer 13

Certainty of subject matter – ‘bulk of my estates’ ≠ certain

Question 14

Boyce v Boyce

Answer 14

If subject matter = certain but shares = uncertain & T’ee has no discretion then T. Fails and property held on RT for S’or

Question 15

GoldCorp Exchange

Answer 15

Certainty Subject Matter – Leading case – if no identifiable subject matter then T. Fails.

Question 16

Hunter v Moss

Answer 16

Uncertainty of subject matter in Choses in action (money/shares) – b/c they are identical

Question 17

Vandervell No. 2

Answer 17

Trust must be for ascertainable B’ees;
What does Crt need to give effect to Settlor’s intention?
Crt can infer T. From conduct

Question 18

IRC v Broadway cottages

Answer 18

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

Question 19

McPhail v Doulton

Answer 19

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;

Question 20

Baden No. 2

Answer 20

Conceptual uncertainty – test – CRT never defeated by evidential uncertainty;
‘Relatives’ & ‘dependants’ = conceptually certain if CRT can construe words as meaning ‘next of kin’;

Question 21

Gulbenkian

Answer 21

Crt can determine S’or’s intention;

If Class = certain, whereabouts/existence of object – irrelevant;

Question 22

Dundee Hospital

Answer 22

‘friends’ ≠ conceptually certain;

Question 23

Re Gibbard

Answer 23

“old friends’ = conceptually certain

Question 24

Locker’s Settlement

Answer 24

Crt can direct T’ees to exercise their discretion if T’ees haven’t