Trusts group 1 invert

Question 1

Private express trusts need 3 certainties

Answer 1

Knight v Knight

Question 2

Trusts no need technical language

Answer 2

Richards v Dellbridge

Question 3

Trust can be inferred from conduct

Answer 3

Vandervell (no.2)

Question 4

Use of word trust ≠ conclusive

Answer 4

Tito v Waddell

Question 5

Crt will determine intention from language used

Answer 5

Gulbenkian’s

Question 6

Precatory words ≠ sufficient – ‘in full confidence’

Answer 6

Re Adams & Kensington Vestry

Question 7

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;

Answer 7

Steele’s WT

Question 8

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

Answer 8

Comiskey

Question 9

Where contrary intention shown – presumption = absolute gift to done

Answer 9

s. 22 Admin. Justice Act

Question 10

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

Answer 10

Paul v. Constance

Question 11

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

Answer 11

Midland Bank v White

Question 12

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

Answer 12

Snook

Question 13

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

Answer 13

Lamb v Eames

Question 14

Cannot be a trust for unidentified property;

Answer 14

Re London Wine Co

Question 15

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

Answer 15

Palmer v Simmonds

Question 16

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

Answer 16

Boyce v Boyce

Question 17

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

Answer 17

GoldCorp Exchange

Question 18

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

Answer 18

Hunter v Moss

Question 19

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

Answer 19

Vandervell No. 2

Question 20

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

Answer 20

IRC v Broadway cottages

Question 21

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;

Answer 21

McPhail v Doulton

Question 22

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

Answer 22

Baden No. 2

Question 23

Crt can determine S’or’s intention;

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

Answer 23

Gulbenkian

Question 24

‘friends’ ≠ conceptually certain;

Answer 24

Dundee Hospital

Question 25

“old friends’ = conceptually certain

Answer 25

Re Gibbard

Question 26

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

Answer 26

Locker’s Settlement