Trusts Group 2 Flashcards
Re Tuck’s WT
Conceptual uncertainty can be cured by designated 3p’s opinion
(jewish faith & rabbi – obiter)
Re Harding
Bare POWER given to individual can only be used by him
Saunders v Vautier
If B’ees = sui Juris & all agree then can end or vary a Trust w/out T’ee consent
Knocker v Yule
Crt cannot give consent of B’ees who are outside S.1(1)(b) Variation Trust Act 57
Re Weston
Benefit – Denning declared benefit doesn’t have to be solely financial
Re Remnant
Benefit – forfeiture clause – roman catholics – If benefit to one group of B’ees only, crt will allow if more than only financial benefits exist – freedom of religion, freedom of spouse, family harmony
Re Cohen 59
Benefit – if variation includes possible risk of less benefit – crt will allow variation for minors if a sui juris adult would have accepted the risk
Re Cohen 65
Benefit – must be for all B’ees for crt to approve variation
Re Tinker
Benefit – look to selfish reasons – If reasons to vary = financial benefit ONLY to one side of family, CRT won’t approve variation;
Re Stead
Benefit/crt discretion – Crt looks to give effect to S’or’s intention when asked to Vary a T (farmer, his maid, her brother the twat case)
Goulding v James
S’or’s instention = irrelevant – Crt speak for those who cannot speak for themselves when deciding whether to vary a T or not.
S. 57 (1) Trustees Act
Allows variation of T for admin purposes
S. 64 (1) Settled Land Act
Allows variation w/out B’ee consent but only for realty
Hambro v. Duke Marlborough
S.64(1) case – Crt allowed variation to P.T. b/c Marquis was junkie
Morice v Bishop Durham
Charitable trusts not need certainty of objects
Christ’s hospital v Grainger
C.T. may be perpetual if properly constructed & inside perpetuity period
Re Bowen
Gift over from one Charity to a non charity defeats perpetual gift over – must be one charity to another
Wightwick WT
CT no exempt from rule against Perpetuity – Rule governs remoteness of vesting
S.2(2) Charities Act 2006
Legal Req’mnt for CT – be for recognisable Charitable Purpose
S.3 CA 2006
Legal Req’mnt for CT – must be for public benefit
Pemsel’s case
Lord Macnaughten set out 4 heads of charitable purpose
Re Scarisbrick
CT must benefit public or some part of it;
T. for ‘needy relation’ can = Charitable;
Re Resch
Public ≠ whole community; Public = part of community; Benefit = ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ Exclusion of poor ≠ public benefit Fee charging ≠ void provided ppl are not excluded b/c cost
Re White’s WT
Rest home for millionaires ≠ Public benefit
Atkinson’t WT
Gift my clearly be for Charitable purpose
Re Coxen
If main purpose of gift = charitable, ancillary purpose can be non-charitable
Re Best
If gift = Charitable AND benevolent then = Charitable
Blair v Duncan
Charitable AND public = charitable purposes of a public character
Sutton
Charitable AND deserving = Charitable
Bahamas
Education AND welfare ≠ charitable b/c disjunctive (unclear charity)