Unit 2

Question 1

Knight v Knight

Answer 1

1) certainty of intention (to create a trust)
2) certainty of subject matter
3) certainty of objects

Question 2

Milroy v Lord (intention)

Answer 2

Court said trust instrument can’t be used to perfect an imperfect gift

Question 3

Clough Mill v Martin 1984

Answer 3

Allows person access to a certain value from a fluctuating pool but does not grant a person a right to particular piece of property

Question 4

Inference that trust exists.
Paul v Constance 1977

Answer 4

“The money is as much mine as it is yours”
Deemed sufficient to establish the trust

Question 5

Tito v Waddell 1977 no2

Answer 5

Word “trust” does not always create a trust.

Question 6

Re Adams & Kensington Vestry 1884

Answer 6

“In full confidence” only imposed a moral obligation

Question 7

Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury 1905

Answer 7

Used the phrase “in full confidence” but created rights

Question 8

Westdeutsche landesbank v Islington LBC 1996

Answer 8

Would it be unconscionable if the legal owner to deny others rights on the property?
If yes, there is a trust

Question 9

Certainty of intention based on two factors:

Answer 9

1. Wording of the will (Re Denley 1969)
2. The context of the trusts creation

Question 10

Certainty of subject matter

Answer 10

Subject matter has to be separately identifiable

Question 11

Re London Wine Co 1986

Answer 11

Wine company went bankrupt and one of the creditors said they were owed 50 bottles of wine. Not clear which 50 bottles or whether they come from current stock. Wine in question was not separately identifiable for that customer so trust failed

Question 12

Re goldcorp 1995

Answer 12

Gold exchange company went bankrupt and vault of gold not clear which gold belonged to who and one of the customers was a bank and had a separate account and separate gold vault so their gold was separately identifiable

Question 13

Re Lehman brothers international 2012

Answer 13

Giant financial crash in 2008. Lehman brothers became insolvent and had no followed financial services authority rules correctly so customer money and company money got mixed up. Court were lenient during financial crisis and said trust created on receipt of the money by bank from customers

Question 14

Hunter v Moss 1994

Answer 14

Rule that says property must be separately identifiable does not apply to intangible property such as shares

Question 15

White v shortall 2006

Answer 15

Tried to get around intangible property rule by creating a trust over all the shares together and then dividing them up after so some would be seen as identifiable property. Not really useful approsch

Question 16

Re golays wills trust 1965

Answer 16

Reasonable income left to housekeeper in a will and question was what is reasonable income? Court said they can identify reasonable income

Question 17

Re Kolbs Will trusts 1962

Answer 17

Blue chip securities used to refer to shares in a public companies which are seen as safe or good investments. What is a safe investment is vague. Not separately identifiable

Question 18

Uncertainty: 3 possible outcomes

Answer 18

1) trust completely void and held for settlor on resulting trust
2) property left to someone via a will but subject to a failed trust goes to that person absolutely - hancock v watson
3) floating charge is created instead of the remaining part. Not as solid as trust but gives person overall right to the property

Question 19

Fiduciary mere powers.

Answer 19

Given a power but no obligation to use the powrr

Question 20

Is or is not test (objects)

Answer 20

Re gulbenkian. Get to choose beneficiaries as power gives full discretion.
Potentially failed trust if there is uncertainty about one person

Question 21

Lord Browne Wilkinson in re Barlow 1979

Answer 21

Said to see the trust as a series of individual gifts but not a true representation of a what a trust instrument is.

Question 22

McPhail v Doulton 1975

Answer 22

Using the is or is not test but same problem of uncertainty remairnd

Question 23

Re baden no2 1973

Answer 23

LJ Sachs: onus should be on the apparent beneficiary to prove they’re a member of the set class
Megaw LJ: trust can still be valid with minor uncertainties