Unit 2 Flashcards

1
Q

Knight v Knight

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Milroy v Lord (intention)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Clough Mill v Martin 1984

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Inference that trust exists.
Paul v Constance 1977

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Tito v Waddell 1977 no2

A

Word “trust” does not always create a trust.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Re Adams & Kensington Vestry 1884

A

“In full confidence” only imposed a moral obligation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury 1905

A

Used the phrase “in full confidence” but created rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Westdeutsche landesbank v Islington LBC 1996

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Certainty of intention based on two factors:

A
  1. Wording of the will (Re Denley 1969)
  2. The context of the trusts creation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Certainty of subject matter

A

Subject matter has to be separately identifiable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Re London Wine Co 1986

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Re goldcorp 1995

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Re Lehman brothers international 2012

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Hunter v Moss 1994

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

White v shortall 2006

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Re golays wills trust 1965

A

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

17
Q

Re Kolbs Will trusts 1962

A

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

18
Q

Uncertainty: 3 possible outcomes

A

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

19
Q

Fiduciary mere powers.

A

Given a power but no obligation to use the powrr

20
Q

Is or is not test (objects)

A

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

21
Q

Lord Browne Wilkinson in re Barlow 1979

A

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

22
Q

McPhail v Doulton 1975

A

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

23
Q

Re baden no2 1973

A

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