Unit 2 Flashcards
Knight v Knight
1) certainty of intention (to create a trust)
2) certainty of subject matter
3) certainty of objects
Milroy v Lord (intention)
Court said trust instrument can’t be used to perfect an imperfect gift
Clough Mill v Martin 1984
Allows person access to a certain value from a fluctuating pool but does not grant a person a right to particular piece of property
Inference that trust exists.
Paul v Constance 1977
“The money is as much mine as it is yours”
Deemed sufficient to establish the trust
Tito v Waddell 1977 no2
Word “trust” does not always create a trust.
Re Adams & Kensington Vestry 1884
“In full confidence” only imposed a moral obligation
Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury 1905
Used the phrase “in full confidence” but created rights
Westdeutsche landesbank v Islington LBC 1996
Would it be unconscionable if the legal owner to deny others rights on the property?
If yes, there is a trust
Certainty of intention based on two factors:
- Wording of the will (Re Denley 1969)
- The context of the trusts creation
Certainty of subject matter
Subject matter has to be separately identifiable
Re London Wine Co 1986
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
Re goldcorp 1995
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
Re Lehman brothers international 2012
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
Hunter v Moss 1994
Rule that says property must be separately identifiable does not apply to intangible property such as shares
White v shortall 2006
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
Re golays wills trust 1965
Reasonable income left to housekeeper in a will and question was what is reasonable income? Court said they can identify reasonable income
Re Kolbs Will trusts 1962
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
Uncertainty: 3 possible outcomes
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
Fiduciary mere powers.
Given a power but no obligation to use the powrr
Is or is not test (objects)
Re gulbenkian. Get to choose beneficiaries as power gives full discretion.
Potentially failed trust if there is uncertainty about one person
Lord Browne Wilkinson in re Barlow 1979
Said to see the trust as a series of individual gifts but not a true representation of a what a trust instrument is.
McPhail v Doulton 1975
Using the is or is not test but same problem of uncertainty remairnd
Re baden no2 1973
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
