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