Unit 2 Flashcards
Knight v Knight
Highlights the 3 certainties needed to be present
Re Adam’s (CofI)
Money given to wife in the will in full confidence that she will do what is right to the disposal between the children. Held: this was not a trust as there was no certainty of intention instead was a gift with obligations
Tito v Waddell (CoI)
Cannot just call something a trust and it will amount to one
Midland Bank Plc v Wyatt - sham trust
When there is no actual intention to create a trust - sham intention
Twinsectra v Yardley (CoI)
T intended to lend money to y through for the purchase of property only then money was given to the solicitors to hold on quistclose trust (solicitor undertaking). the money was released to y for another purpose and T sued for the breach. Solicitor intended to create a trust and with the money and acted in breach of the trust.
Re Kayford (CoI)
Deposits paid to mail order company which out them in separate bank accounts. The company went bust and liquidators tried to claim the money. Held: no as the money was held on trust in equity as they were in separate bank accounts
Re Golay (CoS)
G write that his daughter was to enjoy the use of one of his flats and receive a “reasonable income” for the other properties. Held: reasonable income was not certain enough court had to use evidence based on outgoings etc to figure it out
Re London Wine Co (CoS)
Large quantity of wine all stored in one warehouse not separated by orders. when the company went into liquidation it was held that there were no trusts created as the purchased stock and unsold stock were not separated - liquidators could claim the lot.
Hunter v Moss (CoS)
Moss orally declaration of trust h to transfer shares 50 / 950. None transferred and sold them all instead. He had not separated shares or declared which ones to be transferred. Held: despite none segregation was a trust due to it being intangible unlike wine.
Justifications
1. If shares are all the same type segregation doesn’t matter
2. Wine is tangible shares aren’t
3. Shares that are not segregated are treated as co owned - Lehman Brothers
Re Harvard Securities - bound by this decision but not happy
Morice v Bishop Durham (CoO)
Every trust must have a definite object
IRC v Broadway Cottages (CoO) Fixed trust test
Complete list test - need a complete list of objects as well as both conceptual and evidential certainty
McPhail v Doulton (CoO)
Trust fund set up for staff of company could write up a whole list. New test- any given postulant test should be e used instead (is or is not test). Court can order a scheme to distribute amongst trustees.
R v district West Yorkshire met cc (CoO) - administrative unworkability
Cc was about to be abolished - wanted to distribute money to all or some inhabitants. Held: inhabitants was conceptually certain but void for administrative unworkability
Re manisty - capriciousness
Trust would bevoid if terms weren’t sensible
Re Baden (CoO) - administrative unworkability
B wanted to set up a trust for employees, ex employees, relatives and dependants. Hard to establish relatives. Held:
1. Stamp- need to place people in a box else it will voice for uncertainty - relatives never next of kin
2. Sachs- stressed the need for conceptual certainty - here relative is commons ancestor - it is up to people to come forward
3. Megaw - if there are enough people that git in the category then it is workable
