Unit 3 Flashcards
Morice v Bishop Durham - enforceability
“Every trust must have a definite object”
Re Astors - Enforceability and control
A non charitable trust must be enforceable with ascertainable beneficiaries to be valid - the beneficiary principle
Morice V Bishop Durham - control
“There can be no trust over the exercice of which the court will not assume control - for an uncontrollable power of disposition would be ownership not trust”
Morice v Bishop - certainty
Must be certainty of objects
Brown v Burnett - Capriciousness
B left in her will that the property boarded up with good long nails bent down and people visited her property every 3 months. Held: no trust - too many burdens on a useless indisposed of property
Mussett v Bingle - exceptions
£200 for the erection of a tombstone and maintenance. Held: first allowed second as there was no time frame not allowed to be valid.
Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009
Trust is void unless the interest is VESTED in the beneficiaries within the perpetuity period 125 years
Re Kelly - rule against alien ability
Trust for care of care within their lifetime. Although this would have happened under 21 years x no explicit time frame was stated thus not trust allowed.
Re Hooper - rule against inalienability
Trust to look after tombstones for “as long as the law permits”. Held: yes a trust by the courts they could impute that this was 21 years.
Re Endacott
Testator left estate to a parish council for a memorial. Held no trust as it was a gift and was placing obligations.
Re Astors Settlement trust
Trust to hold shares of a company promoting understanding and cooperation between nations and independence and integrity of newspapers. Held: no trust 1) violated the beneficiary principle 2) uncertainty
Re Dean - exception
Trust for £750 a year for 50 years to feed hounds. Held: yes this was a trust
Fell under re ednacott exceptions
Re Endacott - exceptions to the principle
1) erection or maintained of statues or monuments or graves
2) saying of private masses
3) upkeep of animals
4) unincorporated associations
Pettinghall v Pettinghall
Upkeep of testators horse held to be a trust
Re Hooper - alien ability
Trust for the maintenance of tombs and monuments allowed as sated as long as legally do so
Re Lipinksi
Testator left part of estate on trust to association to build and improve buildings for the association. Held a valid gift. This can be upheld via either the Re Recher or Re Denley principles.
Re Osoba
Trust for training the daughter up to university grade. Held: intention was that it was to be an absolute gift and the reference to education was only a suggestion not binding.
Re Denley
Purpose trust void unless:
1) it is for the benefit of known individuals
2) the purpose benefits the whole class of individuals and is not too vague
3) the trust complied with perpetuity rules
Neville Estates v Madden
The of holding property for unincorporated associations:
1. A gift to the current members so they can share it as joint tenants
2. A gift to members subject to their contract a liabilities to the association
3. A gift to present and future members
4. A gift on trust for a purpose that would indirectly benefit
Re Recher
A gift to an association that had merged with its national society. The gift was void and supported the contract holdings theory.
Re Denley
Trust for land of sports ground for use an d enjoyment of employees of the company 21 years from the death of the last named individual. Held: to be a valid trust as although has a purpose benefits the members and falls out the scope of the beneficiary principle.
Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments
R borrowed money from Q to pay shareholders and deposited this into B bank. R went into liquidation and liquidators tried to claim money. Held: b was holding money on trust for Q.
Two trust approach:
If the PRIMARY TRUST fails due to the conditions not being met the SECONDARY TRUST kicks in and the money is paid back to the lender.
Twinsectra v Yardley
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. not a trust for purpose but for the lender.
