Unit 3

Question 1

Morice v Bishop Durham - enforceability

Answer 1

“Every trust must have a definite object”

Question 2

Re Astors - Enforceability and control

Answer 2

A non charitable trust must be enforceable with ascertainable beneficiaries to be valid - the beneficiary principle

Question 3

Morice V Bishop Durham - control

Answer 3

“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”

Question 4

Morice v Bishop - certainty

Answer 4

Must be certainty of objects

Question 5

Brown v Burnett - Capriciousness

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Mussett v Bingle - exceptions

Answer 6

£200 for the erection of a tombstone and maintenance. Held: first allowed second as there was no time frame not allowed to be valid.

Question 7

Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009

Answer 7

Trust is void unless the interest is VESTED in the beneficiaries within the perpetuity period 125 years

Question 8

Re Kelly - rule against alien ability

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Re Hooper - rule against inalienability

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Re Endacott

Answer 10

Testator left estate to a parish council for a memorial. Held no trust as it was a gift and was placing obligations.

Question 11

Re Astors Settlement trust

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Re Dean - exception

Answer 12

Trust for £750 a year for 50 years to feed hounds. Held: yes this was a trust

Fell under re ednacott exceptions

Question 13

Re Endacott - exceptions to the principle

Answer 13

1) erection or maintained of statues or monuments or graves
2) saying of private masses
3) upkeep of animals
4) unincorporated associations

Question 14

Pettinghall v Pettinghall

Answer 14

Upkeep of testators horse held to be a trust

Question 15

Re Hooper - alien ability

Answer 15

Trust for the maintenance of tombs and monuments allowed as sated as long as legally do so

Question 16

Re Lipinksi

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Re Osoba

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Re Denley

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Neville Estates v Madden

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Re Recher

Answer 20

A gift to an association that had merged with its national society. The gift was void and supported the contract holdings theory.

Question 21

Re Denley

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Twinsectra v Yardley

Answer 23

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.