Purpose Trusts Flashcards
(25 cards)
What are purpose trusts?
Trusts created for a purpose and not for a human beneficiary
What is the general rule for purpose trusts?
That they are VOID
What are the objections to Purpose Trusts? Why are purpose trusts usually void?
- No human beneficiaries to enforce the trust
- Uncertainty
- Perpetuity (people die, purposes could go on forever)
What are the key cases for lack of beneficiaries?
Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804)
Leahy v AG for NSW [1959]
What are the two separate problems with lack of beneficiaries for a purpose trust?
- If the court is required to order the trustees to distribute the trust property, they need to know to whom it should be distributed.
- Who would have “locus standi” (the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court) to request the court to order performance- there needs to be an identifiable human beneficiary
What is a key case for Uncertainty?
Re Astor [1952]- void for uncertainty due to there being no identifiable beneficiary.
What is the rules under perpetuity?
- The Rule against Remoteness of Vesting
- The rule against inalienability
- Rule against endowments
The Rule against Remoteness of Vesting?
Capital must be vested in someone within the perpetuity period.
This rule applies to fixed and discretionary trusts and to powers
The rule against alienability?
Often called the rule against perpetual trusts
Rule restricts the time period within which future interests in property must vest- plus 21 years
Rule against endowments?
Not in the public interest that money is tied up in a trust that is no longer useful.
Do any of these rules apply to charitable trusts?
No.
What is a perpetuity period?
A rule that sets a time limit within which future dealings with property (such as gifts to a particular child or a group of people who fulfil a particular condition) must occur
What is the act that sets out perpetuity periods?
Perpetuities and Accumulation Act 2009
What are the perpetuity periods?
For any trusts created after the 5th October 2010 the perpetuity period is 125 years (s5)
Under the 1964 version of the Act the usual period was 80 years
At common law the perpetuity period was 21 years if no identifiable life in being
But trusts for a purpose will not be applied to a person within the required time- void.
How strict are the courts when a purpose trust can be held as valid?
The exceptions to the rule are “where Homer has nodded”
Some non-charitable purpose trusts have been permitted- trusts of “imperfect obligation”
They are held to be valid despite there being no one who can enforce the trust obligations
Examples of exceptions to the rules that make a purpose trust valid?
- Monuments (gravestones)- Re Hooper [1932]
- Specific animals- Re Dean (1889)
- Private masses- Re Hetherington [1990]
- Promotion of fox hunting?- Re Thompson [1934]- must be regarded as no longer valid
Why are there exceptions to the rules of purpose trusts? Key case?
Concessions to human frailty
Small, sentimental ‘oversights’ that do no real harm
Re Endacott [1960]- “for the purpose of providing some useful memorial to myself”
Held that categories are not to be extended- trust also involved a larger sum, the residuary of the estate- context is everything
What is an unincorporated association?
An unincorporated body does not have its own legal personality like an incorporated body (a limited company)
It cannot hold property and it cannot receive gifts
What are gifts to unincorporated at risk of?
They are at risk of being void as purpose trusts
Why are prima facie (at first sight) purpose trusts sometimes saved?
They are sometimes by being interpreted as gifts to unincorporated associations via slightly different means (a gift to the members of the association)
What case shows alternative interpretations of purpose trusts?
Re Denleys Trust Deed [1969]
What are the alternative interpretations?
- Truly abstract impersonal purpose trusts no-one can enforce= void
- Purpose trusts with indirect human beneficiaries- someone can go to court/monitor trustees= no need for trust to be void
Are there any other alternative interpretations?
Is it possible to re-interpret the purpose element as being simply a motive for the gift?
- Operated where there is a direct or indirect human beneficiary
- Enables the motive to be dismissed, leaving a simple gift to the beneficiary
What are some example cases for alternative approaches and motive for the gift?
- Re Bowes (1896)
- Re Andrews (1905)
- Re Osoba (1979)