S1 Cases Flashcards
Chambers v Fahy 1931
3 certaintees, the property wasn’t taken beneficially. It was taken on trust.
Re Humphrey’s Estate 1916
If a trust is intended, language needs to be certain. Precatory Words are not enough. “I wish”, “I desire”
Re Bayley 1945
Wasn’t void of uncertainty. “Irish relatives”. The testator doesn’t have to name every single beneficiary
Re Blake 1995
Interferring w/ Parental Duties
Raise as Roman Catholic religion.
Gift = void
Re Trust of the Abbott Fund 1900
Resulting trust for the subscribers
What was their intent?
Re Andrew’s Trust 1905
the subscribers’ had parted with the money
the intention was to benefit the children
Re Foord 1922
sister died, left over money went to the sister’s estate.
it was a gift.
intention of gift and words of endearment- she was a beneficiary
wording of the will was looked at
Re Slattery 1917
life insurance policy on someone else
money belonged to the one who paid it and had physical control over the policy
Owens v Greene 1932
Joint Deposit Cases
falied to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust
uncle set up account w/nephew who’s name is on the account
when the uncle died, money held on resulting trust for his estate.
Lynch v Burke 1990
Rebuts the presumption of resulting trust
Overruled Owens v Greene
has the same facts accept niece was present and when account was opened and signed for it
niece got the money
Re Grimes 1937
Presumption of Advancement
son’s wife was entitled to the securities by presumption of advancement
Re McEnery: O’Connell v AG 1941
Family cannot benefit from a charitable trust
the trust didn’t benefit the community or the public
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co. Ltd 1951
trust created for the benefit of the children of employees and former employees
not for the public benefit
if there’s a connection between the executors & the beneficiaries, there can’t be a public benefit
Dingle v Turner 1972
the relief of poverty
“poor employees”
was charitable
O’Brien v Sheil 1873
Presumption of Advancement
- Where a father purchases property in the name of his child or transfers it into the child’s name, the presumption of advancement will apply.
Re Worth Library 1995
Cy-près Doctrine
- book collection donated for the benefit the hospital
- the original prupose had ended so they should continue with a similar purpose
Certainty of Objects
- the requirement for living identifiable persons as beneficiaries is loosened.
Arnott v Arnott 1924
Trustees who are difficult to deal with are subject to removal
- trustee refused to agree with anything
Moore v McGlynn 1894
Conflict of Interest of the Trustee
- the shop that the trustee was supposed to run, was very similar to his own shop
- removed him as a trustee
Spencer v Kinsella 1996
The Welfare of the beneficiary can cause the removal of trustees
Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co. Ltd 1980
-where a series of transactions of a breaching trustee are related, one transation could effect another
Cowan v Scargill 1985
The duty of the trustee is to maximise the interests of the beneficiary
Chaine-Nickson v Bank of Ireland 1976
Beneficiary’s right to information in a discretionary trust
- trustee could be violating the duty of loyalty
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns 1996
DEFAULT RULE: equal shares of liability
- the beneficiaries can sue just one trustee or more
- the default rule will be put aside to make the trust whole
- THE TRUST WILL NOT FAIL ON ACCOUNT OF A TRUSTEE
Bahin v Hughes 1886
If a trustee is in knowlegdge of a breach and keeps silent, they are equally liable
