Is making trusts for a purpose rather than people permissible in English law?
No
Why must a trust have human beneficiaries to be enforceable?
- Enforceability
- Control
- Certainty
- Capriciousness
- Perpetuity
Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) - Enforceability
“Every other trust must have a definite object. There must be somebody in whose favour the court can decree performance”.
- However, trusts for public purposes will be enforceable.
Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts [1952] - Control
- Was held that it’s difficult to visualise the growth of equitable obligations which nobody can enforce… no court and no department of state can control.
When could a trust be held as too capricious?
Where there’s a trust which doesn’t have human beneficiaries.
Brown v Burdett (1882) - Capriciousness
- Trust was void where it was for the blocking up of rooms in a house
McCaig v University of Glasgow (No.2) 1906 - Capriciousness
- Courts refused to allow the erection of statues of relatives as they benefitted nobody and the courts wanted to avoid trusts that had no human beneficiaries.
What is perpetuity?
- The idea that trusts go on forever.
What interests does remoteness of vesting apply to?
Contingent interests and discretionary trusts
What is the rule against remoteness of vesting?
- The trust is void unless the interests vest in some B or Bs absolutely within the perpetuity period - now 125yrs. for trusts/wills created after 6th April 2010
What is the rule against inalienability?
A non-charitable purpose trust is void if it stops the capital from being alienated (spent) for a period longer than the perpetuity period. Normally 21yrs.
Re Endacott [1960]
A trust to “provide some useful memorial to myself” was held to be void as it was unspecified.
Pettingall v Pettingall (1842)
- A trust for the upkeep of the testator’s favourite horse was held to be valid.
Re Howard [1908]
A trust for money to be paid for the maintenance of a parrot during the lives of 2 named individuals was held to be a valid trust.
Pirbright v Salwey [1896]
- Trust for the upkeep of a grave and to decorate it with flowers for as long as the law permits.
- Held to be valid as no inalienability - was for as long as the law permits
What is the problem with the exceptions - animals, tombs etc.?
- They’re trusts of imperfect obligation - there’s nobody to enforce them.
Re Endacott
The categories of anomalous exceptions appear to be closed.
Re Lipinski’s WT
An alternative approach is to have a 3rd party named as a protector/enforcer
Re Osoba [1979] - Identifying people as benefitting from the trust directly
- A trust put in place for the “training of my daughter up to university grade”.
Re Denley [1969] - IMPORTANT
You can get around the beneficiary principle issue easily if it is a direct benefit but also if it is an indirect benefit for specified people.
What is an Unincorporated Association?
Often clubs, amateur societies etc.
What is the problem with gifts to Unincorporated Associations?
They have no separate legal identity - so how can they accept gifts/legacies?
Leahy v AG for New South Wales [1959]
- If you cannot identify individual people to be beneficial owners of the trust then the trust will be void.
Neville Estates Ltd v Madden [1962]
- A way to validate a gift.
- It will be treated as a gift to the relevant members as JTs so each member can sever his share and take it.
- Works for small groups
