Unit Two (case cards)

Question 1

Knight v Knight (1840)

Answer 1

Lord Langdale
The three key elements which have to be expressed with certainty…
1. intention (to create a trust)
2. subject matter (whats in it)
3. objects (the beneficiaries/ whos it for)

Question 2

Lambe v Eames (1871)

Answer 2

“to be at her disposal in any way she may think best, for the benefit of herself and her family”
NO TRUST CREATED

Question 3

Re Adams and Kensington v Estry (1884)

Answer 3

“in full confidence that she will do what is right as to the disposal thereof between my children”
NO TRUST CREATED

Question 4

Re Diggles (1888)

Answer 4

“it is my desire” that she pays some money each year to someone else
NO TRUST CREATED

Question 5

Gold v Hill (1999)

Answer 5

“if anything happens to me you will have to sort things out. You know what to do. look after Carol and the kids. Don’t let that * get anything.
YES - SUFFICIENT CERTAINTY

Question 6

Shah v Shah (2010)

Answer 6

After sending letter, he changed his mind, didnt want to give shares. He argued imperfect gift as he didnt hand over stock transfer and didnt fulfil every effort test.
However, court held TRUST - sufficient certainty of intention.

Question 7

Comiskey v Bowring - Hanbury (1905)

Answer 7

Precatory words no longer considered to be enough for certainty of intention of a trust

Question 8

Re Hamilton (1895)

Answer 8

Court said that the courts job is to contrue the actual words in each case

Question 9

Re Steele’s will trusts (1984)

Answer 9

Lawyer used old case when precatory words were sufficient. Therefore was held as a trust… Judge got it wrong

Question 10

Paul v Constance (1977)

Answer 10

Written nothing down, was still held as certainty of intention to create a trust

Question 11

Jones v Lock (1865)

Answer 11

Check in babies hand…
loose conversations do not show intention
Not enough certainty of intention to declare himself a trustee

Question 12

Rowe v Prance (1999)

Answer 12

Affair, he told her he would leave wife and they would by yacht.
Yacht in his name but referred to it as theirs.
HELD SHE WAS PART OWNER IN EQUITY

Question 13

Tito v Waddell (1977)

Answer 13

the word ‘trust’ in relation to the crown, doesm;t necessarily create a true trust but created a trust in the higher sense. Governmenatl obligations, but not a trust enforceable in the courts.

Question 14

SHAM TRUSTS
Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd (1967)

Answer 14

sham - where acts were done or documents signed intended to give the appearence that there was legal rights and obligations but the legal rights and oblogations were atuallt different to what they are trying to portray.

Question 15

OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF CERTAINTY OF INTENTION
Twinsectra v Yardley (2002)

Answer 15

solicitors undertaking… undertaking created a trust obligation. Didn’t matter he had no subjective intention to do so, there was an objective assessment, and he did create a trust

Question 16

Re Lewis’s of Leicester (1995)

Answer 16

HELD - money in tills was held on trust for the mini shops, and not held by Lewis’s

Question 17

Sprange v Barnard (1789)

Answer 17

“the remaining part of what is left”
NO TRUST - TOO VAGUE

Question 18

Palmer v Simmonds (1854)

Answer 18

“the bulk of my residuary estate”
NO TEUST - SPECIFY A PROPORTION

Question 19

Jubber v Jubber (1839)

Answer 19

“A handosme gratuity”
NO TRUST _ NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH

Question 20

Re Kolb’s Will Trusts (1962)

Answer 20

Blue chip shares = shares in good reputable companies - good solid investment portfolio
No reliable blue chip shares = no trust

Question 21

Boyce v Boyce (1849)

Answer 21

“my four houses, to allow my daughter maria to choose whichever one she wants and then to give all the other houses to my other daughter Charlotte”
NO TRUST - DO NOT KNOW WHICH 3 HOUSES WERE HERS

Question 22

Re Golays WT (1965)

Answer 22

“recieve a reasonable income from my other properties”
COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS A TRUST AS THERE WAS ENOUGH INFO AVAILIBLE FOR THEM TO OBJECTIVELT WORK OUT WHAT A REASONABLE INCOME FOR HER WOULD BE

Question 23

Re London Wine Company (1986)

Answer 23

never seperated there purchases for customers
no certainty of subject matter until certain bottles picked out
NO TRUST

Question 24

Re Stapylton Fletcher LTD (1994)

Answer 24

Wine had been seperated from unsold bottles
certainty of subject matter as records given and could sufficiently segregate

Question 25

Re Goldcorp exchange Ltd (1995)

Answer 25

Those which has not been seperated - lost out
Property which was identifiable was held on trust for them

Question 26

Re Ellenborough (1903)

Answer 26

Tried to create a trust for whatever she may inherit from her brother
They were not dead yet - could have left their money to other people
NO TRUST

Question 27

Continuing Lewis’s

Answer 27

POL - if you have money in a bank account and a trust of a smaller amount of money from that bigger balence in the account, that will work even if there isnt seperation

Question 28

Macjordan COnstruction Ltd v Brookmount Crostin Ltd (1992)

Answer 28

3% retention was expressed to be held on trust for Jordan. Brookmount went into liquidisation
HELD - no trust 3% of what? money didnt exist anywhere - no specific subject matter

Question 29

Re Endacott (1960)

Answer 29

Who would be the objects/beneficiaries of that trust?
court held VOID - no subject of objects

Question 30

Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804)

Answer 30

Sir WIlliam Grant - “every trust must hvae a definite object. There must be somebody in whose favour the court can decree perfomance”.

Question 31

IRC v Broadway cottages (1955)

Answer 31

Mr T wanted objects to be for; wife, all persons employed by him, family company, wives and widows.
not possible to draw up a list of all those people
failed for lack of certainty of objects

Question 32

OT Computers LTD v first National Trinity Finance LTD (2003)

Answer 32

Money held on trust for ‘urgent suppliers’
could not draw up list of urgent suppliers

Question 33

Re Gestetner settlement (1953) POSTULANT TEST

Answer 33

Test is ‘is any given individual clearly going to be within or not within that class of beneficiaries’?
Have to be able to tell whether he is or is not within that description

Question 34

Re Gulbenkian’s settlememt trusts (1970)

Answer 34

Impossible to draw up a complete list of them all
confirms correct test for certainty of objects for a power is the is or is not postulant test given in Gestetner settlement.

Question 35

Mcphail v Doulton (1971) IMPORTANT CASE

Answer 35

Signed a trust deed establishing trust fund for staff of the company, former staff, relatives and dependants
could have drawn up a list of all employees but not their relatives/ dependants.
HOL recognised discretionary trusts were becoming more useful in commercial contexts
Courts can enforce descretionary trusts in 3 ways:
1.order a scheme of distribution itself
2.could appoint a new trustee to do the job
3.arrange for some representatives from the class of beneficiaries to draw up some sort of scheme of distribution themselves

Question 36

Re Coxen (1948)

Answer 36

House given on trust for someone until she had ceased to permenantly reside there
court had to decide whether that was conceptually certain
it becomes an objective test
objectivwely decide if someone had ceased to permentantly reside

Question 37

Re Jones (1953)

Answer 37

Father wanted daughter to lose her income for her trust if she had a social or other relationship with a certain named person
court couldn’t work out what social or other relationship was meant to mean
Too conceptually uncertain

Question 38

Re Barlow’s Will Trusts (1979)

Answer 38

Barlow died owning paintings - any members of family or friends to acquire one of her pictures
Friends? not conceptually certain - but this is a series of individual gifts, not a discretionary trust.
Do gifts have certainty of objects?
HELD that the ‘one person ‘ test applies, not the ‘is or is not postulant’ test.

Question 39

Re Mills (1930)

Answer 39

Henry Mills - court said if there is a gift over in default of appointment, good proof he was intending to give a power, not a trust.

Question 40

Burrough v Philcox (1840)

Answer 40

Court wrote in an implied gift over in default of appointment

Question 41

Re Weekes’ Settlement (1897)

Answer 41

He never made a will and excersised that power of appointment - Burrough type case
Court held NO - as there was no gift over in default of appointment normal resulting trust principles apply.
Still a power and not a trust - not 100% conclusive that there has to be a gift over in default.