Unit Two (case cards) Flashcards

1
Q

Knight v Knight (1840)

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Lambe v Eames (1871)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Re Adams and Kensington v Estry (1884)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Re Diggles (1888)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Gold v Hill (1999)

A

“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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Shah v Shah (2010)

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Comiskey v Bowring - Hanbury (1905)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Re Hamilton (1895)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Re Steele’s will trusts (1984)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Paul v Constance (1977)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Jones v Lock (1865)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Rowe v Prance (1999)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Tito v Waddell (1977)

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

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

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

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

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Re Lewis’s of Leicester (1995)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Sprange v Barnard (1789)

A

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

18
Q

Palmer v Simmonds (1854)

A

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

19
Q

Jubber v Jubber (1839)

A

“A handosme gratuity”
NO TRUST _ NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH

20
Q

Re Kolb’s Will Trusts (1962)

A

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

21
Q

Boyce v Boyce (1849)

A

“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

22
Q

Re Golays WT (1965)

A

“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

23
Q

Re London Wine Company (1986)

A

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

24
Q

Re Stapylton Fletcher LTD (1994)

A

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

25
Q

Re Goldcorp exchange Ltd (1995)

A

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

26
Q

Re Ellenborough (1903)

A

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

27
Q

Continuing Lewis’s

A

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

28
Q

Macjordan COnstruction Ltd v Brookmount Crostin Ltd (1992)

A

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

29
Q

Re Endacott (1960)

A

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

30
Q

Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804)

A

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

31
Q

IRC v Broadway cottages (1955)

A

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

32
Q

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

A

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

33
Q

Re Gestetner settlement (1953) POSTULANT TEST

A

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

34
Q

Re Gulbenkian’s settlememt trusts (1970)

A

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.

35
Q

Mcphail v Doulton (1971) IMPORTANT CASE

A

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

36
Q

Re Coxen (1948)

A

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

37
Q

Re Jones (1953)

A

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

38
Q

Re Barlow’s Will Trusts (1979)

A

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.

39
Q

Re Mills (1930)

A

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.

40
Q

Burrough v Philcox (1840)

A

Court wrote in an implied gift over in default of appointment

41
Q

Re Weekes’ Settlement (1897)

A

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.