Equity Ws 3

Front 1

Test for certainty of objects in a fixed trust: complete list test, you must be able to make a full list of each and every beneficiary.

Back 1

IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust (1955)

Front 2

The term “urgent suppliers” was held to be conceptually uncertain, causing a trust to protect suppliers from trustee insolvency to fail

Back 2

OT Computers v Fist National Tricity Finance (2003)

Front 3

Definition of discretionary trusts:
- Trustee(s) under a duty to select beneficiaries from a class and decide distribution of income and/or capital

Back 3

Mettoy Pension Trustees v Evans (1990)

Front 4

Powers of Appointment:

The court can intervene if:
1. Trustees don't consider a request from a potential beneficiary and can be shown not to have
2. Act capriciously in the exercise of their discretion

Back 4

Re Manisty's Settlement (1973)

Front 5

Three duties of for a trustee specific to PoA:
1. Consider periodically whether to exercise power
2. Consider range of objects of the power
3. Consider appropriateness of individual appointments

Back 5

Re Hay's Settlement Trusts (1982)

Front 6

Powers of Appointment:
Blindly following orders of the settlor and not using own discretion can breach duty

Back 6

Turner v Turner (1983)

Front 7

Legal test for certainty of objects for PoA:
Given postulant test – certainty holds if you can say with certainty for any given postulant (individual) whether they are in the class of beneficiaries

Back 7

Re Gestetner's Settlement (1953)
Re Gulbenkian's Settlement (1970)

Front 8

Legal test for discretionary trust:
Given postulant test
“The trust is valid if it can be said with certainty that any individual (or postulant) is or is not a member of the class”

Back 8

McPhail v Doulton (1971)

Front 9

- “Relatives” is certain
- Stamp LJ: existence of “don't knows” invalidates trust
- Sachs LJ: Not necessarily, falls to claimant to prove he is in the class
- Megaw LJ: substantial number in class sufficient to validate

Back 9

Re Baden's Deed Trust (no 2) (1973)

Front 10

Class of beneficiaries is wide that it cannot be executed

Back 10

Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805)

Front 11

Administratively unworkable but conceptually certain class can make a trust fail, e.g. “All residents of Greater London”

Back 11

McPhail v Doulton (1971)

Front 12

Discretionary trust failed because class of inhabitants of West Yorkshire was unworkable

Back 12

R v District Auditor, ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan CC (1986)

Front 13

Administrative unworkability does not invalidate powers of appointment

Back 13

Re Hay's Settlement Trusts (1982)

Front 14

The beneficiary principle means that you need identifiable humans who can enforce their interests in court

Back 14

Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804)

Front 15

Trust for social, religious and physical training of Methodists in West Ham held not to be charitable (class within a class equally able to take advantage)

Back 15

IRC v Baddeley (1955)

Front 16

Restriction of charitable benefit cannot be based on personal relationship to someone

Back 16

Re Compton (1945)

Front 17

Restriction of benefit cannot be based on a common employer

Back 17

Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust (1951)

Front 18

Case where trust failed promoting “good understanding between nations” and independence of the media because upset beneficiary principle and gave no guidance how to do it

Animals and graves exceptions too

Back 18

Re Astor's Settlement Trusts (1952)

Front 19

Case confirming specific animal exception to beneficiary principle

Back 19

Re Dean (1889)

Front 20

Case confirming beneficiary principle exception for graves and sepulchral monuments

Back 20

Re Hooper (1932)

Front 21

Trusts for a purpose where ascertainable individuals have a direct or indirect benefit are outside the mischief of the beneficiary principle
- Different to purpose where no individual has a tangible benefit: e.g. “use of sports facility” vs “promote the ideas of New Labour”

Back 21

Re Denley (1968)

Front 22

Purposes for trusts must be expressed:
- By terms which embody definite concepts
- Such as to show the means by which purpose is attained

Back 22

Re Astor's Settlement Trusts

Front 23

Non-charitable purpose trusts must:
- be limited to 21 years

Back 23

Re Hooper

Front 24

Definition of unincorporated association:

- Two or more people
- one or more common non-business purposes
- mutual undertakings, duties and obligations
- organisation with rules which:
--- identify control itself
--- identify control of funds
--- indentify the terms it can be joined and left by

Back 24

Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell (1982)

Front 25

In the absence of purported trust, legacy is gift to members beneficially, but only accretion to general funds to be dealy with according the rules

Back 25

Re Recher's Will Trusts (1972)

Front 26

A gift was held to be void given to a local Labour party branch
- It is an OK gift as it is a Re Recher exception to the beneficiary principle
- It fails the inalienability rules because the members cannot vote to dissolve the association and share the gift

Back 26

Re Grant's Will Trust (1979)

Front 27

A local branch can receive a valid gift if the rules allow the local branch to secede from controlling organisation

Back 27

News Group Newspapers v SOGAT (1986)

Front 28

Trust gift to association to build buildings held to be valid:
- Re Recher argument works because members would be beneficiaries of the buildings anyway
- Also works as Re Denley purpose trust, since members gain a tangible benefit

Back 28

Re Lipinki's Will trusts (1976)