Trust Law Certainty

Front 1

Wright v Atkyns

Back 1

the words declaring a trust must be imperative-the person holding the property is obliged to hold it for the benefit of others

Front 2

Re Kayford

Back 2

A trust can be created without the word TRUST

Front 3

Paul v Constance

Back 3

This money is as much mine as it is yours was sufficient

Front 4

Jones v Lock

Back 4

an intention to make a gift will not be construed as a trust

Front 5

Lambe v Evans

Back 5

precatory words used by the donor will be dealt with strictly

Front 6

Re Adams

Back 6

The court must find upon a true construction what the meaning of the trust was

Front 7

Lassence

Back 7

where the words are ineffective, the donee will take the property absolutely

Front 8

Palmer v Simmonds

Back 8

The bulk of my estate was insufficiently certain

Front 9

Re Goldcorp Exchange

Back 9

specific property must be identified as a buyer cannot acquire title until it is known what goods the title related

Front 10

Hunter v Moss

Back 10

where goods are identical, it doesnt matter which 50 of 950 are to be donated

Front 11

Sprange v Barnard

Back 11

give the remaining part that he doesnt want in his will-construed to be a life interest with a remainder

Front 12

Re Golay

Back 12

a reasonable income was sufficient-an objective yardstick familiar to the courts

Front 13

Boyce v Boyce

Back 13

there was uncertainty after B1 died as to discretion, the gift failed

Front 14

Re Knapton

Back 14

where no method of determining distribution is provided for in his will, the courts will attempt to find one

Front 15

Re Endacott

Back 15

In order to be effective you must have ascertained or ascertainable beneficiaries

Front 16

Re Eden

Back 16

Potential beneficiaries must be ascertainable

Front 17

Re Benjamin

Back 17

Benjamin order-authorise trustees to distribute to known beneficiaries, reserving the rights of the missing beneficiaries