Trust Law Variation

Front 1

Society of Lloyds

Back 1

a power to vary the terms of the trust must be exercised for the purpose for which it was granted and not beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties

Front 2

Re New

Back 2

the court has no jurisdiction to give and will not give its sanction to performance by trustee's of acts not authorised by the trust terms

variation was approved as it did not alter the trust property but only its nature

Front 3

Saunders v Vautier

Back 3

a trust can be ended is all b's are sui juris and in agreement. this rule also applies to choosing to resettle on favourable terms

If all b's are sui juris and between them are entitled to the entire BI between them they can instruct the T to transfer the trust property to them or another

Front 4

Stephenson

Back 4

S v V rule cannot be used as a bargaining chip

if just one b wants to end the trust he is entitled to an aliquiot share of everything that is easy to divide eg cash

Front 5

Chapman

Back 5

the courts can only vary a trust in an emergency or compromise situation-to vary admin or mgmt of the trust

an emergency is where the court must intervene if by not taking action, it would frustrate or interfere with the settlors intentions

Compromise-courts can only interven in genuine disputes to clarify the settlors intentions. this retrictive approach provided the impetus for the VTA 1958

Front 6

Re Jackson

Back 6

emergency should be understood literally

Front 7

Re Tollemache

Back 7

court refused to approve a variation merely because it was of financial benefit to the beneficiaries

Front 8

Re Steeds

Back 8

the VTA confers a very wide and indeed revolutionary discretion to the courts to vary the trust

Front 9

Re T's ST

Back 9

if an arrangement changes the whole substratum of the trust it cant be regards as merely varying the trust

delay to entitlement to protect an immature and irresponsible beneficiary from squandering benefits was allowed

Front 10

Re Ball's ST

Back 10

vta will not allow a complete resettlement of the property


the court cant approve variations amounting to a resettlement

Front 11

vta s1(1)

Back 11

vta can approve on behalf of infants and incapable, those who may be entitled in the future and unborn beneficiaries

Front 12

Re Druce's ST

Back 12

reduction of inheritance tax was a benefit

Front 13

Re Westons ST

Back 13

moving trust and B's to jersey for financial reasons was rejected in favour of growing up in england-contrast with Seale's Canada case

Front 14

Re Holts ST

Back 14

entitlement delayed to ensure b's career and maturity was advanced first

Front 15

Re Remnants ST

Back 15

removed no roman catholic church clause to prevent family conflict

Front 16

Re Cohen WT

Back 16

the court may take a risk an adult would take, risks should be insured and be well advised and prudent

Front 17

Goulding v James

Back 17

settlors intention is only of relevance in relation to the beneficial interest of the c for who the court has been asked to consent

Front 18

Re Smith

Back 18

extended saunders rule to discretionary trusts

Front 19

Re Brockbank

Back 19

b's can agree to end the trust, resettle the property and appoint new trustees with different powers

Front 20

Re Bowes

Back 20

direction of the testator was ignored in favour of the wishes of the beneficiary