• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/20

Click to flip

20 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Society of Lloyds
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
Re New
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
Saunders v Vautier
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
Stephenson
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
Chapman
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
Re Jackson
emergency should be understood literally
Re Tollemache
court refused to approve a variation merely because it was of financial benefit to the beneficiaries
Re Steeds
the VTA confers a very wide and indeed revolutionary discretion to the courts to vary the trust
Re T's ST
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
Re Ball's ST
vta will not allow a complete resettlement of the property


the court cant approve variations amounting to a resettlement
vta s1(1)
vta can approve on behalf of infants and incapable, those who may be entitled in the future and unborn beneficiaries
Re Druce's ST
reduction of inheritance tax was a benefit
Re Westons ST
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
Re Holts ST
entitlement delayed to ensure b's career and maturity was advanced first
Re Remnants ST
removed no roman catholic church clause to prevent family conflict
Re Cohen WT
the court may take a risk an adult would take, risks should be insured and be well advised and prudent
Goulding v James
settlors intention is only of relevance in relation to the beneficial interest of the c for who the court has been asked to consent
Re Smith
extended saunders rule to discretionary trusts
Re Brockbank
b's can agree to end the trust, resettle the property and appoint new trustees with different powers
Re Bowes
direction of the testator was ignored in favour of the wishes of the beneficiary