Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
24 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Garden's Executors v More |
Creation - Man gave property to his wife and he 'desired' that she gave her property to his brothers and sisters when she died. The court held that this language was precatory - not enough to set her up as a trustee. You need to show that the trust was intended |
|
Allan's Trs v Lord Advocate |
Creation - at something equivalent to delivery or transfer of the trust fund |
|
Kennedy Petr |
Legal Relationships - Assumption of a single trustee would be competent |
|
Allan's Trs v Lord Advocate |
Creation - at something equivalent to delivery or transfer of the trust fund |
|
Turnbull's Tr v Lord Advocate |
Trust purposes - 'for such public, benevolent or charitable purposes in connection with the parish of Lesmahagow' Held as disjunctive as charitable meant benevolent but public did not. Public was a vague phrase so entire trust provision failed due to uncertainty |
|
McCaig v University of Glasgow |
Trust purposes - Left money in a trust to erect statues of himself and brothers and sisters and artistic towers all round the state. The court held that these purposes were not valid and were a waste of money. The benefit of young artists were purely incidental. |
|
McCaig Trs v Kirk Session of United Free Church of Lismore |
Trust Purposes - left money to a trust and brother built a hill and sister wanted statues and a private burial and again it was seen as a waste of money as the court said it was unreasonable, extravagant and useless |
|
Aitken Trs v Aitken |
Trust Purposes - Champion of riding of marches and requested a statue of himself to be erected in mussleborough but court said it wasn't unreasonable but the means of pursuing the object were utterly unreasonable |
|
Airds exrs v Aird |
Trust Purposes - Man made a will saying his brother could own the entire estate as long as he remained single. He got married and the court held that any prohibition against marriage of beneficiary was invalid in scots law. However he was married before he even knew about the trust so was never in the position to choose between the two so didn't get the trust in the end |
|
Burgess's trs v crawford |
Trust purposes - truster wanted residue of estate to fund a school for girls but the law changed and it was no longer possible for a private individual to found industrial schools so trust purposes were inoperable from the start and the whole trust lapsed as there was no general charitable alternative |
|
Clarke v Ross |
Trust purposes - inoperable. Money was raised and trust set up for a mining strike fund. When the strike ended the purposes of the trust were exhausted. There was nowhere for the remaining funds to go and the court allowed money to be given for promotion of miners welfare |
|
Martin v City of Edinburgh council |
Administration of trusts - removed councils trust fund assets. They obtained advice on how to do this but not whether or not it was a good idea so it was seen that they had not taken appropriate advice to protect their process but only acted on their political point of view so breached their duty as trustees. |
|
Melville v Noble Trs |
Administration of trusts - Left funds in bank for 19 years without checking them and the court held that trustees with trust funds should yeild them for investment and that is not what they were doing. They had never considered it which was a breach of their duty |
|
Clarke v Clarke's trs |
Administration of trusts - trusters made investments and were told to hold on to them even though there was a failure in the company. They never took advice and the shares gradually lost value and trustees were held liable for the loss |
|
Johnston v McFarlane |
Administration of trusts - Left house in trust for son who is also one of the trustees. Trustees were to hold the house for all 3 beneficiaries and were allowed to sell the house but not to a trustee. They decided to sell the property to the son and the court held this was breach of trust as auctor - acting in his own interests |
|
Knox v Mackinnon |
Administration of trusts - The trustees 'shall not be liable for omissions, errors, or neglect of management, nor singuli in solidum, but each shall be liable for his own actual intromissions only |
|
Miller's trustees v Miller |
Termination of trusts - Beneficiary who has right in part of trust estate can have the right to take that property so can demand trustees end the trust and hand the property over |
|
Thomsons trs v Henderson
|
Man died leaving his daughter a trust for liferent and fee to her children and wished a share of it to continue his investment in scottish or english railways. Court held that even though it meant a loss to beneficiaries the trustee meant for them to hold their shares.
|
|
Grimmond v Grimmond
|
A trust for 'religious purposes' is too vague but 'educational purposes' is ok (brough)
|
|
Murray v Cameron
|
defenders (trustees) refused the advocate access to the trust terms. court held that if you are intended to be benefitted by the trust then you can examine it
|
|
Tibber v mccoll |
Breach of duty - was it honest and reasonable for an ordinary person |
|
Burrows v burrows |
Trust for educational purposes is fine as it itsnt too vague |
|
Tibber v mccoll |
Breach of duty - was it honest and reasonable for an ordinary person |
|
Millars trustees |
If you are 18 and the only trustee you can claim your trust |