Private Express Trust Case Study

1894 Words 8 Pages
The given question has dealt with the area of private express trusts under which one must consider whether the question represent the constitution and three certainties. In order to consider the given issue as a private trust we must first consider whether it fulfills the requirements of creating a trust. Which can be acquired by considering various requirements such as capacity, formality, legality and public policy etc. When considering what is the impact of equity ; general rule is equity will not assist a volunteer to perfect an imperfect trust. A valid trust must be declared and perfectly constituted. By constitution we mean the transfer of the subject-matter from the settler to the intended trustee. The trust which …show more content…
The three certainties is one of the min requirement to establish a private express trust. First it comes as certainty of intention. Hence it is important to distinguish between whether the settlor intended a simple gift to donee. But here the intention of Andy is uncertain. In which the scenario expresses the term that “would” is a precatory word. But one can argue that the level of precatory which deals with the trustee’s willingness to hold the property for the benefit of Sian rather than settlors intention to create a trust. Presuming that Andy was certain about making a trust that it would fulfill the certainty of intention. This was illustrated in the case of Lambe v Eames (1871) . Next we have to consider whether this has the certainty of subject matter. Whether this comes as a trust property or a beneficial interest. According to the scenario this comes as a trust property. In which this transaction haven’t comply with the proceedings of a land. But first we have to consider whether this has a proper intention in which equity looks to the intent rather than to the form. As established in the act s.52 of LPA act 1925 . Hence the property must be registered. So it is crystal clear that Andy has not completed the proceeding. Then we must focus on the object matter of the scenario. In which it must complete three tests. Evidential matters, conceptual uncertainty and administrative unworkability. So here the three requirements have been fulfilled. As in the scenario Andy owns Rose Cottage and Country Cottage. So this falls under land perspective. In the scenario Andy left the country on December, this proves he had reasonable time to get the property registered under the name of Ian but it is clearly supports that he did not do the needful in his capacity so this amounts to an invalid trust. As in the key case of Milroy v Lord (1862) . As expressed a trust may

Related Documents