• 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

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

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;

40 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Who has the capacity to create an express trust? and in what provision is this found?
Section 1(6) LPA 1925- a minor cannot hold a legal estate in land, and therefore cannot create an express trust.
Which case identifies the three certainties, and what are they?
Knight v Knight (1840)
In order for an express trust to be created, the settlor has to express 3 things with certainty:
1) certainty of intention;
2) certainty of subject matter;
3) certainty of object.
Which case states that an express trust can be created without certain words, the question is whether a sufficient intention to create a trust has been manifested- intention can be presumed from context.
Re Kayford Ltd [1975]
In what case was the use of words ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS that the money was 'as much hers as his' sufficient to amount to an effective declaration of trust?
Paul v Constance [1971]
Which case states that loose conversation does not constitute a declaration of trust?
Jones v Lock (1865)
What was stated in Re Snowden?
the key factor in the creation of express trusts is an intention to impose a 'mandatory obligation' as opposed to a mere 'moral obligation' to hold the property for the benefit of others.
Which case stated that the mandatory nature of the word "shall" showed that the intention was to create a trust and not a mere power?
McPhail v Doulton [1971]
Which case states that precatory words such as 'desire' 'hope' 'wish' and 'confidence' do not automatically create a trust? It is necessary to look at the entire context.
Re Adams and Kensington Vestry (1884)
What is the result of lack of certainty of intention?
If used in conjunction with a transfer of property, the recipient generally acquires the property free of any trust.
If the words were a declaration of trust, the settlor remains the outright owner.
Which case states that a tryst for 'the bulk of my residuary estate' was too uncertain to fulfil the requirement of certainty of subject matter? It did not identify a definite part of the estate so no trust as created.
Palmer v Simmonds (1852)
Which case states that the term 'residue' is not too uncertain regarding subject matter, as it has a clear legal meaning- everything left over.
T Chothram International SA v Paganini [2001].
What was the dicta in Bryce v Bryce (1849)?
the testator bequeathed his 2 houses on trust to his executors who were to convey whichever house his daughter maria should choose to her, and convey the other to charlotte.
Maria died before the testator, making the subject matter of the trust too uncertain as it was impossible to ascertain for charlotte.
Therefore, the trust failed.
What was the dicta in Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd (1986)?
-the customer's order was not segregated from the general stocks of wine until actual delivery.
There trust was invalid due to lack of certainty of subject matter- no customer was able to point to specific bottles of wine that were his or hers.
Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1995]
The trust failed for lack of certainty of subject matter, in a similar way to Re London Wine- the gold bullion was not sufficiently segregated from the bulk, so not claimant was able to point to their own exact property.
What was the dicta in Hunter v Moss [1993]?
There had been no appropriation/ segregation of the shares in favour of Mr Hunter.
-The HL held that provided all the shares were identical, it was unnecessary for them to be segregated, so the trust was valid.
Re Harvard Securities [1997]
The securities were not segregated so it was impossible to ascertain which belonged to each client.
Re London Wine and Re Goldcorp were distinguished on the basis that they concerned tangible property, and the court followed Hunter v Moss.
Can a trust be created of future property?
Which case displays this?
No. A trust cannot be created of future property i.e. an interest person expects to inherit/ future income.
Re Ellenborough [1903]- tried to create a trust for property which she might inherit on the death of her brother/ sister.
The trust failed for lack of certainty of subject matter.
What are the 2 different types of certainty of objects?
1) conceptual certainty (linguistic or semantic)
2) evidential certainty (problems with proof rather than definition)
In which case did the term 'friends' fail the test for conceptual certainty, as it was not possible to say whether any particular individual was or was not a member of the class?
Re Barlow's Will Trusts [1979]
I which case were the terms 'relatives' and 'dependants' conceptually certain?
Re Baden (No2) [1975]- 'relatives' could be interpreted as 'descendants of a common ancestor' and 'dependants' was sufficiently certain in the context.
Why did the trust fail for evidential uncertainty in Re Sayer?
a trust in favour of employees and ex-employees failed for evidential uncertainty as it was impossible to keep an accurate list of such an extensive number of ex-employees.
What is a fixed trust?
where a trustee must know how many beneficiaries there are in order to perform the trust.
Which case states that for a fixed trust there must be conceptual and evidential certainty in order to be able to draw up a 'fixed list?'
Re Gulbenkein's Settlement [1970]
Which case is the first authority on the 'fixed list' test?- for a fixed trust it must be possible to identify each member of a class of beneficiaries
OT Computers Ltd v First National Trinity Finance [2003]
What is a 'power of appointment?'
the power to select who are beneficial recipients of trust property.
-do not have to exercise the power at all;
-are not required to consider every potential beneficiary.
Which case displays the test for powers of appointment as the 'is or is not' test (individual ascertainability test)?
Re Gulbenkian's Settlement [1970]
Which case states that the 'fixed list' test applies to discretionary trusts?
IRC Broadway Cottages [1955]
Which case rejected the 'fixed list test' in the context of discretionary trusts, and instead applied the re gulbenkian 'individual ascertainability' test?
MchPhail v Doulton [1971]
Which has a higher threshold, the 'fixed list' or 'individual ascertainability' test?
Fixed list.
Which case states that the 'individual ascertainability test' only requires conceptual certainty, and not evidential certainty?
Re Baden [1973]
In the end, what test is required for discretionary trusts?
the 'individual ascertainability test'- no requirement of evidential certainty.
What was the dicta in Re Tuck's Settlement [1978]?
the case concerned a gift that was conditional upon the recipient being of jewish faith and living with an approved wife.
-the problem of of conceptual uncertainty was overcome by the fact that the settlement provided that in the case of dispute or doubt, the decision of the chief rabbi was to be conclusive.
What happens regarding the 'fixed list' test if it is no known whether or not the beneficiary is still alive?
The trustees can apply to the court for a benjamin order.
What was the dicta or Re Benjamin [1902]?
Mr Benjamin's son was presumed to be dead in the absence of proof that he had survived his father.
A benjamin order protects trustees from an action for breach of trust if it subsequently turns out that the unascertained beneficiary is still alive.
Which case defines the concept of administrative unworkability?
McPhail v Doulton [1971]- when the definition of the beneficiaries is so wide as to not form "anything like a class" the trust will be administratively unworkable - VOID.
What was stated in R v District ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan CC [1986]?
a trust for 'the inhabitants of west yorkshire' (2.5 million potential beneficiaries) was administratively unworkable.
Which case states that a trust to benefit the 'residents of greater london' is capricious?
Re Manisty's Settlement [1974]
Under what circumstance would a trust for the 'residents of greater london not be capricious? and what case states this?
If the donor were the former chairman of the greater london council- there would be a discernible link with the settlor.
Re Hay's Settlement.
What are 3 specific public policy limitations to express trusts?
1)conditions against alienation are void
2) conditions completely restraining freedom to marry are void.
3)conditions encouraging divorce or separation are void.
what is the rule in sanders and vautier?
where a group of trustees hold all of the trust property and are of majority age and of sound mind, they can bring the trust to an end immediately.

-if x divests 900 shares in y and 50 shares in out of 950 shares then he will have divested al beneficial interest and y and z can jointly call for the shares between them.