+
Related Flashcards
Cards In This Set
| Front | Back |
|
Morice v Bishop of Durham
|
Generally a trust must benefit a person. Left for objects in his discretion the Bishop approved of. Not charitable and no beneficiary to enforce it.
|
|
Re Astor's Settlement Trusts
|
Trust for integrity of the press too uncertain and lack of a specific beneficiary
|
|
Shaw
|
Left trust to enable one of his plays to be translated into new alphabet. Invalid purpose trust, not educational (charitble)
|
|
Re Budge
|
Maintenance of graves can be valid non charitable purpose trust for the PP
|
|
Re Endacott
|
Trusts for the purposes of grave maintenance must be the certainty requirement- "useful monument for myself"= too uncertain
|
|
Carrigan v Redwood
|
Trust for the saying of masses charitable. Unlikely to be so now due to public benefit focus, and wouldnt be valid purpose trust due to strict criteria
|
|
Re Dean
|
Maintenance of particular animals for the PP is valid.
|
|
Brown v Burdett
|
Had to block all windows and doors of a house for 20 years and then give to beneficiary. Court stuck down and gave to the heir in law for the 20 years. Courts won't accept uselessness or capriciousness.
|
|
Re Denley's Trust Deed
|
Trust for sports ground for benefit of employees. A trust, even expressed as a purpose that was direclty/indirectly for the benefit of individuals is valid provided individuals ascertainable and not void for uncertainty
|
|
Conservative and unionist central office v burrel
|
Leaving a gift to an UB to get around purpose trust rules. Has no legal status and must satisfy requirement for formation, membership and contract.
|
|
Barclay's Bank v Quistclose Investments
|
Q gave loan to pay a dividend, but went into liquidation first and BB tried to claim. Held was a primary trust in favour of person to be paid. If trust fails, secondary trust in favour of lender arises (if expressly agreed on or arises by implication from cicr)
|
|
Westdeutsche
|
Secondary trust=resulting trust
|
|
Re Northern Developments
|
Banks got together and put money in account to support Kelly. Liquidation. Distinguished from Quistclose as the account could be used to incur new liabilities as well as paying exisiting creditors, and there were identifiable beneficiaries similar to Re Denleys.
|
|
General Communications v DFC NZ
|
Involved video workshop and video eqipment supplier. NZ case adopted view of Eng Barrister Millet. Depends on the intention of the lender. C knowing money was to be used to pay them indicated an intention to benefit C.
|
|
Twinsectra v Yardley
|
Millet: beneficial interest remains with the lender unless and until applied according to their directions and insofar as not applied, must be returned to them (resulting trust). Likely to be adopted here.
|
