Trusts 2009 exam feedback (2).doc - Trusts exam feedback 2009 These notes should be read in conjunction with the HD answer that will be posted on

Trusts 2009 exam feedback (2).doc - Trusts exam feedback...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 9 pages.

Trusts exam feedback: 2009 These notes should be read in conjunction with the HD answer that will be posted on Blackboard as soon as possible. You must read these notes and the HD answer before making an individual appointment to see your lecturer. Note: the course no longer covers incomplete gifts in detail and present/future property as these are now done in Equity. This exam has more depth on that issue. The law on intention is now different. Question 1 concerned identification of the type of trust, breaches of duty and discussion of remedies. Overall, this question was reasonably well done, with the most problems being encountered in relation to remedy. Validity: You were told that the deed was properly drafted and a bank account established for the trust. There were no issues of whether the donation money was ‘future property’ which had to be assigned; or whether the subject matter was sufficiently certain. Students who correctly turned their mind to the issues identified that the bank account (as a chose in action) was certain and existing subject matter of the trust, and any donations made after the establishment of the account would have been deposited subject to the terms of the trust. The core issue regarding validity was whether this was a trust for people or purposes. Students commonly only discussed whether it was one or the other, rather than discussing both options. Analysed as a trust for people, it was trust power to distribute $5000 among ‘Victorian families in need’. We expected discussion of the terms of the deed that made it a trust power. It was necessary to state and then apply the criterion certainty and administrative workability tests from McPhail v Doulton . There was a real question whether ‘families in need’ was criterion certain. Discussion of whether ‘family’ and ‘in need’ were objectively definable terms was necessary. The analysis was more important than the conclusion. Further, if the term was criterion certain, the clause may not have been administratively workable. With only $5000 to distribute, and given the size of Victoria’s population, it would seem unworkable. We expected some discussion of the West Yorkshire case. If the trust was not a valid trust for people; could it be saved as a trust for charitable purposes? Discussion of Pemsel’s case and the modern definition of a trust for charitable purposes was necessary. This could be viewed as a trust to relieve poverty or as a trust under the 4 th head. It was necessary to discuss the requirement for public benefit, and whether a poverty trust must benefit a section of the public ( Dingle v Turner ). A conclusion that the trust was valid as a trust for persons or purposes was expected.
Image of page 1
Liability Saachi: The breaches by Saachi were very obvious, and did not attract substantial marks. Most students identified Saachi’s breaches.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 9 pages?

  • Three '18
  • Dr Susan Barkehall Thomas
  • Wills and trusts, Trust law, NewWays, Weerasinghe trust

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture