This direction was held to be valid A fixed trust with a condition precedent

This direction was held to be valid a fixed trust

This preview shows page 17 - 20 out of 31 pages.

This direction was held to be valid. A fixed trust with a condition precedent, the test was held to be more lax for certainty of object. For fixed trusts with a condition precedent, it is sufficient simply if only one beneficiary satisfies the condition, even if the class of potential beneficiaries may be conceptually uncertain under a fixed trust. (i.e. where the condition to the trust depends on somebody coming forward, as in this case, only one person may satisfy the condition, even if, as a whole class under a fixed trust, the condition would be too conceptually uncertain) Re Beaney (1978) There is no capacity (for certainty of intention) where there is mental incapacity. In this case, a settlement made by an incapacitated person was void. Nowadays, however s.18(1)(h)(i) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 may be applied. Re Best (1904) Wording was 'charitable and benevolent' - use of 'and' suggested that whole gift could be charitable. Contrasts with Houston v Burn which was 'benevolent or charitable'.
Image of page 17
Re Bucks Constabulary Widows' and Orphans Fund Friendly Society (No 2) (1979) Dissolution of an UA occurs where membership falls below 2. Re Compton (1945) Trust for the descendants of 3 named persons was held not to be a valid trust. Personal nexus test. (The blood and contract test - the presence of a personal link, either by blood or contract, between potential beneficiaries will usually indicate a private trust) Re Cook Land was held on trust by a husband and wife for themselves. Since there were two of them, each could hold the legal title to the land on trust for themselves and the other. But, when the husband died, the entire interest in the property, both legal and equitable, vested in the wife. It was held that the legal interest swallowed up the equitable, so that there was a merger of the two interests - this meant that the trust was terminated. Harman J: "[Y]ou cannot have a trust existing when nobody is interested under it except the trustee, because nobody can enforce it and there is, in fact, no trust in existence." Re Coulthurst (1951) Poverty is relative: "It is quite clearly established that poverty does not mean destitution: it is a word of wife and somewhat indefinite import; it may not unfairly be paraphrased for present purposes as meaning persons who have to 'go short' in the ordinary sense of that term, due to regard being had to their status in life." Re Dean (1889) Concerned a trust for the maintenance of a testator's horses and hounds for 50 years. Held to be valid - trust of imperfect obligation.
Image of page 18
Re Denley's Trust Deed (1969) Land was conveyed to trustees. BY clause 2(c) the land was to be maintained and used for the purpose of a recreation or sports ground primarily for the benefit of employees and secondarily for the benefit of such other persons (if any) as the trustees may allow to use the same.
Image of page 19
Image of page 20

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 31 pages?

  • Spring '20
  • Wills and trusts, Trust law, Purpose trust

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes