that to be an absolute gift to the beneficiaries if the court can interpret the

That to be an absolute gift to the beneficiaries if

This preview shows page 17 - 19 out of 36 pages.

that to be an absolute gift to the beneficiaries, if the court can interpret the purpose as merely being the motive of the gift, which renders the purpose optional. RE OSOBA [1979] 2 ALL ER 393 Testator gave money to his widow to hold for the purpose of: 1- maintenance and training of their daughter up until she goes to university, 2- maintenance of aged mother, 3 and herself. And the court said, the trust was valid and all three women owned the trust property absolutely because the purpose which is maintenance, were merely the motive for the gift, it was merely a wish. RE BOWES [1896] 1 CH 507 Tricky- not a lot of people agree with it A trustwas created over £5000 for the purposes of planting trees for shelter on an estate.CoA said the estate owners own the money absolutely and so could do whatever they wanted with the money as planting trees was only a motive o Question here- are we just thwarting what the settlor intended? Because the Sanderson trust cases are set up in a situation where there are only a few beneficiaries and its more personal , there is more weight to the view that the settlor could have well intended that they benefit rather than the trust be invalid completely. It’s more likely that that interpretation would count. AN ENFORCER PRINCIPLE? DJ HAYTON ‘DEVELOPING THE OBLIGATION CHARACTERISTIC OF THE TRUST’ (2001) 117 LQR 96 P MATTHEWS ‘FROM OBLIGATION TO PROPERTY, AND BACK AGAIN’ IN DJ HAYTON (ED) EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF TRUSTS AND SIMILAR RING FENCED FUNDS (2002) The Basic Rule A trust must be directly or indirectly for the benefit of persons- someone has to have the appropriate locus standi to enforce the trust in court and hold the trustees accountable There seem to be exemptions however to this basic rule
Image of page 17
o Charitable trusts o Enforcer principle o An Enforcer Principle? = fills a gap in the trusts ‘market’ by enacting legislation validating non-charitable purpose trusts so long as the trust instrument appoints an enforcer ( who could be the settlor or an independent or related 3 rd party.) This principle mainly recognized in other jurisdictions however an English court won’t hold a foreign jurisdiction trust to be invalid simply because it uses the enforcer principle. Thus the trustee must have legal beneficial ownership of the trust property but subject to fiduciary and equitable duties owed to the enforcer. It doesn’t matter that the enforcer only has a power and not a duty to enforce the trustee’s obligations: a beneficiary is in exactly the same position. DOES THE LAW ALLOW PRIVATE PURPOSE TRUSTS OR SHOULD IT? Hayton 2001: argues that the casesshould be read toreveal an enforcer principlerather than a beneficiary principle in such cases. o An enforcer principle would allow a settlor to create a private purpose trust so long as the trust revealed a person or class of persons who could enforce the trust against the trustee e.g. employees who factually benefited from the trust in Re Denley’s, OR the settlor named a particular individual as one who should have standing to enforce the trust.
Image of page 18
Image of page 19

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture