that to be an absolute gift to the beneficiaries, if the court can interpret the purpose as merely beingthe motive of the gift, which renders the purpose optional.RE OSOBA  2 ALL ER 393Testator gave money to his widow to hold for the purpose of: 1- maintenance and training of theirdaughter 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 absolutelybecause the purpose which is maintenance, were merely the motive for the gift, it was merely a wish.RE BOWES  1 CH 507Tricky- not a lot of people agree with itA trustwas created over £5000 for the purposes of planting trees for shelter on an estate.CoA said theestate owners own the money absolutely and so could do whatever they wanted with the money asplanting trees was only a motiveoQuestion 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 andits more personal , there is more weight to the view that the settlor could have well intended that theybenefit 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 96P 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 RuleA trust must be directly or indirectly for the benefit of persons- someone has to have the appropriatelocus standi to enforce the trust in court and hold the trustees accountableThere seem to be exemptions however to this basic rule
oCharitable trustsoEnforcer principleoAn Enforcer Principle?= fills a gap in the trusts ‘market’ by enacting legislation validating non-charitablepurpose trusts so long as the trust instrument appoints an enforcer ( who could be the settlor or an independentor related 3rdparty.)This principle mainly recognized in other jurisdictions however an English court won’t hold a foreignjurisdiction 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 andequitable 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 abeneficiary principle in such cases.oAn enforcer principle would allow a settlor to create a private purpose trust so long as the trustrevealed a person or class of persons who could enforce the trust against the trustee e.g. employeeswho factually benefited from the trust in Re Denley’s, OR the settlor named a particular individualas one who should have standing to enforce the trust.