Webb i but there are plenty of resources in the world owned by no one and the

Webb i but there are plenty of resources in the world

This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 7 pages.

Webb: i. but there are plenty of resources in the world owned by no one and the law accommodates that possibility, so it’s far from clear why someone must have a beneficial interest in the property ii. B isn’t the only one who could enforce
Image of page 3
a. Once you discount the possibility of enforcement by settlor, could use the option of appointing an independent enforcer (Hayton + offshore jurisdictions) who would supervise T + take him to court, if needed But, as independent enforcer w/no interest, how to be sure he will enforce (Parkinson) + could collude w/T to divide up the property could add a mandate ? b. Follow the example of purpose trusts where there is ascertainable class of people interested in enforcement (e.g. Re Denley) But shouldn’t give the right of enforcement to just any interested party – e.g. Contracts (Rights of TPs) Act 1999 where TPs can enforce only when parties to contract agree b) Property under trust must be held for some B, such that he acquires a proprietary right in that trust fund ( Saunders v Vautier ) – gives him locus standi required to petition in court Duties can’t exist w/out rights – they must be owed to a person who has a right to performance a trust needs someone to whom the benefit of T’s duties is directed, a B, otherwise the trust is illusory Webb: i. duties don’t always have to be owed to someone; e.g. criminal duty not to kill; charitable purpose trusts – don’t have Bs nor are duties owed to AG or Charity Commission who, whilst able to enforce it, aren’t owed an actual duty. ii. perhaps the best way to explain this would be by taking a view that express trusts are analogous to gifts so must have someone on the receiving end of it – this explains why enforcement is for B, not the settlor, why trust will fail w/out a trustee etc. But it doesn’t explain why the law recognises a series of exceptions!! View I: Interest thesis - the trust gives proprietary interest in trust property to B, so that T’s correlative duty is to effectuate that interest Law of property is concerned w/allocation & protection of entitlements in things , so that proprietary interest = entitlement to exclusively determine how some things may be used or enjoyed Main features of proprietary interest : b) Capable of being asserted against TPs c) Give priority in the event of insolvency of whoever holds the thing Initially B could only claim against trustee for breach of duty but equity extended protection accorded to Bs: a) can claim against TPs who received trust property knowingly or w/reason to know that property derived from breach of trust b) can claim against a blameless TP who gave nothing in return for trust property received c) where trustee was declared bankrupt, B’s interest bound trustee in bankruptcy so as to give B priority Lord BW in Westdeutsche & Lord Millett in Twinsectra - whenever T holds legal title as trustee, B must have a symmetrical proprietary equitable interest obviously wrong ( Re Denley etc) B’s interest attaches to property, therefore it must be proprietary Weak on its own b/c could argue it’s the title of ‘owner’ that’s being held on trust and not the thing itself (Swadling – S&V
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 7 pages?

  • Summer '16
  • My Notes
  • Law, beneficiary, Trust law, Purpose trust

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture