100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 7 pages.
is or is not” testallows the trustees to ensure that only qualified beneficiaries takebenefits, and so the trustees can distribute within the terms of the trust.Conversely, distribution to non-objects can be determined with certainty,and could be restrained by the court on the suit of any qualified memberof the class; and (3) with respect to nonfeasance by the trustees; at thesuit of any qualified member, recalcitrant trustees could be replaced, andthis process could be repeated. “The possibility that not only the originaltrustees but every set of trustees appointed in their place would fail orrefuse to do this is so remote that it can for practical purposes bedisregarded”.Finally, it might be asked whether in a case such as “McPhail”, isnow possible to say of the class that they can terminate the trust underthe rule in “Saunders v. Vautier”. It is clearly impossible to exercise ifthe class of beneficiaries cannot combine together because it isunascertainable on the complete list test.IV.)Gifts Subject to a Condition Precedent:These are not trusts but gifts subject to conditions precedent inequity e.g. property will only be given to my son if he successfully obtainsa 2:1 degree. A degree of conceptual uncertainty does not invalidate sucha gift because a less strict test is applied here, as laid down in “ReAllen”, and that is that the gift is valid “If it is possible to say that one ormore persons qualify, even though there may be difficulty as to others”.This test was considered in “Re Barlow’s WT”, where a testatrixdirected her executor to allow any of her friends to buy paintings from hercollection at below market price. This disposition was held sufficientlycertain. Lord Browne-Wilkinson gave the definition of “friends”, thoughnon-exhaustive, if a minimum of three requirements are met: (1) therelationship must have been a long-standing one; (2) the relationshipmust have been a social, as opposed to a business, relation; and (3) whencircumstances permit they must have met frequently. Total ascertainmentof friends was not required, any claimant need only to prove “by anyreasonable mean” that he qualified. The rationale for such a less stricttest was that in the case of individual gifts, unlike trusts and powers,uncertainty as to some beneficiaries did not affect the quantum of the gift
Discretionary Trusts & Mere Powers5in respect of those who clearly qualified. Thus, courts are also liberal indetermining criteria for vague terms.V.)Limitations on the Postulant Test:There are 3 limitations on Postulant Test:1.)Symantec or Linguistic Uncertainty.2.)Evidential Uncertainty.3.)Administrative Unworkability.a.)Symantec/Linguistic/Conceptual Uncertainty:Where the term defining the objects of a trust is ambiguous thetrust may fail for conceptual uncertainty, e.g. distribute my wealth to allmy friends which are “tall”. Here, no clear meaning can be given to the