Trusts Case List

Penn v Lord Baltimore

Equity acts in personam

Crabb

Example of PE

Minimum equity to do justice

Bibby v Stirling

Relevant q is whether reliance is obvious to owner

Cobbe

Oral agreement not sufficient for PE. If reasonable to interpret representation as reliance.

Thorner v Major

C worked on relative’s farm for 30 years w/out pay + statement implied inheritance, falling out + removal from will but C had PE

Guest v Guest

Assurance, reliance, detriment
C worked on farm from 16y, falling out, damages NOW or part of farm after parents died

Gillet v Holt

PE all rounded manner, not subdivided watertight compartments

“one day this will all be yours”, missed opportunties (school)
4th element of unconscionability

Jennings v Rice

OVERTURNED by Habberfield which says reliance for PE must be proportionate to the detriment

Davies v Davies

Daughter awarded proportional to when she left farm and returned (not continuous)

Waltons Stores

unconscionability judged when the promise repudiated

Haq v Island Homes

Investing before agreement in principle is not reliance

Crown Melbourne

Representation statement must be clear, precise, and unambiguous

Howe v Gossop

Oral agreement (not complying with s2LPMPA) could give rise to PE, no exceptional facts required

B&WS v Mothew

Boardman v Phipps

Recovery Partners

Hopcraft

ad hoc fiduciaries, equity looks for: (a) undertaking of responsibility, (b) trust and confidence consequence, (c) vulnerability of principal, (d) context not arms-length

FHR

any benefit (bribes, secret comissions) recieved by fiduciary in breach of duty = held on CT for principal → proprietary remedy

Keech

No conflict rule strictly pursued, trustee must act in disinterested way that does not serve own interests

Bray v Ford

Fiduciary must not profit from position AND must avoid conflict between personal interests and duties

Regal (Hastings)

Irrelevance of fault: fiduciary must hand over any profit made even if acted honestly and good faith

Lister, AG, Sinclair

L- bribe = personal (not proprietary) claim only→ OVERRULED

AG- Bribe on CT for principal = proprietary remedy → PREFERRED

Sinclair-bribe = no proprietary remedy → OVERRULED

BY FHR

McWilliam v Norton

Broker owes fiduciary duty, took undisclosed profit = breach

Saunders v Vatier

Beneficiary with absolute indefeatable (vested) interest can call for trust asset to be transferred to them immediately IF of age (21) + full mental capacity

Re Bowden

Once a trust made, cannot be unmade by settlor

Chapman v Chapman

Court has no power to alter beneficial interests in trust instrument

Webb v Webb

Presumption of RT can be rebutted
Father and son trust not gift

Westdeutsche v Islington

Beneficiary has equitable proprietary interest against trustee and world (except BFP)

Paul v Constance

trust inferred despite no express decleration (“trust”), statement “money is as much mine as it is yours” sufficient evidence

Re Goldcorp

Unsegregated gold bullion not certain for subject, subject must be identifiable

Hunter v Moss

subject matter certain without segregation for intangible fungible property (shares) - distinguishes Re London Wines (tangible infungible wines not segretated)

McPhail v Doulton

Discretionary trusts - can it be said with certainty that any individual is or is not a member of the class?

Re Baden 2

3 judgements: any postulant (sachs), substantial number (magow), list (stamp). must have all 3: conceptually certain, evidentially certain (sachs), not so huge its unworkable

IRC v Broadway Cottages

Fixed trust- complete list test

English v Keats

Conceptual certainty is required for a discretionary trust

Re Hay’s

wide scope of objects allowed as long as trustees have discretion and exercise discretion to determine who to give to

OT Computers

class of beneficiares as “urgent suppliers” not defined, too large + indeterminate

North v Wilkinson

3 certainties can affect and cast doubt on one another

Mills v Sportsdirect

lawyers created trust w/out using language of trust - segregation is characteristic of trust

Knight v Knight

valid private express trust requires 3 certainties - intention, subject, object

Lambe v Eames

precatory words (mere hopes & wishes) insufficient to create trust - no clear intention, trustee must have obligation imposed

Midlank v Wyatt

intention to create trust must be genuine/ not a sham (rainy day doc)

Don King v Warren

trust created if proposed arrangements of parties only work using trust, even if they did not know - business common sense

Boyce v Boyce

Father left houses for daughers, oldest choose and youngest “gets other”, oldest dies before choosing = “other” uncertain subject

Re Golay’s

“reasonable income” valid as subject, sufficient objective determinate for courts to assess

District Auditor ex p West

Trust void for administrative unworkability as class far too large

Re Tuck’s Settlement

delegation can clear conceptual uncertainty- IF appointed person willing to resolve and IF can prove qualification (Rabbi)

Re Allen

When gift is made to class, conceptual certainty exists if possible to say that one or more person qualifies, even if difficulty as to others

Re Barlow’s

“friend” = conceptually uncertain but in individual gift - single person test (Re Allen) - gift valid if can clearly identify at least one person who definitely qualifies even if unclear whether others do

Vanderwell I

direction to trustees to transfer both legal and beneficial is not a disposition that requires writing under s53(1)(c)

Choithram

Exception to equity cannot perfect an imperfect gift - imperfect transfer can be valid if settlor was one of the trustees (self-decleration) - “won’t strive officiously to defeat a gift”

Pennington v Waine

Imperfect gift completed in equity because it would be unconscionable to allow to recall. Detrimental reliance normally required but not super relied on here (controversial)

Curtis v Pullbrook

Pennington applied cautiously, Briggs - discomfort with rationality

Hudson v Hathaway

emails with typed name at the end satisfied signature for s53(1)(c)

LA Micro

s53(1)(c) applies to equitable interests in shares (not just land)

Also: vendor-purchase CT arose under s53(2), negating need for writing (oral valid)

National Iranian Oil

Agent cannot sign for purposes of s53(1)(b) but CAN for s53(1)(c)

ALSO failure to cmply with s53(1)(b) will make trust void (dissent: valid but unenforceable)

Rochefoucald

Equity will not permit a statute to be used as instrument of fraud - if a trustee recieves land orally and uses lack of writing to keep it = fraud

Grey v IRC

Directions to trustee to hold for another constitutes disposition of equitable interest under s53(1)(c)
(if beneficiary tells trustee to hold interest for someone else = transferring existing equitable interest)

MUST be in writing otherwise void

Vandervell 2

creation of express trust replacing a resulting trust is not a disposition that requires writing under s53(1)(c)

Oughtred v IRC

Son and mother orally agreed that son would give up equitable interest in return for shares so mum can own everything = transfer (disposition) of equitable interest = s53(1)(c)

Re Rose

even if transfer not legally complete, if donor has done everything in their power, equity treats gift as complete

Taylor v Taylor

s53(1)(b) need not be MADE in writing, only EVIDENCED in writing - oral decleration enforceable once evidenced (unenforceable until written, but valid)

Ong v Ping

s53(1)(b) - letter counts as writing

Grainge v Wilberforce

Exception to s53(1)(c)
Subtrust (A→B→C. B drops out, A holds directly for C)

Akers v Samba

Exception to s53(1)(c)
Transfer of legal title to BFP without notice extinguishes equitable interest

Khan v Mahmood

Unclear when something is unconscionable, depends on action of donnee (here unconscionable to resile from imperfect gift, joint legal owners, one living in house with family one not, transfer gift)

Nuffield Health

s4 public benefit - does not matter if some members of society excluded, sufficient part still included. still public benefit of promoting health = charity

Re Endacott

non-charitable trusts must have ascertainable objects (some useful memorial not valid)

Re Shaw

s4 public benefit - increase in knowledge insufficient, must be combined with teaching/education (new alphabet = propaganda

Re Hooper

trust for monuments and tombs + upkeep allowed and valid

Re Denley’s Trust

purpose trusts which directly or indirectly benefit persons can be valid (contraversial sports ground valid)

Independent Schools Council v Charity Commission

s4 public benefit - 2 aspects
1) benefit- purpose must be beneficial, detriment must not outweigh benefit

2) public - must benefit the public in general or sufficient section, not private class (personal nexis rule)

Re Osoba

Reference to a purpose in gift is merely a motive = absolute gift to the named person, if fund not exahusted B entitled to all of it (training of my daughter up to university)

Morice v Bishop

Purpose trust not charitable as no ascertainable beneficiaries - Beneficiary Principle

Pitt v Holt

Inadequate deliberation by trustees must be sufficiently serious to amount to breach of fiduciary duty, not enough to show trustee’s deliberation fall short of highest possible standards

Futter v Futter

Restricted rule in Hastings-Bass, trustees acting in proper professional advice do not breach fiduciary duty even if advice wrong

Schmidt v Rosewood

B’s right to information = aspect of court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise administration of trusts. B’s no longer have automatic right to demand information, mere objects of wide power not refused information outright

Armitage v Nurse

Trustee excemption clauses valid insofar as exclude liability for negligence but not actual fraud good faith or honesty (irreducable trustee obligations)

Cowan v Scargill

Trustee has duty to maximise returns on trust fund and not up to trustee to reject investment on personal/moral objects to investment.

BUT where Bs collectively hold strong views, might be taken into account.

R (Palestine Solidarity Campaign)

Ethics exception: all Bs unanimously agree to ethics exclusion

other exception is Charities Act 2011 s29a-c →social investment

Grand View Private

Powers must not be exercised for improper purpose. Trustees must act in accordance with purpose for which powers conferred.

Re Londonderry’s Settlement

Trustees entitled to withdraw or redact documents that might reveal reasons for decision on use of dispositive power

Breakspear v Ackland

Requests for disclosure of documents (eg: wish letters) matter of discretion not adjucation on proprietary rights

Nestle

when assessing whether trustee’s investment decisions had been breach, cannot judge with hindsight
duty to maintain even-handedness
consequential loss - burden on B to prove what trustee would have invested in

Harries v Church Commissioners

Trustees can take non-financial considerations into account as long as not hindering profitability of investments (investment incompatible with christian faith fine)

Re Brogden

Duty to safeguard assets
Trustee under duty to call for payments due in reasonable period, does not matter if acting in good faith or honest belief bc failure = breach

Speight v Gaunt

Duty of care required of trustee when dealing with trust property used to be ‘that of ordinary man of business’

Bahin v Hughes

Any liability of trustees to pay compensation for some breach is joint and several because of unanimity (no sleeping trustee)

Blackwell v Blackwell

half secret trusts are enforceable if communicateed to trustee before will is made

Pallant v Morgan

CT: If A and B acquire some specific property for joint benefit, B in reliance on A refrains from attempting to acquire the property = unconscionability and CT created

Generator Developments v Lidl

Pallant v Morgan not applicable if arms-length negotiation

Angove’s v Bailey

Rejected remedial CT as a court imposed equitable remedy

Lorenz v Caruana

Testator gave instructions = binding obligation = half-secret

Rawstron

FST: valid if terms communicated before death

HST: valid only if terms communicated before or at will’s exection

(here HST)

Banner Homes

Test for Pallant v Morgan:
1) Arrangement before purchase

2) B acted to their detriment or conferred an advantage on A
3) A reneges on agreement and keeps full property

Re Polly Peck

Remedial CTs do not exist in English law, only institutional CT

Ottoway

Elements of ST:

1) Intention of A to subject C to obligation in favour of B

2) Communication of intention to C

30 Acceptance of obligation by C either expressly or acquiescence

Re Snowden

First element of ST test - more uncertainty in terms = more likely to be moral obligation (not a trust)

Hussey v Palmer

where unconscionable for owner to keep benefit, court can impose CT

Hodgon v Marks

resulting trusts do not need to be proved in writing s53(2) LPA