Create
Learn
Share

Constitution of Trusts

rename
kazzasingh's version from 2018-04-30 13:48

Section

Question Answer
Jones v Lock (1865)DECLARATION OF SELF AS A TRUSTEE --> J produced a cheque in the sum of £900 payable to himself and said ‘look you here, I give this to baby: it is for himself,’ and placed the cheque in the baby’s hand. An owner must not be deprived of his property unless, by making a valid gift or trust, he has demonstrated the seriousness of his intention to dispose of the benefit of his property. The practical implication of the decision in Jones v Lock is that a trust is unlikely to be enforced against a person in Mr Jones’s position unless he actually says something equivalent to ‘I am trustee’ or confirms the declaration by signed writing.
Milroy v Lord (1862)In order to render a voluntary settlement valid and effectual, the settlor must have done everything which, according to the nature of the property comprised in the settlement, was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the settlement binding upon him.
Re Rose [1952]TRANSFER TO TRUSTEES --> R had done everything in his power to transfer his legal and equitable interest in the shares on the date of the transfer in March 1943. The factors which delayed the registration of the legal title until after April 1943 were beyond R’s control.
T Choithram International SA v Pagarani [2001]TCP had made an immediate, unconditional gift to the foundation. HELD: although equity will not aid a volunteer, neither would it strive officiously to defeat a gift.
Pennington v Waine [2002]Mrs Crampton told P that she wished to transfer 400 shares in a private company to her nephew, Harold. She signed a share transfer form and gave it to Mr P, who was a partner in the company’s firm of auditors. He placed the form in a file and took no further action prior to Mrs C's death, apart from to write to Harold. In the letter he informed Harold that his firm had been instructed to arrange for the transfer of the 400 shares and that Harold need take no further action. Mrs C's will made no specific mention of the gift of 400 shares to Harold. HELD: in the absence of any evidence that the gift was intended to take effect in the future or subject to any condition precedent, that the gift of the 400 shares had taken effect immediately the share transfer forms had been executed, even though the form was never delivered to the intended donee or the company.
Re McArdle [1951]Constitution by transfer where the subject of the gift or trust is an equitable interest --> Where the equitable interest is an interest under a trust, the transfer of the equitable interest is not complete until the trustees of the trust have been given notice of the transfer.
Strong v Bird (1874)When a testator makes his debtor an executor, and thereby releases the debt at law, he is no longer liable at law. The transaction was perfected, and she did not want the aid of a Court of Equity to carry it out, or to make it complete, because it was complete already, and there was no equity against him to take the property away from him.
Re Ralli’s Will Trusts [1964]The testator, Ralli, left his residuary estate to trustees on trust for his wife for life, remainder to his daughters H and I. H, by a marriage settlement, covenanted to settle her share on trustees for the benefit of her own children and ultimately for the children of I. A clause of the marriage settlement declared that all property within the terms of the covenant should be subject to the terms of the trusts pending assignment to the trustees. H died childless. Later, a trustee who had been a party to H’s marriage settlement was additionally appointed trustee under the will of Ralli. That trustee, who also happened to be I’s husband, brought the present action, seeking directions as to whether H’s share of her father’s residuary estate should be held by him on the trusts of the marriage settlement, or under the terms of H’s will. He claimed that the property should be held on the trusts of the marriage settlement. H’s personal representatives claimed that H’s estate should be entitled, in accordance with H’s will. HELD: the claimant (I’s husband) held H’s share of Ralli’s estate on the trusts of the marriage settlement. Those trusts had become fully constituted when the legal title to the property had vested in the claimant in his capacity as trustee of Ralli’s will trusts. The fact that the constitution had been purely fortuitous did not matter. It was held not to be unconscientious for the claimant to exercise his legal authority to perform the covenant and to carry out the settlement trusts.
King v. Chiltern Dog Rescue [2015]Donatio Mortis Causa --> 1) the donor ‘should be contemplating his impending death’, which means ‘death in the near future for a specific reason’; 2) the form of the gift must be such that it ‘will only take effect if and when his contemplated death occurs. Until then D has the right to revoke the gift’; 3) the donor should deliver ‘dominion’ over the subject matter.
Wilkes v AllingtonA widow granted a mortgage over her interest in a farm. After her death, the mortgagee passed the deeds to the farm, except the mortgage deed, to the widow’s executors (who happened to be the mortgagee’s nieces). When it later emerged that the mortgagee was dying of an incurable disease, he passed the mortgage deed to his nieces in a sealed envelope. Some short time later, the mortgagee died. His executors, claiming that the mortgage was a subsisting security enforceable against the nieces, brought the present action. HELD: mortgage could not be enforced. The otherwise imperfect gift of a mortgage to the nieces was made perfect by a valid donations mortis causa, because it was clear that the gift was only to become binding on the donor’s death (an intention could be implied that the property should be returned to him if he recovered).
memorize