Miscellaneous Quiz / Trusts Cases I

Random Miscellaneous Quiz

Can you name the Trusts Cases I?

 Plays Quiz not verified by Sporcle

Score 0/129 Timer 20:00
Facts/RatioCaseExtra Info
Beneficaries all sui juris adults, can end trust and divvy up property...Remember you can have a protector...
New bank account, use this money to pay dividend. Surely a debt? No - when RR paid it would have become a debt, til then, trust.-
Croydon department store struggling - deposits into separate account - customers don't know about it... trust.-
Mum lives with married couple... adds extra room for £600 - row, sues, Denning says constructive trust... odd, doesn't get share of house.-
100% mortgage - company sell - they cannot keep the excess on constructive trust from dishonest conduct. -
Lifer - cash by governor - debt or trust? duty to invest? no. -
dye - bribes from suppliers - bought worse and expensive materials - 5k (1/2m now) - CT? no... has to give back debt, not investments.-
not any more though - lawyer takes bribes buys NZ bungalow - can claim investmentsDarayden Holdings v Solland International 2005 / First instance follows it...
ADMIN of estates - pawn broker - bro had no legal right to sell? no title? PR or T? If acting as T no title... sympathy - acting as T... pawned some time after death - suggests T..the King of nature vs wise king
minor daughter - married - husband administrator of F's estate - guarantee from sol. admin and trustee. ran off. you guaranteed! 'but as admin, not trustee' - no, sympathy, look ablimitation period different, PR =12y, T = 6. Under T = beneficial ownership, Will no...
benefit to estate as a whole even if some beneficiaries are worse off - less tax aidunder will just a right to demand estate be admin'd with due speed & efficiency
'unclearly expressed express trusts' - 'confident she'll do the right thing by the children' if trust, use not the words but vague intention...-
completely constituted, property handed over, wording not finalised... -
General power - to appoint to anyone in the world... Special would be only a limited group....
Hybrid, anyone in all the world but X dashing poet...
20 bens - T can pay out income in various shares - start to die... estate? Life tenant of whole fund is owner for tax... NONE pay tax.bit like a fat cat lying on its flank v baddies
non-fiduciary power is absolutely discretioanry. -
fiduciary power - not bound to exercise but 'does not mean he can simply fold his hands and ignore it' - must from t to t consider whether or not to exercise' 'needs appreciation o-
fixed trust = list test-
Discretionary T - duty to distribute - 'must necessarily make a wider and more systematic survey than if his duty is expressed in terms of power to make grants'-
Russian - DT - claimed he was beneficiary under a power, - trustees said buzz off - may/may not be object of power, not of discretionary trust. not clear objects of power never entitle to info
DT - what right to know? Can trustees simply ignore certain bens? entitled to see letter of wishes? not in general - yes if leaked anyway...-
The three certainties-
of I - if not, no trust. 'in full confidence she will do what is right by the children.Re A & KV
'to be at her dispoal in any way she may think best, benefit of her and her fmaily'Like a ____e to the slaughter v bursting at the no s
certainty of subject - shares - DID create a binding trust, cerrtain-
follows H v M - no need for certainty if intangibles... Neuberger J-
not certain - most think this one is correct...Re London Wine Exchange followed...
Of objects... 'old friends' - under power, it is the IS test...-
fiduciary power - the test is is/is not-
DT - Is/is not + admin workabiliuy-
fund for inhabitants West Yorks = DT, is/is not + administrative workability picked up...-
the next - DT valid, Stamp - 'relatives' = NOK. redefines... clear and certain. cheats. Sachs & Megaw - variations of is test... reasonable number ARE relatives...-
conceptual vs. evidential uncertainty - the latter a problem. rabbi obiter...-
condition - is test - paintings... if coming forward for one thing each = conditional gift. '10k each to friends' = gift... amount fixed, people come forward, = is test-
capriciousness, related to power... capricious if 'inhabitants of greater london' arbitrary - obiter-
wanted to get around 'old friends' - so... narrow conceptually certain class... then give trustees power to add beneficiaries. wide clear power. anyone in world except...' is test for powers
PERPETUITIES - 3 rules - Pre 1964, any interest had to come into being (vest) life +21, 1964, wait and see/optional 80 year, now, 110. charities... once set up within perpetuity period can run forever.
Perpetuitis DOES apply to charitable trusts subject to limited exception in...-
Rule 2 - non-charitable purpose... ends not beginnings. relates to tying up of capital beyond perpetuity perod. Probably 21 years...Dean + Astor
this one, you cannot accumulate for more than 21 years until 1925, now... 2009 Act, 125 years!-
Charities - 4 main differences.-
certainty of objects - exclusively charitable - 'such objects of benevolence' too wide-
but this act said you could not by will devise land to charity on death... so if land in Morice probably allowed to pass then fail under act-
'such charitable institutions or other charitable... OR benevolent objects...' No... not certain-
gifts over - exception to rule cannot begin in the future - CAN have gift over charity to another any time in future - income payable to one charity until future event, then properif uni attempts to sell it, give it to another charity
when charitable? Lord Macnaghten - poverty - education - religion - other purposes beneficial to communitybaddies v not quite a silent gym shoe
Poverty is not destitution, here, 'widows and orphans of bank officials'Re AITCF
student unions ARE charitablegovt v ____ fisher, golfer
died 1941, promote NHS - died after set up - judge at date of WILL - then political-
not charitable 'to foist upon the public a mass of useless junk'-
of child by holy spirit she thought, women superior, bedford centre of universe - foolish but charity - but void under mortmain (land failed) gifts ok... 2000 had £3m!Foolish but no obstacle... chocolate v red indian greeting
group unclear what they believed in, temple closed - looked religious, it was.C v L - not deng v pau
contemplative orders not charitable - lack public benefit - must go outRe Hetherington - private masses are charitable
a gift to all the people in a particular place WOULD be charitablehe was a very _____ man v peppermoustache
fee-charging charity STILL charitable - hospital-
amateur sport, school pre 2006 problem - but schoolmaster, estate to school, squash and athletics, ok linked to edu. healthy mind healthy bodyletthemeatcake (compressed)
human rights, must not campaign for change in law... OK - refugee from nazis, gift to Wilton Park-
Rec Charities 1958 Act passed because of this... gift to methodists in west ham - social not religious - or for whole area... what about WI? not pure rec... interest of social welf-
PUBLIC benefit... scholarship fund - children of employees and ex... many people. 'not a section of the public' 'personal nexus' like family - not charitable-
poverty trust for poor ex-employees - educational had failed, this one is allowed. sound like a legal crime fighting duo
the metal box case - scholarship fund - appeared to be for children in general but 75% MB employee kids - doesn't stop charity - just breach of trustbaddies v EG (boring title)
some v.limited circumstances, poverty trust valid for family members... pre 2006, need little pub ben for poverty trusts...a bit like galli-atkinson v.... but more manly
CY PRES - die and leave property to charity no longer exists-
leave money to charity which then closes down normal rule - leave property to non-existant person, collapses...
property to rector of named seminary - defunct - student moved to other sem. failed - specific seminaryEXCEPTIONS follow...
1 - charity endowed (lasts forever) must be here somewhere - amalgamated - where did funds go? left money to Mrs B's charity in Rother...-
2 - original charity a TRUST can argue its purposes live on - 'equity will not allow trust to fail for lack of trustee' - hold money for purpose of original trust. Trust charity will virtually always survive.
series of gifts to charities - hospitals - local hosp disappeared - several gifts fail but one succeeds under the heaing because it is a trust charity - another fails because a comabove with date
3. General charitable intention. such charitable purposes 'as i do intend to name herefater' then doesn't - general charitableJohn Stuart._____ v agriculture
fails, clergyman leaves property to set up village school, not enough money to set up school - general charitable no - very clear about detailsRe the druggy v coulson/dad's army
4 - charities which never existed - 'version of general charitable intent' - how do you know? sounds like itpeace society - another one can have it.. but IF charity has closed down, cannot have it.. difficult
SUBSEQUENT - if almost impossible... another charity, until 1960 needed completely impractical...Scottish capital corpn v c pickle's faithfuls
Charities Act 1993 s.13, (was 1960) radical change - can move cypres if purposes become 'inconvenient' - this case, slavery abolished, impossible...AG v guitar brand/almost a monkey
Disaster appeals - remainder? Victims of mudslide... mass excess, money moved to shift coal, wrong. -
not charitable, wrong wording...e xcess on resulting trust to donors. couldn't find so sat in court for 50+ years... cadets on a coach-
good - solicitor arranged 2 funds - c + non-c - if you give to C, left over cy=pres, if not, families. makes it clear.-
NON-CHARITABLE purpose trusts... in general, no. 'every (non-c) trust must have a definite object. there must be somebody in whose favour the court can decree performance'-
exceptions. i. tombs ii. pets. iii. religious observances. iv. foxhunting - trustee has right to spend money on object but cannot be maid to. gift over if doesn't spend... lax with2 problems - enforceability, rule against perpetual trusts - 21 years
can, no perpetuity, 4 already, cannot outlive 21 years... almost staines
'integrity of newspapers and good internaitonal understanding' no perpetuity issue, 21 years... no. will not extend list.remember the ST
'useful memorial to myself' - not charitable, would have been if just to local authority-
PC in Oz - monks and nuns, wording not clear if charitable - possible to give NC - should fail? Legislation - if either can give all to charitable and save it-
anti-viv - Brightman classifies ways of giving to club or society. i. gift to members at death. ii. present and future members on themselves. iii. purpose of club NO. iv. contract-...s WT
';enforceable by employees against trustees' sports ground - trustees to allow employees to use and could allow others too at discretion 21 years ok. YES - how? not charitable. notand Re Lipinski.. contrast with R v District Auditor ex p WY - no one tries NCPT...
VARIATION - if ntot all sui juris... used to be a dispute between two adults and pretend compromise for changemaiden v maiden
VTA 1958 - court consent for those who CANNOT. here court doesn't mind very contrived tax shcmeholdem!
there are other benefits than money - the kids would have to grow up in Jerseysupermare
UK trust moved to canada to avoid tax - ok - the above doesn't mean no to thisa little _____ede in the ground...
Investment powers - s.32 TA 1925 - remember - nothing to stop your own variation clause in the instrument... this rare non tax - varying s.32 - paying over to ben early... 100% ratsomewhat alphabetical
Benefit? Some lose a bit, others gain a lot. Not good - communal benefit not enough-
but ok, if you take a risk, probably better off, might be a bit worse, then that might be ok... aunty amelia lives to 100 worse...similar but this one's later in alphabet...
NOT for benefit of Sandra's unborns that trust be tinkered with for cousins to take instead...-
mentally disabled very rich old woman - 98% tax - for her benefit? give some to grandchildren? yes - any rational selfish person wouldmight be Re Cl - cannot read
vary 'catholic' forfeiture - consent? yes - benefit - freedom of religion. spouse. (and family dissension?)X v A - charity for infants - no later if they like
Jude MAY approve - discretion? settlor wouldn't have wanted it? protective for housekeeper - appointed herself as successor - husband and kids variation... (d - don't need benefit -
goes the other way - settlor, daughter for life, grandson. hippy & doesn't like son in law - definite benefit of GG - takea it all if Dad dies under 40 but v.unlikely... Steed was woman past childbearing - Re Pettifor, don't be silly
can you have a resettlement? technically no, Re T - but just don't call it that and you'll be okwind em up v egg them on
RESULTING - failure to dispose of equitable interest - 'equity abhors a beneficial vacuum' - Diplock LJSKIPPED
FORMALITIES - this bit requies instruments to be made in writing... doesn't affect resulting/implied/constructive ts-
s.1(b) doesn't need be IN writing - just evidenced... proved in writing... evidence may be produced years after - bankrupt man executes deed after bankruptcy to prove he's held protitchmarsh v cods eggs..
1(c) - must BE in writing - equitable disposition... trust to avoid estate duty - documentation that passes interest 2%. empty trust. no stamp. transfer to bare trust. then to othecould have made himself trustee, retired and introduced G?
private company shares - mother then son... S v V rearrange - 50/50 for tax - rearrangement a disposition? need writing? specific p poss with private c - get constructive t on hand-
CA wont' follow Oughtred - lack of writing but cannot go back on it... Vandervell v IRC - don't need writing if transfer legal and equitable?
POWERS + DUTIES of T investment - private settlement - 1922 - carless trustee bank do not realise wide powers... don't bother.. trustee sued - lost - have not proved loss. danger tkit kats v bank
wanted to restrict - not competing with coal - no - must bring in best income.. could argue pension? bear contributors in mind?-
but - should invest to promote christian faith? no. but already policy of omission... legitimate-
BREACH of T - i. personal liability ii. in rem... try and seize property. T owned hotel - unauthorised - shoudl have sold and bought govt stock - 20 years later, less. compensate.cooking method squared - if profitable breach, 'judicious breach of t'
if 2 breaches, cannot set-off profit, but if one, you can. brutal here... shares not g-stock, breach, remandermen complain - paid life-t too much, court found 2 breaches one up one10centsplural v antarctic explorer
T of family trust - shares in private company, speculative constructive, breach, two ventures, one up one down, ONE breach -generous set off allowedNed v premierleaguebank t
trustee who breaches NOT liable to compensate for any loss that would have been suffered anyway even without breacharchery v oddly coloured vegetation
s.62 of 1925 Trustee Act - if B asked for breach his life itnerest compensate - also may be protected in settlement from gross negligence Re P's ST... like a tarpaulin...
trustee must NOT profit - must not purchass - self-dealing rule, even by public auctiondrove the bluebell to his death v crisps withotu s
BUT - here VERY rare exception, executor son of farmer - wanted to buy it, resigned as executor as soon as he saw a problem and bid - resigned and knew nothing no one else knew okstop her! just ____ er!
T must not put himself in position where has conflict of interest - T hold market lease - won't re-lease - as individuals? no. B get it on constructive trust. T should walk awayK v S
army sergeant - smuggling in Cairo - used uniform - disgorge profit - fiduciarywest of london town v AG
private company - majority shareholders - would have actually been more dishonest to say acting separately from trust - reorganised, profit up. didn't divulge to trustees? one gagacontrast with later cases... Satnam Invest v Dunlop Hewyood 1999 & Murad v Al-Saraj 2005
FP - 'cant simply fold his hands and ignore it'... need to apply mind to the size of the problem'court may direct to consider' - 'mere difficulty is nothing to the point' Lord Upjohn Baden
contingent interest does not come under VTA - only people with mere expectation... no to interest-
Re settlement is not ok if substratum of turst moved, BUT you can 'effectuate the purpose of the trust by other ways'-
CA won't follow AK v Reid-
can only use equity's tracing if you have a claim in equity... or MCC Proceeds v Lyons
change of position defence to common law money had and received - playboy club-
also ministerial receipt - agent, link in the chain -
you can have an in rem at common law but not if mixed-
equity - straight swap easy-
unconscionability, BCCI v Akindele - what is that?! no.. i. trust. ii. breach. iii. assistance. iv. stranger must have been dishonest. objective and subjective. 4 elements to liability in dishonest assistance,
in knowing receipt, knowing and receipt... you need actual knowledge, willfully shut eyes or fail to make right enquiries...Remember NOT twin sectectra criminal law, Barlow close says so...
you can go for a SHARE rather than a charge over a mixed fund, Re Tilley suggested Re Hallett wrong confirmed in sad suicide case-

You're not logged in!

Compare scores with friends on all Sporcle quizzes.
Join for Free
Log In

You Might Also Like...

Show Comments


Created Jun 4, 2011ReportFavoriteNominate
Tags:case, extra, ratio, trust

Top Quizzes Today

Score Distribution

Your Account Isn't Verified!

In order to create a playlist on Sporcle, you need to verify the email address you used during registration. Go to your Sporcle Settings to finish the process.

Report this User

Report this user for behavior that violates our Community Guidelines.