GDL Law Notes GDL Equity and Trusts Notes
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through many applications from mostly first class students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. You'll notice that we include several different authors' worth of notes. The first is our 2017 author...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Equity and Trusts Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Three methods of giving the benefit of property to someone: all mentioned in Milroy v Lord
Outright gift: transfer of legal and equitable
Transfer on trust
Self-declaration of trust
Declarations in general
If a person wants to create a trust on death – he must comply with the Wills Act 1837 s9
All testamentary dispositions must be in writing, signed by testator in presence of 2 witnesses present at the same time who must attest their witnessing
Lifetime (inter vivos) trusts may be declared formally (or orally/by conduct) – Paul v Constance unless there is a specific requirement for them to be in writing - Subsections 53(1)(b) and (c) of the Law of Property Act 1925 – require writing for certain trust dealings
Declarations of a trust of land
S 53 (1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925: ‘ A declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust or by his will’
Failure to comply renders trust unenforceable (not void)
If the settlor orally declared a trust of land and then later evidenced it in writing – date of declaration is the date of the original oral declaration
S53(1)(b) applies to express trusts only
s53(2) LPA 1925 provides that the requirements of s53(1) don’t apply to implied, resulting or constructive trusts – exempt from the need for writing – Hodgson v Marks
Dispositions of subsisting equitable interests in any property
Section 53(1)(c) LPA 1925– formalities for the disposition of a subsisting (or pre-existing) equitable interest, whether in land or pure personalty
Subsisting in the sense that legal/equitable ownership have been separated
‘a disposition of an equitable interest subsisting at the time of the disposition must be in writing, signed by the person disposing of the same or by his agent lawfully authorised in writing or by will’ – failure to comply makes it void
‘Disposition’ is a very wide term – can include sale, gift, assignment and a declaration of trust
4 types from Timpson’s Executors v Yerbury :
Assign directly to 3rd party
Direct T to hold for 3rd party
Sell it – ‘contract for valuable consideration’
Declare a sub-trust
Direction to trustees to hold on trust for another
Grey v IRC (1960) : (See full description of case in previous notes/manual)
Settlor, Mr Hunter wanted to avoid stamp duty in creating settlements for his grandchildren
Step 1: 6 settlements created
Step 2: Mr H transferred 18,000 shares to trustees to hold as nominees for Mr H
Step 3: Mr H orally and irrevocably directed the trustees to hold the shares according to the terms of the six nominal settlements – intention was that the shares should be held on trust for Mr H’s grandchildren
Step 4: All this was confirmed by deed executed by Mr Hunter and the trustees
Mr H argued that oral direction to hold shares for grandchildren was not a ‘disposition’ – so s53(1)(c) didn’t apply (no need for signed writing)
HL disagreed: attempted disposition of a subsisting equitable interest: void for failure to comply with s53(1)(c)
Key point – regard the trustees, TT as the apex of a triangle holding shares for H down below, who called up to TT to direct them to hold instead for GG, so that H was responsible for shuttling across his equitable interest to GG – disposing of his subsisting equitable interest
TT held the shares first for H then held them in a different capacity for GG – trusts were different trusts, as though they had different trustees (so could be regarded as a square)
Vandervell v IRC (see previous notes & manual for full case description)
Guy Anthony Vandervell - wanted to give Royal College of Surgeons a substantial sum of money to institute a chair of pharmacology– wished to give them the income from certain shares for some years but then wished to settle the shares in favour of his children afterwards – scheme division to give untaxed income to the Royal College of Surgeons
Step 1 – transferred the bare legal estate in certain shares to the National Provincial Bank (he became B)
Step 2 – Mr V orally instructed the bank to transfer the shares to the RCS – transferred to them as a charity so that dividends could be paid and tax deducted could be recovered
Step 3 - Mr V advised not to lose control of shares – so arranged that the RCS should grant an option over those shares to the Vandervell Family Trustee Company – so that the Company could buy the shares from the College for a nominal sum
Step 4: Mr V arranged for dividends to be declared on the shares of an amount almost equal to the sum required to endow the chair of...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Equity and Trusts Notes.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through many applications from mostly first class students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. You'll notice that we include several different authors' worth of notes. The first is our 2017 author...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started