Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Trusts For Purposes Notes

Law Notes > Trusts and Equity Notes

This is an extract of our Trusts For Purposes document, which we sell as part of our Trusts and Equity Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Trusts and Equity Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Trusts for Purposes Oakley Notes - The Beneficiary principle It is an essential ingredient for the creation of a trust that there should be some beneficiary capable of enforcing it Morice v Bishop of Durham, Grant MR: "there must be someone in whose favour the court can decree performance" This does not apply to charitable trusts, whose performance can be enforced by the AG Two qualifications to this principle as applied to private trusts:

*

*

Sometimes the trust can be for a purpose, rather than for the direct benefit of any beneficiary capable of enforcing them, i.e. trust for planting on trees on an estate for shelter has been construed as a trust for the benefit of whoever was entitled to that estate A trust expressed in the form of a purpose is held to be directly or indirectly for the benefit of one or more ascertainable individuals, and as such satisfies the beneficiary requirement (Re Denley's Trust Deed)

Some trusts "of imperfect obligation" have been upheld. These occur where there is a non-charitable purpose trust is upheld even though there is no human beneficiary capable of enforcing them The courts will not forbid their performance if the trustees wish to carry them out (although they will not be enforced), Re Endacott, said these cases fall into categories:

*

*

*

*

*

Trusts for the erection of monuments or graves Trusts for saying masses in jurisdictions where these are not regarded as charitable Trusts for maintenance of particular animals Trusts for benefit of unincorporated associations (although most of these now valid) Miscellaneous cases - "concessions to human weakness or sentiment"

General Rule Trusts for non-charitable purposes held to be void because i) There is no one who can enforce them ii) Courts are unable to control their execution

Morice v Bishop of Durham established this; Grant MR "an uncontrollable power of disposition would be ownership, not trust" Re Astor's ST - objects included "The establishment, maintenance and improvement of good understanding, sympathy and co-operation between nations", "the promotion of freedom of the press" (nb designed to benefit "The Observer, founded by Astor) Roxburgh concluded that the general principle was that gifts on trust must have a beneficiary, and said that the existing concessions "to human weakness" did not engender a break from then normal rule Re Shaw (George Bernard) - trust for purpose of reforming alphabet, Harman J held that they lacked a cestui Re Endacott "for the purpose of providing some useful memorial to myself" - held to be too vague: unspecified and unidentified memorial should not be added to list of "troublesome, anomalous and aberrant" cases identified in Astor Unincoporated Associations Quasi-corporate entities, held void on grounds of perpetuity Leahy v AG for NSW, Viscount Simmonds was of opinion that it would also be void because of lack of cestui The question raised by Astor and Shaw; Can categories of anomalous trusts of imperfect obligation be extended to other non-charitable purposes which complied with certainty of objects?
No - CA in Re Endacott and PC in Leahy But is this satisfactory? People can give trusts for benefit of "bad" people, pets, but not for some social experiment falling outside the confines of the law of charity, if it is defined in terms of some purpose Qualification established by Re Denley's Trust Deed Goff J - basic rule laid down in Morice was confined to purpose trusts which were "abstract or impersonal" Therefore a trust which was for a purpose, but which was directly or indirectly for the benefit of one or more ascertainable individuals was nonetheless valid Oakley: the trust in Re Denley's was, as a matter of construction, clearly for a purpose and could not be construed as an outright gift to the employees and other people entitled to use the sportsfield Re Lipinski's WT followed Denley's; Oliver J held that this was a valid purpose trust, because the members of the unincorporated recreational assoc were ascertainable

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Trusts and Equity Notes.

More Trusts And Equity Samples