This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Trusts and Equity Notes

Unincorporated Associations Framework Notes

Updated Unincorporated Associations Framework Notes

Trusts and Equity Notes

Trusts and Equity

Approximately 1016 pages

Equity notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB trusts cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).

These were the best Equity and Trusts Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest re...

The following is a more accessible 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:

  1. Is it UA?

  1. Stipulated expressly in the problem conclusive

  2. Not stipulated ask

  1. Owned by individual/company = legal personality (company law)

  2. 2 or more persons bound together for one or more common purposes w/mutual rights & obligations in an organisation which has rules governing the use of property, and which can be joined/left at will (Lawton LJ in Burrell) = UA

  1. Has it dissolved + when?

  • Assets can only be distributed if dissolved!

  • Do facts put together carry sufficient conviction that association is at an end & not merely dormant?

  1. not dissolved just b/c impractical to operate (ReWilliams Delby Sick Fund)

  2. need positive acts + inactivity (mere inactivity will suffice where it’s prolonged) (ReGNKSportsClub)

  • 4 ways in which can dissolve (Brightman J)

  1. In acc. w/rules

  2. By agreement of all interested persons

  3. Court order

  4. Substratum upon which it was founded has gone (i.e. purpose no longer effective)

  • watch out for ambiguity in purpose – e.g. to reduce noise in the airport: depends on whether a particular airport (which has closed, hence purpose no longer effective) or any airport

  • Only one person left = dissolved b/c can’t associate w/himself assets are divided as follows:

  1. Originally, bona vacantia (ReBucks)

  2. Currently – to remaining members b/c contract governing the use of property no longer operative, hence can severe their share (Hanchett Stamford v AG)

  • Date of dissolutionif unclear, court must pick a reasonable date

  • If result in the end is unfair, try tweaking it

  • If few possibilities, analyse all

  1. Has each donation been made validly?

  • Important b/c determines whether goes back on RT or can be divided amongst members in acc. w/rules

  • UA can’t own payments made b/c not a legal person must construe as one of the following (Leahy v AG of New South Wales)

  1. A gift to existing members beneficially

  • Problematic b/c each can severe their share immediately, contravening donor’s intent

  1. A gift to existing & future members beneficially

  • Likely to fail b/c of perpetuity

  1. Absolute gift to members (usually, for one (Treasurer) to hold on trust for others b/c easier + rules limiting no of people who can hold certain types of interests; e.g. s? LPA 1925) which takes effect as accretion to existing funds under contract

  • Requirements

  1. Beneficial transfer

  2. Existence of contract governing the holding/use of property

  • If transfer is made w/some qualification as to use (e.g. to LawSoc for purposes of mooting ReLipinski

  • Theoretical problems

  1. ensuring Treasurer holds on self-imposed trust depends on contract governing the use & holding of property

  • Downside – donor doesn’t have much impact

  1. formalities – disposition of equitable interest when old members leave & new join

  • Penner – implied contractual right for Treasurer to vary membership – add & take away

  1. shifting membership

  2. contract “binds” property – not theoretically possible

  • argue members are bound by contract in their use of property instead?

  1. members can waive/vary the contract by agreement

  1. Purpose trust w/ascertainable beneficiaries (ReBowes type trust as used in ReLipinski)

  • Oliver J (ReLipinski)

  1. Donor’s intent in identifying the purpose was to benefit members (e.g. for Maccabi association for construction/maintenance of new buildings) = valid

  2. Donor’s intent was clearly not to confer any particular benefit on anyone/to benefit ascertainable group of people (e.g. general purposes of association) = fails (can’t make a gift to object or purpose – Neville Estates v Madden)

  • Key question: end enforcement/interest in enforcement

  • How to determine?

  1. Default positioncontract holding theory (ReBucks)

  2. Donor can choose

  • usually, won’t say so explicitly

  1. Donation is genuinely intended for benefit of the membersapply contract...

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

More Trusts And Equity Samples