• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'Re Baden's Deed Trusts (No.2) [1973] Ch. 9'

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Case note: 'Re Baden's Deed Trusts (No.2) [1973] Ch. 9' The Court: > 'The Court of Appeal' The Judges: > Sachs, Megaw and Stamp LJJ What are the relevant facts? > 1941 - Bertram Baden (Settlor), Chairman and Managing Director of Matthew Hall & Co Ltd, established trust fund of 5,000 shares in the company for officers and employees of the company. > Clause 9(a) of the deed directed his trustees to: > "Apply the net income of the fund in making at their absolute discretion grants to or for the benefit of any of the officers and employees or ex-officers or ex-employees of the company or to any relatives or dependants of any such persons in such amounts at such times and on such conditions (if any) as they think fit..." > 1943 - Settlor transferred a further 5,000 shares to the trustees and other shares were added later. > 1960 - Settlor dies. > 1962 - Executors told that trusts were void for uncertainty and claimed payment of the fund to his estate. ...read more.

Middle

Result of Appeal by the Executors: The Judges: Sachs LJ: > Executors believe the words "relatives" and "dependants" imports such uncertainty that the trust as a whole is void. > Agrees with the test laid down by Lord Wilberforce in 'Re Gulbenkian's Settlements' - "can it be said with certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of the class?" > The suggestion that this trust could be invalid because it may be impossible to prove an individual was not in the relevant class is wholly incorrect. > Considers trustees capable of coming to a conclusion in any given case as to whether or not a particular candidate could properly be described as "dependant". > Agrees with Brightman J that "the use of the expression 'relatives' cannot clause the slightest difficulty. > Held: Appeal dismissed. Megaw LJ: > Disagrees with suggestion that the inclusion of "relatives" makes this trust so wide to be administratively unworkable. > Agrees with 'Gulbenkian's' test. ...read more.

Conclusion

> On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, but held that Goff J had used the incorrect test of validity - the correct test was used in 'Re Gulbenkian's Settlements' and so the case was given to the Chancery Division to consider the validity of the clause. > Executors appealed to the House of Lords who reversed the Court of Appeal decision stating that clause 9(a) was a trust and again remitted the case to the Chancery Division. > During this hearing, it was decided that the test in 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v Broadway Cottages Trust [1955] Ch. 20' no longer applied and instead, the test mentioned earlier in 'Re Gulbenkian's Settlements' was to be utilised - accordingly, the clause was valid as a trust. > The executors' next appeal was dismissed using the above test. > As to the validity of a discretionary trust, you must distinguish between conceptual certainty and evidential difficulty - if an individual could not establish that he was a member, then he must not be a member. > There was no conceptual uncertainty regarding the words "dependants" or "relatives" and so the trust was valid. Word Count: 1,012 words 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Equity & Trust Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Equity & Trust Law essays

  1. Equity Case Summaries

    Equity will treat it as effectively assigned, depend mainly on the following relevant questions: i. Who is the assignor/assignee? ii. Is it property capable of being dealt with? iii. Does it exist now or is it future property? iv. Is it legal property or equitable property; v.

  2. Constitution Of Trusts Problem Question - in order to decide whether Nixon is entitled ...

    Clearly, Nixon did not do everything in his power; he could have registered the share transfer himself, instead of relying on his secretary, so he may argue that the trust was not fully constituted. However, Monika could counter-argue that Nixon intended to make an effective gift of shares and that

  1. Express Trusts

    objects or persons intended to have the benefit of the recommendation or wish be also certain."4 a. Certainty of Intention: The test requires that the "intention to create a trust is clearly to be allocated from the language used and the circumstances of the case" as stated by du Parq in re Schebsman5.

  2. certainty of objects

    The principle is also affirmed by Roxburgh J in Re Astor's Settlement Trusts and the Court of Appeal in Re Endacott. However, there are number of circumstances and exceptions (albeit limited) in which the beneficiary principle does not apply. Exceptions to Beneficiary Principle: Valid but unenforceable Trusts Usually, these exceptions

  1. Are trustees too powerful?

    to deal with property in a particular manner.7" A trustee therefore held under a trust is seen to be bound by the obligation to carry out the activities that are asked by them, as a trust can be "described to be imperative, while under the powers of appointment, it can be seen to be discretionary"8.

  2. Charitable trusts, what gives them charitable status?

    Relief of poverty, 2. Advancement of education, 3. Advancement of Religion, and 4.Other purposes which are beneficial to the community. The judgement in Williams Trustees v IRC5 indicates that in determining whether a trust is charitable, the trust must be regarded as within the 'spirit and intendment' of the Preamble.

  1. “The Insolvency Act 1986 gives the court the power to set aside trusts which ...

    These types of trust have existed long before Barclays bank v Quistclose a good example of this being Toovey v Milne1. All the House of Lords did in Barclays bank v Quistclose is confirm that such arrangements could create a valid trust2.

  2. The Development of Equity and Trusts

    not mingle their waters.â[7] However Professors Ashburners statement was not very helpful because it was very hard to imagine two streams in one channel and not mingling together as one. Lord Diplock had taken Ashburnerâs statement further in the case, United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council,[8] Diplock concluded

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work