• 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. Express Trusts

    The important of this stringent requirement in this scenario is that the third of images is to be sold. As the value of each image is different based on it's artistic and historical value., the total proceeds of the sale will be different inevitably.

  2. Equity Case Summaries

    Exception: where the holder of the first interest is guilty of "postponing conduct" Second rule: the equitable interest first created prevails. However, this rule can be displaced if the second equitable interest has a "better equity". Thus, priority in time is decisive only if the competing equities (or merits)

  1. certainty of objects

    Before the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 was enacted, it was held in Re Chardon that a gift of a fund to trustees in trust to pay the income to a cemetery company during such period as it should continue to maintain certain specified graves, with a gift over on

  2. Are trustees too powerful?

    or by statute to deal with or dispose of property in which he may have no beneficial interest, this can be seen to arise in two different forms one of which gives powers of disposition over the property such as the powers of appointment and those which give a power

  1. Charitable trusts, what gives them charitable status?

    Secondly that the purpose is beneficial to the community in a charitable way.6 1. Relief of poverty Trusts for the relief of poverty are exempt from the public benefit requirement. Poverty in this sense does not mean that of destitute or being penniless.

  2. The trustees’ duty to provide information to beneficiaries.

    TOPIC OF LECTURE Enough reminiscing of the past. I must now turn to the topic of this lecture, a topic of practical importance and some difficulty which has found (at least until recently) remarkably limited consideration in the authorities, text books and journals. Shortly before I was invited to give this lecture I was troubled as the trustee

  1. The central issue is the "complete constitution of voluntary trusts".

    However applying the judgement of Latham CJ20, Fiona would not have been acting as Jeremy's agent. The stronger argument suggests that Jeremy has not placed Rowena in a position to obtain legal title of the IT through her own actions21.

  2. The Development of Equity and Trusts

    not mingle their waters.?[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 Ashburner?s 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