• 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

    - Competing registered and unregistered interests The effect of registration is to give the registered proprietor an indefeasible title to that interest. RPA s. 42(1), 43 Exceptions to the concept of indefeasibility of title: Majority are statutory - fraud by the registered proprietor in getting the interest registered: see RPA s.42(1)

  2. Charitable trusts, what gives them charitable status?

    was satisfied. 35 The only time that Parliament intervened was by means of the Recreational Act 1958, this was as a result of the category becoming too close as in seen in Guild. Reform The ten charitable purposes that are listed below would make decision making simpler in establishing whether trusts or institutions are of charitable.

  1. Are trustees too powerful?

    It is within this jurisdiction that the question arises as to the powers of trustees. It can be seen that trustees have a lot of responsibility of looking after trust interests, however with all there duties which in general gave rise to powers of discretion, the law extending to the protection of the beneficiaries interests, when trustees breach their duties.

  2. Express Trusts

    As it seems, Brad wished to create an express trust, then he is required to comply with the Milroy v Lord2 test. This test stipulates that the subject matter of the trust is required to be transferred to the trustees, subject to a valid declaration of trust and in compliance with any statutory formalities.

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

    Since the debtor does not own the property which he holds on trust for another party if a judge holds that there is a valid trust in the property held by the insolvent entity on trust for another party he is bound to come to the conclusion that it is beyond the reach of other creditors.

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

    In general, an oral declaration of trust is valid and effective to create a fully constituted trust even if no consideration was given7. Clearly, Nixon's self-declaration will be sufficient as there is no evidence to suggest that his intention was not to become a trustee.

  1. Major case: Cox Communications.

    a significant increase in long-term market share and other added incentives of acquiring Gannett. In addition we can use the 1998 Return on Assets of 13.1% (see exhibit 2, this is also the WACC for 1998) to qualify this acquisition, Cox in fact has the highest ROA in the industry,

  2. The Development of Equity and Trusts

    A conflict between equity and the common law arose in the case of, ?Earl of Oxfords Case,?[3] ?The office of the Chancellor is to correct man?s consciences for frauds, breach of trusts, wrongs and oppressions of whatsoever nature and to soften and mollify the extremity of the law ...

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