• 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

    a partnership, legatees rights to an estate Virtually all property is assignable in Equity; very few exceptions. - Contractual prohibition Linden Gardens Trust v Lenesta Sludge Disposals [1994] 1 AC 85 - Personal contracts, benefit of contract of personal service cannot be assigned Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd [1940],

  2. Charitable trusts, what gives them charitable status?

    Maudsley & Burns Trusts and Trustees Cases and Materials (6th edition, Butterworths London 2002)(Cited in this paper as "Burn 2002") - heavily relies on authors text - 387 3 Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v Pemsel [1891] AC 531 4 Todd 2003 - slightly relies on authors

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

    Again here, there is no need to transfer the legal title, as Nixon is the sole owner of the collection of diamonds19 and it would be sufficient if he had effected a valid declaration. Therefore, as with the farm, constition of trusts will not be considered.

  1. Express Trusts

    Therefore, the disposition is certainly intended to be in the nature of a trust. b. Certainty of Subject-matter: In this scenario, Brad stated that T&T " are to sell one third of my collection of Buddha images, and use the proceeds of sale".

  2. “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.

  1. Property and Trusts 3.

    This is a power that trustees have but they have no duty or any obligation to carry it out. It is completely discretionary. The money given to the beneficiary for maintenance must be from the income of the trust property, which means that the trust must be making profit in some way.

  2. The Development of Equity and Trusts

    A conflict between equity and the common law arose in the case of, âEarl of Oxfords Case,â[3] âThe office of the Chancellor is to correct manâs 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