• 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...


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.


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.


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

    If she was the latter, she could have claimed common law damages for breach of Nixon's obligations straightaway41 . The general rule, which applies to Monika, is that she will not be able to compel Bill, who is a party, to take proceedings.

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

    Section 200(1) PLA would be of no assistance to Rowena as ownership of the IT is not effective. Less Likely Conclusion: If Fiona was acting as an agent for Rowena, she will acquire ownership of the IT and the authority to use the CT.

  1. 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)

  2. Charitable trusts, what gives them charitable status?

    that the object of Oldham TEC was to enable the set up of trade or business for the unemployed and allow them to stand on their on feet. This is classed as a charitable trust which will relieve poverty in the local community.10 2.

  1. Express Trusts

    a delicate balance of title ownership and enjoyment rights distributed between two persons, with beneficiary remedies and trustee defences to support the relationship"1 T&T; then, bear the responsibility of controlling and managing the trust property solely for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

  2. Are trustees too powerful?

    trustees also have the duty to provide and account the correct information. A breach of any of these dutyies may give rise to the courts setting aside an exercise of the trustees powers."6 The question thus arises to what extent do trustees hold power.

  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.?[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