• 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

    to look at the totality of the situation OK if genuine commercial interest Trentex - All in the wording- matter of construction Howard Smith Does seem to contradict maxims such as * Equity will regard as done which ought to be done * Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift

  2. Express Trusts

    Firstly, in regard to the third of the Buddha images, Brad didn't specify enough which third is he referring to. This is very similar to the Re London Wine Co7 in which Oliver J held the trust is valid only if each creditors could demonstrate that particular, identifiable bottles of

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

    was clear that his only intention was to put his assets beyond the reach of future creditors. The courts have persistently refused to uphold any transaction (not limited to trusts) which was performed for the purpose of keeping assets out of the reach of creditors.

  2. Are trustees too powerful?

    It is evident that trustees are given power over the trust funds, as they are seen as gatekeepers and protectors who over look over ones assets, and hold it for the overall benefit of the beneficiaries. Powers can therefore be described as "authority given to a person either by instrument

  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. certainty of objects

    Unquote The basic idea of the validity of such trusts relates to the question of enforceability. In other words, a non-charitable trust is void unless there are ascertained or ascertainable beneficiaries capable of enforcing the trust. As per Sir William Grant in Morice v The Bishop of Durham, Quote Every trust (other than a charitable one)

  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