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

    Thirdly, the literal rule should not be applied since it causes a mutual contradiction between the same subsections of the statute as in Secretary, Department of Social Security v James54. Thus it is at best uncertain which argument prevails for lack of Australian authority.

  2. Equity Case Summaries

    164. Relevant time at which there must be no notice of the earlier equitable interest: the time when the purchaser gives consideration. - where purchaser complied with rule then resells property to 2nd person and they have notice of earlier equitable interest the 2nd purchaser has priority over equitable interest Wilkes v.

  1. Charitable trusts, what gives them charitable status?

    The beneficiaries are "would-be pupils" and not "actual pupils". In other words the class of beneficiaries is defined not by its relationships to the school, but by a relationship to the attendance at the named school. The first link, decendant-ancestor, is clearly personal; the second, ancestor-school, is not. Therefore, there is neither a direct contractual nexus nor a personal

  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. Express Trusts

    Once this trust is deemed valid, it becomes obligatory and T&T will have no choice as to whether or not they may fulfil the intention of Brad and are required to fulfil the terms of the trust as stipulated in the trust instrument and implied by rules of law.

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

    The intention of the settlor must be to create a trust5 and he must do everything in his power to do so6.This is because an effective self-declaration will deprive Nixon of his ownership and will place him under onerous obligations as a trustee.

  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