Critically evaluate the role of the courts in ensuring that trusts are administered in the best interests of the beneficiaries - To what extent has the balance shifted since the enactment of the Trustee Act 2000?
Equity and the Law of Trusts Student No: 001813779 Critically evaluate the role of the courts in ensuring that trusts are administered in the best interests of the beneficiaries. To what extent has the balance shifted since the enactment of the Trustee Act 2000? This question involves an evaluation of the manner by which the courts have managed to regulate the law of trusts with regard to the interests of beneficiaries prior to the Trustee Act 2000 and its impact at present. The importance in this essay is that here we are dealing with the idea that a trust should be administered in the 'best interests' of the beneficiaries. Significant questions arise when we mention this phrase with regard to the way trusts are administered, let alone in any other branch of the law. When we talk about the 'best interests', it is in essence a very subjective issue. Each trust having different facts and different terms will inevitably have different interests, which will logically need to be for the best. An important aspect in trusts law that must be mentioned before starting this essay is the concept of a fiduciary relationship that will always carry a weight in law. This is the idea that the trustees are always expected to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries with the implication that they are not permitted to take advantage of their position for their own benefit. The
Equity Exam Notes
Equity notes Legal Position Look first as to what legal position the parties being advised are in and if there are competing legal interests will they extinguish equitable interests. * Is there any existing proprietary rights? I.e. mortgage, lease, fee simple * Is there any existing contractual relationship between the parties? They will if the legal title to certain property is obtained without notice by a bona fide purchaser. Law of Property Act s117 states that knowledge can be either constructive, actual or imputed if through an agent. If the legal interest was first in time then the equitable interest will only win if the legal title holder was careless or took part in a fraud to create the equitable title. Trusts Express Trust Statute In SA to validly create a trust over Torrens Title land s29 (1) (B) states that the transfer needs to be in writing. Certainty of Intention When a deed of trust is executed there will usually be no need to look further at the intention of the party allegedly creating the trust. However, when there is a situation such as the one in Joliffe the question of intention does matter. Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Joliffe (1953) - man opens bank account and states that it is on trust for someone else. However, the court held that his real intention was to use the money in the account as his own and no trust has therefore been
Retention of Title Clauses
Attempts by suppliers of materials to retain title to goods manufactured from that material have generally been unsuccessful. Explain why this is so, and discuss how the objections raised by the courts might be overcome. Purpose of retention of title clauses Under section 17 and 18 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 ("SGA"), property in goods sold is normally transferred to the buyer when the contract for sale is concluded. If the buyer becomes insolvent, the goods sold would become part of its general assets and an unpaid seller would have only a personal claim against the buyer. A retention of title clause allows the seller to retain property in the goods even though possession is transferred to the buyer. Section 17 of the SGA provides that property in goods passes only when parties intend for it to be transferred. A retention of title clause in the contract for sale therefore improves the position of the unpaid seller because it would allow the latter to obtain security for the payment of goods. This was the case in Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG1 and Aluminum Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminum Ltd.2 Relationship with the doctrine of equitable tracing Romalpa emphasised the importance of the doctrine of equitable tracing where retention of title clauses are concerned. Very often, buyers resell goods purchases to others. A retention of title clause has to operate
Disposing of Property on Death
Disposing of Property on Death As Kenneth is the owner of the house and the shares at law and in equity, he can make Louise the beneficial owner of this property by transferring the shares, and conveying the house to her. Generally, in order to transfer shares to a beneficiary, it is necessary to use the appropriate form of transfer, and the legal title to the shares will pass on the registration of the new owner on the company's books. Where land is concerned, section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires that the transfer of the legal estate be made by deed, however, the facts indicate that it may be possible for Kenneth to avoid these formality requirements by the operation of the principle of donatio mortis causa. A donatio mortis causa is a gift made in contemplation of, and conditional upon, the death of the donor. The donee's title will not come into existence until the death occurs, and until that time, the donor can revoke the gift. In Re Craven's Estate1, Farwell J set out three conditions which must be shown before it can be said that a valid donatio mortis causa exists, namely: i) The transfer must be with the intention of giving the property; ii) It must be clear that the property was handed over in contemplation of a real possibility of death, and some specific focus on the possibility of death must be shown; and, iii) The donor must have
PROPERTY 2 EQUITY AND TRUSTS
PROPERTY 2 EQUITY AND TRUSTS Since "we brought nothing into world, and we can take nothing out of it"1 an individual can execute a will indicating how to dispose of his property on his death. Such a will is required to comply with the formalities in s9 of the Wills Act 1837 as amended by s17 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. This question concerns the law of secret trusts. The key principle of secret trusts is that they operate in relation to testamentary disposition, where either the facts or details are not mentioned in the testator's will; this is an example of a full secret trust, or where the fact of the trust is mentioned in the will but the identity of the beneficiaries remains secret; this is a half secret trust. The Wills Act s9 states that dispositions in wills must be in writing and signed and witnessed by the appropriate persons, however, and this is the peculiarity of secret trusts that they are regarded as valid and enforceable despite not complying with this requirement. In this question there appear to be questions regarding the validity of not only of full secret and half secret trusts but the validity of the will itself. Each disposition will be studied in turn beginning in reverse order. In his will, George leaves the residue of his estate to Clara "in full confidence that she will use it as (he) wish(es)". It can be argued that this is
Trust law
Bibliography Martin, (2001) Hanbury and Martin: Modern Equity 16th edn Sweet & Maxwell: London Ridall J G (1996) Law of Trusts 5th Edn Butterworths :London Pettit P (2001) Equity and the Law of Trusts 9th edn Butterworths: London Giles Tim, 'Serving Two Masters' Pensions World, October 2003 Vol32 No. 10 Nobles R L 'Discretion under a pension scheme' Nugee C 'Suing for Losses to a Pension Scheme - Some issues' Tolley's Trust Law International (2001) Vol15 No. 2 House of Commons Social Security Committee, Mar 1992, HC 61-II (the 'Field Report') The Goode Report 1992 Cm 2342 Trust law is one of the areas of law used to regulate occupational pension schemes. Occupational pension funds are created by an employer with nominated trustees who pay out pensions to beneficiaries under the scheme, the employees. Some companies make all the contributions on behalf of their members, whilst in other schemes the employees will make a contribution also. The fund is invested for the benefit of its members and is administered by trustees. The important element which gives rise to the trust is the basic principle that the trustee holds the property on trust for another person and that the trustee has fiduciary obligations. The occupational pension trust is different to the usual trust situation in that the settlor, the employer, who will provide funds and set up the scheme of
!["It is submitted that this case [i.e. Pennington v Waine] dangerously undermines the established principles that equity will not act to perfect an imperfect gift nor assist a volunteer. The effectiveness of an alleged transfer of property should not depen](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/943360/listing/943360_1.jpg)
"It is submitted that this case [i.e. Pennington v Waine] dangerously undermines the established principles that equity will not act to perfect an imperfect gift nor assist a volunteer. The effectiveness of an alleged transfer of property should not depen
"It is submitted that this case [i.e. Pennington v Waine] dangerously undermines the established principles that equity will not act to perfect an imperfect gift nor assist a volunteer. The effectiveness of an alleged transfer of property should not depend on the vagaries of whether the court considers that it would be 'unconscionable' for the transfer [or] to change his or her mind" Critically evaluate this statement The long established and conventional principle that "equity will not act to imperfect an imperfect gift or to assist a volunteer" can be traced back to the 19th century in particular Ellison v Ellison (1802)1 and Milroy v Lord (1870)2. However, the principle appears to have been diluted in subsequent cases such as Strong v Bird and Re Rose where the courts have created several exceptions conflicting with the principle and resulting in equity perfecting an imperfect and consequently allowing a volunteer to force the transferor to give the promised gift. Although, both Strong v Bird3 and Re Rose4 have created "significant exceptions"5, the widest and most controversial exception was established in the case of Pennington v Waine6 where the Court of Appeal laid down a "test of unconscionability". This test stated that a transferor cannot go back on his promise to give a gift once it becomes unconscionable. This essay will look at the effect that these exceptions
Constitution Of Trusts Problem Question - in order to decide whether Nixon is entitled to sell his farm, we must establish whether he has effectively declared himself trustee.
In 2010, Nixon orally declared himself as trustee of his own farm, Whitewater, for the benefit of his son, Ronald. He also declared that he was the trustee of the collection of diamonds in his safety deposit for his daughter, Nancy. All about the transfer of title (legal) to the trustees. If I am the settlor and I am entitled to the property, there's not gonna be any transfer. If I self-declare myself as a trustee, the legal title doesn't go anywhere. It's just I no longer will be the owner of the property - I'll become trustee. There is no transfer of the property necessary. In 2011, Nixon covenanted with Bill to transfer his shares in Watergate Ltd to Bill, to be held on trust for the benefit of his niece, Monika. Nixon asked his secretary to ensure that the shares were transferred to Bill and the transfer registered, but this was never done. Nixon is now in severe financial difficulties and wishes to sell Whitewater, the collection of diamonds and his shares in Watergate Ltd to be able to pay off his creditors. Advise Nixon. To begin with, in order to decide whether Nixon is entitled to sell his farm, we must establish whether he has effectively declared himself trustee, taking into account any potential formalities required. As he is the sole owner of the land, there is no need to transfer the legal title to another person.1 If he has effected a valid declaration
The Fusion Fallacy. When considering the relationship between equitable compensation and common law damages, evidence suggests that there are strong similarities now emerging between the two, and it is difficult to draw meaningful distinctions between th
The 'Fusion Fallacy' Jurists have long drawn a distinction between equity and common law, a divergence that can primarily be attributed to equity's historical evolution. This does not mean that equity fails to be 'law' as traditionally defined but rather, as Maitland saw it, equity was a 'gloss' on the common law, called in aid where the latter fell short by virtue of its universality.1 If equity's status as 'law' is not in dispute, the argument that it and the common law are now so similar that retaining a distinction between them is not useful has led to calls - both judicially and extra-judicially - for jurisdictional fusion. This latter form of fusion is contrasted with the administrative fusion effected by the Judicature Act 1873.2 By contrast, equity specialists like Patricia Loughlan argue that both jurisdictions are still developing substantive law; mix them at all and one engages in 'fusion fallacy'.3 Arguably, the common law is becoming more and more flexible even as equity solidifies and sets. When considering the relationship between equitable compensation and common law damages, evidence suggests that there are strong similarities now emerging between the two, and it is difficult to draw meaningful distinctions between them.4 In most common law countries including the United States, Canada, New Zealand and even in traditionally orthodox dualist countries like
Alfonso's will contains, inter alia, various dispositions which are capable of resulting in various equitable concepts such as Gifts, Power of Appointments or more importantly Trusts.
Alfonso's will contains, inter alia, various dispositions which are capable of resulting in various equitable concepts such as Gifts, Power of Appointments or more importantly Trusts. The trust involves a trustee holding property for the benefit of the beneficiary, this arises as a result of the fragmentation of ownership, and in this case was set up when the testator placed the property in the hands of his executors in order for them to pass them onto the beneficiaries. The beneficiary has no legal right to the property but the courts of equity recognise that the beneficiary holds an equitable right in the property. The type of trust which concerns us in this case is a testamentary trust1 which is made during a person's lifetime but implemented after his death by an executor2. Before a trust can be declared there are certain formalities and requirements which must be met, the most important of these being the three certainties. The first of these is the certainty of intention, where the courts will attempt to establish whether the testator intended to create a trust, however equity looks to intent rather that form and therefore words will only be an indicator of a testators intentions, the courts may also take into consideration extrinsic evidence, which enables them to look at other documents when analysing the will3. Courts will decide on the matter of which words are