Distinguishing whether a trust is Charitable or for a Non-Charitable purpose will depend on the nature of the trust.
Distinguishing whether a trust is Charitable or for a Non-Charitable purpose will depend on the nature of the trust. Courts often take a more favorable view towards charitable trusts even if it's a purpose trust i.e. no human beneficiaries, because they are established for the public benefit of the community. Thus in the past this has caused some difficulty, if the benefit is classed as being too small or insignificant the trust is unlikely to be classed as charitable as it gives the courts the impression the trust has only been set up for some personal benefit and not any useful benefit to the public. Similarly if the language of the trust is too broad it is unlikely to be Charitable as its often not enough to show its purpose.1 Charity in the past has been difficult to define; there is no recent definition of charity. However in the case of Comr v Pemsel2 Lord Macnaghten identified the 'four heads' of charity. 'Charity in its legal sense comprises four principal divisions; trusts for the relief of poverty; trusts for the advancement of education; trusts for the advancement of religion; and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads'. This definition is not modern although it is well established and needed to stop the 'floodgates' being open to people who want to claim personal benefit which are not charitable
Co ownership advice
Land law: advice to Albert over co ownership Albert, Bertram and Clarissa are all parties in a hotel business, with all of them contributing different amounts to the initial purchased price of £1,000,000. Albert contributed £500,000, Bertram £300,000 and Clarissa £200,000. The estimated value of the business at present is £2,000,000 but Albert now wants the business to be sold to fund his impending retirement. Both Bertram and Clarissa appose to this so I am compiling a report to advise Albert on how he can combat this situation. This type of ownership is called co ownership, otherwise known as concurrent ownership. In the past there used to be various forms of this but today there are only two. These being joint tenancy and tenancy in common. The essential characteristics of joint tenancy are the right of survivorship and the four unities. The right of survivorship is when a joint tenants interests in the property or land gets passed automatically on their death, to the surviving joint tenants. The ultimate survivor takes all. This may make this form of co ownership seem unattractive but is very appropriate for those who's ownership allows them no financial stake in the property or land. Notably trustees. It is also very appropriate for people who are in a stable relationship or married as it is very simple and convenient. The four unities are the unities of
Charitable trusts, what gives them charitable status?
For this assignment I will focus on charitable trusts, what gives them charitable status? It will be noted that the jurisdiction dates back to Tudor England and still provides the definition for charity. I will address both the tax and trusts law which fall within this spectrum and certain Acts by law that need to be adhered to. My critical analysis and evaluations of this topic will lead to my conclusions dealing with present and past reform to change this 400 year plus Act. The legal definition of Charity has developed over several centuries. The Statute of Charitable Uses 1601 also referred to as Statute of Elizabeth was used as a guideline to establish which purposes were charitable. The preamble, has listed, purposes that at the time was regarded as charitable. These purposes fell within the 'spirit and intendment' of the preamble and were accepted by the courts as being charitable. 1 Charitable trusts are sometimes referred to as purpose trusts, which are designed to benefit society as a whole, or a particular section of it. A charitable trust has many advantages, one of which is that it may exist perpetually. The fundamental purpose of the trust is that it must be wholly and exclusively charitable. One of the Charity Commissions main prerogative is to increase the powers of the Commission to protect charities and the obligations of charities to account to the
Re Shaw (1957)
3rd September 2001 The Trustees Motherhood Dear Sirs, RE: Your Application for Charitable Status Further to your recent telephone call requesting advice in relation to whether your organisation might be eligible for charitable status. We now provide written confirmation of the advice given at the telephone. As discussed, charities have been classified in four main catagories, advancement of education or religion, relief of poverty or benefit to the communty. As such it is clear that an organisation with political criteria cannot be registered as a charity. You have indicated to me that you consider yourselves to be an educational trust, highlighting issues of discrimination to mothers in the workforce. I am not of the view that your organisation would fall under the category of advancing education. Although your publications may in themselves be considered to be educational, this does not mean that your trust will also to be considered an educational one.The cases of Re Shaw (1957) and Re Hopkins (1965) clarify this position. Harman J stated in Re Shaw that that a gift is not charitable ''if the object be merely the increase of knowledge, that is not in itself a charitable object unless it be combined with teaching or education.''1 Lord Wilberforce stated in Re Hopkins ''that the word 'education'...must be used in a wide sense, certainly extending beyond teaching, and
Interlocutory Injunctions
Interlocutory Injunctions Types of Interlocutory Injunction * With / without notice * For fixed time / until trial * Interlocutory * On notice, until trial * Interim * Without notice, fixed time * Usually to allow party affected to prepare response * Ex parte * Without notice, fixed (short) time * All ex parte orders are interim * Eg. NB Rule 40.02(1) - 10 day limit for ex parte injunction Interlocutory Injunction Rock and a Hard Place * If injunction is denied * Harm to P that occurs by trial may be irreparable * E.g. picketing may cause business to collapse * D may be judgment proof * If injunction is granted * D's rights may be restrained unjustly if D eventually prevails * Harm that occurs to D may be irreparable * E.g. no picketing may bring strike to an end Rock and a Hard Place * Assessment of the merits does not evade the problem * Evidence is always incomplete and untested by cross-examination at preliminary motion Undertaking * P is generally required to give an undertaking to pay to D any damages that D sustains as by reason of the injunction, should P ultimately fail. * Shifts some /all risk to P * Court has discretion to waive undertaking in special circumstances * Difficult, though not impossible, to get such waiver Undertaking * D may request security for undertaking by way of bond or payment into court * Not usually required
Critically evaluate the doctrine of certainty in the creation of a trust. To what extent would you agree that the courts have been faithful to this doctrine in their development of the trust?"
EQUITY AND THE LAW OF TRUSTS COURSEWORK WORD COUNT - 1805 "Critically evaluate the doctrine of certainty in the creation of a trust. To what extent would you agree that the courts have been faithful to this doctrine in their development of the trust?" A trust is an obligation binding an individual called a 'trustee' to deal with property in a particular way, for the benefit of one or more 'beneficiaries'. A declaration of trust must be 'certain' which means that a settlor must declare the terms of the trust with sufficient 'certainty' or precision for the trustees to know what they must do, or the intended trust fails. The classification of certainty usually cited is that of Lord Langdale in the case of 'Knight v Knight (1840)'1. The classification has been criticised, nevertheless it is the one that has been adopted by the Courts. Lord Langdale laid down the principle that 'three certainties' are required for the creation of a trust which are: * The certainty of words ( Intention ) * The certainty of subject matter * The certainty of objects If any of the certainties is absent then no valid express trust will be created. However the exact consequences will depend upon the circumstances. We will now look at each of the three certainties one by one and consider whether or not the Courts approach towards them has been consistent. Certainty of words (intention)
A trust imposes one of the most powerful forms of obligation in English law.
A trust imposes one of the most powerful forms of obligation in English law. It is to be expected, therefore that the imposition of a trust on the recipient or holder of property is not to be achieved lightly. The trustee will have onerous duties to perform and is amenable to be coercive jurisdiction of the court at the suit of the benficiaries. It must be clear to the trustees what their duties are. The most important characteristic of a trust is that is a fiduciary relationship (a relationship based on confidence and trust. The fiduciary relationship exists between the trustee, who holds the title and administers the trust property, and the beneficiaries, for whose benefits the trust property is held. For a trust to be enforced, it must be possible to determine who the beneficiaries are.. Cetainty is to the nature and extent of the trust property and the interest of the beneficiaries is no less crucial, the importance of these matters has long been recognised and is now summed up by the principles that a trust cannot exist without the three certainties. The two main reason for certainty is firstly, to ensure property is correctly identified and in accordance with the wishes of the settlor, sometimes there can be doubt to those wishes which leads to the courts to play safe rather than risk an unauthorised disposition of a persons property. Secondly, it
The Development of Equity and Trusts
08006174Equity & Trusts The meaning of equity is basically a system of law which stables out the need for certainty in rule- making in order to accomplish fairness for individual’s circumstance. Equity supports and decreases the strictness of the common law. The early common law method was very complex and costly. Legal procedures were based on writs which would be produced for each individual whom wanted to begin and take action in a centralised system that was formed during that period. This was created to bring together the legal system of the country in to one centralised system. The problems and issues of this method was stopped by the Provisions of Oxford 1258[1] and the Statute of Westminster,[2] these provisions and statutes narrowed down the number of writs and a few times they have not allowed a legal action simply due to the fact that there wasn’t a legal writ that covered it. Therefore if there was not an existing writ previously formed for their action consequently it would not let them take any matters further. The strict and rigidness of the common law regulations could have an impact in leading to injustice. The common law system in conjunction with, individuals had a possibility to appeal to the king’s conscience in order for them to be supported with justice. The king as he was acknowledged as the “fountain of justice,” people were complaining
Robert Megarry and Equity - Four Cases considered.
Sir Robert Megarry was regarded as a key academic in the field of equity. After WW2, Megarry pursued parallel careers as an academic and at the Chancery Bar. He lectured at Cambridge[1], directed the Law Society's refresher courses and most importantly taught equity at the Council of Legal Education (Bar School). It must be submitted that the cases of Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts (1987)[2], Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham - [1970][3], Re Holt's Settlement; Wilson v Holt and Others - [1968][4] & Re Kayford Ltd - [1975][5] highlight the wide spectrum in which equity has been developed and applied by Lord Megarry. Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts (1987) In Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts (1987) Lord Megarry established that: “Liability for knowing receipt requires proof that the defendant had knowledge of the breach of trust and received trust property with that knowledge. The knowledge must exist at the time of receipt.”[6] It must be recognised that, at the time, more emphasis was put on whether there was any fault and whether failing to make enquiries or notice relevant circumstances may indicate fault, but this notion was improved by Lord Megarry in Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts (1987). Lord Megarry stated that the recipient’s conscience must be affected and therefore constructive knowledge would not be enough, there must be some “want of