Fichas
E, c 2 q
Fichas del conjunto (15)
- 1Mcphail v Daoulton (Re Badens No 1)Any given postulent test
The test to be applied was that propounded in Gulbenkian .
onus placed on object to show that he satisfies the condition. If he can show this, trustee obliged to transfer property to that object. - 2IRC v. Broadway Cottages Trusts [1955]whole range of objects eligible for selection is ascertained or capable of ascertainment
- 3Re Badens No 2necessary to distinguish between conceptual uncertainty (terms used to define the trust must be certain)
Dependents/Relatives- no conceptual uncertainty.
conceptual certainty required, evidential certainty not required - 4Fiduciary Power of appointment Re Gulbenkian’s Settlementssurvery range of potential objects
terms- clear enough-determine range of people who fall within it
‘persons with whom G had been residing’ was found to be sufficiently certain - 5Fiduciary Power of appointment Re Heys Settlement trustobey power, consider from time to time whether or not to exercise it, survey range of potential objects, used for proper purposes, can’t let gift over take effect, consider whether to distribute or not.
- 6(iii) Non-fiduciary powers of appointment. Re Wright Re Barlow’s Will TrustsThe donee’s only duty is to exercise the power within the class of potential objects.
The donee owes no duty to make a survey of them before making appointments. - 7Delegating questions of uncertainty of definition to a third party.Re Tuck’s Settlement Trusts Eveleigh – third party not being used to resolve uncertainty in definition of class but forms part of definition of class. Definition of class is those people whom the chief rabbi considers to be of the Jewish faith.
- 8Saunders v VautierThe beneficiaries of a discretionary trust, who between themselves are absolutely entitled to trust income or to trust capital, have a collective right which, if they are all of full capacity, they can exercise unanimously to obtain the income or capital in such shares as they agree ; unlike those who collectively are objects of a mere power of appointment
- 9Fiduciary power or discretionary power McPhail v DoultonHeld by HL that this had created trust power rather than fiduciary power because of the use of words ‘shall distribute’ – that is, mandatory language.
- 10(i) Fixed trusts depending on proportionate division of a fund. Re Baden (No 1)COMPLETE LIST TEST (both certain ties required )
Only where objects are conceptually certain does question of evidential certainty arise = question of whether, on facts can be established whether or not object satisfied the relevant test for certainty.
Re Benjamin
- 11Re BenjaminThe share of any beneficiary who can be identified but whose whereabouts cannot be ascertained should be paid into court:
- 12condition precedent. Re Barlow’s Will TrustsAny given postulent test
onus placed on object to show that he is satisfies condition.
- 13Re Tuck’s Settlement TrustsRequirements that principle beneficiary under settlement had to be of Jewish faith and if married, married to an approved Jewish wife, held by majority of CA to be condition precedent and valid under 1 person test.
- 14Re Tepper Will TrustsFixed trust subject to condition subsequent
Condition subsequent valid only if it can be known with certainty from the start the exact event that will result in defeat of beneficiary’s interest.
If this cannot be established, condition void.
Beneficiaries entitled to income from T’s estate when they reached age of 25, provided that they did not marry outside of the Jewish faith
- 15Re Heys settlementin the case of a mere power of appointment, trustees must consider: (1) periodically whether or not they should exercise the power; (2) the range of objects of the power; and (3) the appropriateness of individual appointment
Información
- Descripción
- Fichas sobre E, c 2 q, creado por hh395 el 15/03/2015.
- Creado por
- hh395
- Visitas
- 3
- Valoración