Private Purpose Trusts

?
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 09-02-17 21:34
Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts (1952)
General rule= non-charitable purpose trusts (private purpose trusts) are void
1 of 30
Re Endacott (1960)
This is because, by their very nature their object is a purpose and thus they lack a beneficiary to enforce the trust (beneficiary principle
2 of 30
Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804)
For a trust to be valid it must have a human beneficiary by whom the trust can be enforced
3 of 30
Leahy v Attorney General of New South Wales (1959)
Viscount Simonds: ‘”a gift can be made to persons (including a corporation) but not to a purpose or an object”
4 of 30
Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts (1952)
Courts struck down private purpose trust benefitting: preservation of the independence of newspapers
5 of 30
Re Endacott (1960)
Courts struck down private purpose trust benefitting: the provision of some useful monument to myself
6 of 30
Re Shaw (1957)
Courts struck down private purpose trust promoting a new 40-letter alphabet
7 of 30
Re Endacott (1960)
These exceptions have been described as “troublesome, anomalous and aberrant”
8 of 30
Pettingall v Pettingall (1842)
A trust of imperfect obligation of £50 per annum to look after testator’s favourite mare was upheld
9 of 30
Re Dean (1889)
A gift of £750 per annum paid for an invalid perpetuity period to maintain testator’s horses, ponies and hounds “if they should live so long” was upheld
10 of 30
Mussett v Bingle (1876)
£300 left to erect monument to first husband of testator’s wife was valid
11 of 30
s 99 of the Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970
Maintenance of private graves now possible
12 of 30
Bourne v Keane (1919)
HL: a trust for the saying of private masses for an individual was valid
13 of 30
Re Hetherington (1989)
Note: masses open to public are categorised as charitable
14 of 30
Re Thompson (1934)
A trust to promote these purposes was upheld – never been followed- here, trustee was prepared to act in accordance with settlor’s desires
15 of 30
Re Sanderson’s Trust (1857)
Trust “to pay or apply the whole or any part” towards the maintenance, accordance and comfort of his brother-not classified as private purpose trust as the purpose here provided merely the means to calculate the amount of the brother’s beneficial sha
16 of 30
Re Bowes (1896)
£5,000 left on trust to estate owners for purpose of planting trees on estate for shelter-land would have benefitted from £800 worth of trees, any further planting working to disadvantage of beneficiaries-held: estate owners were absolutely entitled
17 of 30
Re Denley’s Trust Deed (1969)
Trust to provide recreation ground for benefit of employees of company challenged as invalid purpose trust-held: not pure purpose trust as the employees were a class of ind’s with sufficient standing to enforce the trust
18 of 30
Re Denley’s Trust Deed (1969)
Goff J: “when, then, the trust though expressed as a purpose, is directly or indirectly for the benefit of an individual or individuals, it seems to me that it is in general outside the mischief of the beneficiary principle”
19 of 30
Conservative & Unionist Central Office v Burrell (1982)
CA: 5 characteristics of an unincorporated ***’n: Two or more persons; A non-business common purpose; The undertaking of mutual duties and obligations between members;A body of governing rules;A fluctuating body of members
20 of 30
Neville Estates v Madden (1962)
Three Possibilities re gifts to uninc ***'ns:gift to present individual members of the ***ociation at the date of the gift;gift on trust for the purposes of the ***ociation;gift to the members subject to their respective contractual rights and liabil
21 of 30
***** v Manners (1871)
testator left a share of his residue to the Dominican Convent “payable to the superior for the time being”; followed first option in Madden (1962)
22 of 30
Leahy v Attorney General of New South Wales (1959)
A gift of sheep station for “such order of nuns of the Catholic Church or the Christian brothers as my trustees shall select” held not gift for ind members-it was expressed to be for benefit of religious orders rather than specified ind’s-gift also n
23 of 30
Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General (2009)
Lewison J: “a form of beneficial ownership; that is to say that in some sense the property belongs to its members”
24 of 30
Re Lipinski’s Will Trust (1976)
Testator left part of residuary estate to Hull Judeans (Maccabi) ***’n-held: gift not pure purpose trust and was instead for benefit of the members, subject to their mutual obligations as members –gift valid as members had power to alter purpose for
25 of 30
Re Grants Will Trusts (1980)
If the members of the ***’n have no control over the funds, the trust will fail-here, a trust for purposes of Chertsey Labour Party Headquarters-members did not control property nor could they change their constitution to enable them to do so
26 of 30
Re Horley Town Football Club (2006)
Fact that 3rd parties have voting rights and can influence rule changes does not prevent the contract holding theory applying
27 of 30
Re Bucks Constabulary Fund (No 2) (1979)
On dissolution of unincorporated ***’n, funds are distributed to reflect how the members held the property in the first place in accordance with their contract- here, equal distribution of funds to surviving members (excluding former members) in line
28 of 30
Re Bucks Constabulary Fund (No 2) (1979)
Old law: traditionally, above rule gave way when the society is moribund-property was deemed to be ownerless and the funds went bona vacantia to the Crown
29 of 30
Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General (2009)
Lewison J: where an incorporated ***’n is reduced to a single member, the last remaining member becomes solely entitled to any surplus ***ets by way of the principle of survivorship
30 of 30

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

This is because, by their very nature their object is a purpose and thus they lack a beneficiary to enforce the trust (beneficiary principle

Back

Re Endacott (1960)

Card 3

Front

For a trust to be valid it must have a human beneficiary by whom the trust can be enforced

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Viscount Simonds: ‘”a gift can be made to persons (including a corporation) but not to a purpose or an object”

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Courts struck down private purpose trust benefitting: preservation of the independence of newspapers

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Equity & Trusts resources »