Trust Law: Anomalous Exceptions & Problems

A trust is a legal arrangement where one person (the trustee) holds property for the benefit of another (the beneficiary).

The beneficiary principle states that a trust must have identifiable beneficiaries who can enforce their rights.

Certainty of intention to create a trust is essential. The settlor must clearly demonstrate their intention to create a trust by their words or actions.

The trust property must be clearly defined and identifiable. It must be clear what specific property is subject to the trust.

The beneficiaries of the trust must be clearly identifiable. This is important because beneficiaries have rights to the trust property.

Constitution of a trust requires the transfer of the trust property to the trustee. This means the trustee must have legal control over the property.

A valid gift requires clear intention to make the gift, delivery of the gift, and acceptance by the recipient.

The term 'relatives' can be unclear. It could be interpreted broadly as all family members or more narrowly as immediate family. This uncertainty can make it difficult to identify the beneficiaries.

A legal principle stating that the transfer of ownership of tangible property requires physical delivery.

A British law that sets out the requirements for valid transfer of property. It states that a disposition (transfer) of an equitable interest (ownership) in land must be in writing and signed.

A situation where the meaning of a term is vague or uncertain, making it impossible to determine who benefits from a trust or will.

The transfer of ownership of a property requires the seller to 'put the matter beyond their control', meaning they can no longer change their decision to transfer ownership.

A principle where the transfer of a property with a clear promise to transfer is unlikely to be revoked, even if not formally completed.

The case of McPhail v Doulton (1971) established the test for certainty of objects in a discretionary trust, while Hunter v Moss (1994) established the test for certainty of subject matter for intangible property.

A trust is likely to be recognized when the settlor (donor) has done everything within their power to transfer the legal title of property to the trustee (receiver). If the settlor has retained control over the property, the trust will not be effective.

This case established that an oral declaration of trust regarding the ownership of shares is not enough to create a valid trust unless the shares have been transferred to the trustee's name according to the Stock Transfer Act 1963.

This case established that the transfer needs to be in writing and signed to be valid. This applies to transactions involving land or an interest in land.

This case affirmed that a gift of property is not complete until the donor has done everything in their power to transfer the legal title, which can be an act of delivery.

This case highlighted the importance of the donor's intention to make a gift, and their actions taken towards completing the gift (e.g., signing the transfer documents).

This case dealt with a trust where the objects (beneficiaries) were not defined clearly. The court confirmed that a trust is uncertain if the beneficiaries cannot be identified with reasonable certainty.

This case dealt with the concept of a transfer of legal title, even when the donor had done everything in their power to transfer the title but the legal process was delayed. It essentially allows for 'equitable ownership' to exist when the legal title hasn't yet transferred.

This case revolved around trusts for charitable purposes. It's a landmark case that clarified the definition of a charitable trust and gave the court the power to make amendments to charitable trusts to ensure the intended purpose of the trust could be carried out.