The court considered a discretionary distribution power given to trustees.
Held: Harman J said that the trustees were bound ‘to consider at all times during which the trust is to continue whether or no to distribute any and if so what part of the fund, and, if so, to whom they should distribute it.’
If all the beneficiaries being of full capacity are agreed among themselves to equal divisions they may compel the trustees to distribute the whole fund.
Harman J set out a distinction between, on the one hand, a power collateral, or appurtenant, or other powers ‘which do not impose a trust on the conscience of the donee’ and on the other hand a trust imposing a duty to distribute. As to the first, the learned judge said: ‘ I do not think it can be the law that it is necessary ‘to know of all the objects in order to appoint to any one of them’. As to the latter he said: ‘It seems to me there is much to be said for the view that he must be able to review the whole field in order to exercise his judgment properly’ though if the discretion is exercisable in favour of a very wide class the trustees need not ‘survey mankind from China to Peru.’
Harman J
[1953] Ch 672, [1953] 1 All ER 1150
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Inland Revenue v Broadway Cottages CA 26-Jul-1954
Two charitable trusts appealed against decisions disallowing their claim to allowance for relief against income tax of certain incomes.
Held: To be valid, a trust must be one which the Court can control and execute. In this case, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.471313
