swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Trusts - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 55 cases, and was prepared on 19 June 2015.In re Moritz  Ch 251
Trusts, Costs, Litigation Practice
Trustees had denied the defendants a sight of the exhibits to affidavits. Their' counsel argued for a settled practice that where an application is made by trustees for directions of the Beddoe kind, then the proposed defendant beneficiaries should not necessarily see all the evidence relating to the dispute. Counsel for the proposed beneficiary defendants, argued that he should be entitled to attend argue for his clients, on all matters including ones based on the so-far denied exhibits, and that it was for the Judge to say if those arguments were heard in the presence of parties other than the trustees who sought the directions of the court, though where one was considering beneficiaries and where their trust estate might bear the expense of the proposed litigation, it was beneficiaries' money that was being spent or being proposed to be spent. Held: Wynn-Parry J said: "Speaking for myself, so far as I know, it has been the practice of this court, without exception, over a great many years, that where, in such a case as this, application is made by a trustee ex necessis where there are disputes, for directions from the court as to whether or not proceedings should be brought against the defendants, those defendants are not entitled to be heard upon that application. The court acts upon such evidence as is placed before it and it expresses itself one way or the other." and
"As I understand it, the practice in this Division is that where a trustee finds it is compelled to ask for the directions of the court as to whether or not certain proceedings should be taken, while it is proper and indeed necessary to join the parties against whom the proposed relief is sought, those parties should not be present in Chambers when the matter is debated; and they should not be furnished with the evidence upon which the court is asked to act… Very frequently, the leave to proceed is limited, for instance, up to discovery, but it would seem to me to be a quite unjustified inroad upon what I conceive to be a very useful practice if I were to allow this application and to allow the two defendants not merely to be present at the beginning of the proceedings when the originating summons is heard, but to remain there throughout those proceedings and to have all the evidence on which the trustees are asking the court for its directions. I know of no precedent for it, and, in my view, it is completely against the established practice."
Re Steed's Will Trusts; CA 1960 -  Ch 407; [1960 1 All ER 487
Jones -v- Challenger; CA 1960 -  1 All ER 785;  1 QB 176
Compton -v- Compton; FD 1960 -  P 201
In Re Collard's Will Trusts; 1961 -  1 Ch 293
Wissenbruch -v- Wissenbruch 1961 SC 340
Re Burney's Settlement Trusts  1 WLR 545
The court approved a proposed variation of a trust.
In Re Pilkington's Will Trusts; Pilkington -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners; CA 1961 -  Ch 466
in Re Pilkington's Will Trusts; Pilkington -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners; CA 2-Jan-1961 -  Ch 488
Re Pauling's Settlement Trusts; ChD 1962 -  1 WLR 86
Neville Estates Ltd -v- Madden; ChD 1962 -  Ch 832
Hine -v- Hine; CA 1962 -  1 WLR 1124
In Re Pilkington's Will Trusts; Pilkington -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners; HL 1962 -  AC 612;  3 All ER 622;  3 WLR 1051; 106 Sol Jo 834; 40 Tax Cas 433
In Re Druce's Settlement Trusts; ChD 1962 -  1 WLR 363
In re Hubbard's Will Trusts; 1962 -  Ch 275
Chettiar -v- Chettiar; PC 14-Feb-1962 -  AC 294;  UKPC 1;  UKPC 4;  2 WLR 548;  2 All ER 238
New Zealand Netherlands Society "Oranje" Inc -v- Laurentuis Cornelis Kuys  1 WLR 1126
(New Zealand) The scope of a fiduciary duty may be modified by a course of dealing by the person to whom the duty is owed. "The obligation not to profit from a position of trust, or, as it sometimes relevant to put it, not to allow a conflict to arise between interest and duty, is one of strictness. The strength, and indeed the severity, of the rule has recently been emphasised by the House of Lords in Phipps v. Boardman …. It retains its vigour in all jurisdictions where the principles of equity are applied. Naturally it has different applications in different contexts. It applies, in principle, whether the case is one of a trust, express or implied, of partnership, of directorship of a limited company, of principal and agent, or master and servant, but the precise scope of it must be moulded according to the nature of the relationship." A trustee seeking to to obtain a benefit or incur or enter into any transaction which is a prima facie breach of his fiduciary duties, must make full and frank advance disclosure.
Wilson -v- Wilson  1 WLR 1470
Re Pauling's Settlement Trusts (No.1); CA 29-May-1963 -  EWCA Civ 5;  Ch 303;  3 All ER 1;  3 WLR 742
Re Pauling's Settlement Trusts (No 2); 1-Jun-1963 -  1 All ER 857;  3 WLR 742;  Ch 576
Re Van Gruisen's Will Trusts; ChD 1964 -  1 WLR 449
In re Dellow's Will Trusts; Lloyd's Bank -v- Institute of Cancer Research; ChD 1964 -  1 WLR 451;  1 All ER 771
In re Buckton's Settlement Trusts; 1964 -  Ch 497
In re Eaton  1 WLR 1269
In re T's Settlement Trusts; ChD 1964 -  Ch 158
Londonderry, Re; Henry Peat -v- Lady Helen Maglona Walsh  EWCA Civ 6;  3 All ER 855;  Ch 918;  2 WLR 229
3 Nov 1964
Harman LJ, Danckwerts LJ, Salmon LJ
Trustees exercising a discretionary power are not bound to disclose to their beneficiaries the reasons actuating them in coming to a decision.
[ Bailii ]
Bedson -v- Bedson; CA 1965 -  2 QB 666;  3 All ER 307
Phipps -v- Boardman; CA 1965 -  Ch 992
In re DML  Ch 1133
In Re Jones Will Trusts; ChD 11-Jan-1965 -  1 Ch 1124
Re Clore's Settlement Trusts; ChD 1966 -  1 WLR 955
Phipps -v- Boardman; HL 1966 -  3 All ER 721;  2 AC 46;  UKHL 2
In re Lysaght (deceased)  Ch 191
A general charitable purpose (or intention) should be recognised and given effect to, even though some particular directions given by the charity's founder are (or become) impracticable.
Pathirana -v- Pathirana; PC 28-Jun-1966 -  1 AC 233;  3 WLR 666;  UKPC 14
In re Tilley's Will Trusts; ChD 1967 -  Ch 1179
Holder -v- Holder; In re Frank Holder dec  EWCA Civ 2;  Ch 353;  1 All ER 665;  2 WLR 237
8 Dec 1967
Harman LJ, Danckwerts LJ, Sachs LJ
Wills and Probate, Trusts
[ Bailii ]
Holmden's Settlement Trusts, Re Holmden's Settlement, Re; HL 13-Dec-1967 -  AC 685;  UKHL 7
Gartside -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners; HL 13-Dec-1967 -  AC 553;  UKHL 6;  1 All ER 121;  TR 309;  2 WLR 277
Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd -v- Cradock (No 3); ChD 1968 -  1 WLR 1555;  2 All ER 1073
The Carnegie Trustees for the Universities of Scotland -v- The University of St Andrews; HL 1968 - 1968 SC (HL) 27
Re Ball's Settlement Trusts  1 WLR 899; 
Re Weston's Settlement Trusts; CA 1968 -  1 Ch 223;  3 All ER 338
Ulrich -v- Ulrich and Felton  1 WLR 180
Lord Denning MR and Diplock LJ
The parties had married, but bought a house when engaged. She had paid one-sixth of the acquisition cost in cash, and he raised the balance by a mortgage in his name. Held: It was wrong to treat a mortgage contribution as equivalent to a cash contribution.
in Re Wallace's Settlements; ChD 1968 -  1 WLR 71
Protheroe -v- Protheroe; CA 1-Feb-1968 -  EWCA Civ 7;  1 All ER 1111;  1 WLR 519; (1968) 19 P & CR 396
Whishaw -v- Stephens (on appeal from In re Gulbenkian's Settlement) (No 1); HL 31-Oct-1968 -  AC 508;  UKHL 5
Barclays Bank Ltd -v- Quistclose Investments Ltd; etc; HL 31-Oct-1968 -  AC 567;  UKHL 4
In re Denley's Trust Deed  1 Ch 373
The trustees of land in Gloucestershire were to maintain the land as a sports ground for the benefit of the employees of a company and also for "such other person or persons (if any) as the trustees may allow to use the same . . ." The Deed contained a perpetuity clause providing that if (a) the number of employees subscribing 2d per week each should be less than 75% of the workforce, or (b) if the land was no longer required as a sports ground, or (c) if the company went into liquidation, then the trustees were to convey the land to the General Hospital Cheltenham or as it should direct. The court was asked whether the trust and the gift over were valid. The company argued that the trust was invalid because of the absence of certainty as to beneficiaries, and the fund was therefore held for the company. For the employees it was argued that the trust was valid, but the gift over was invalid. It was held that the trust and the gift over were valid. "Where, then, the trust, although 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. . . The trust in the present case is limited in point of time so as to avoid any infringement of the rule against perpetuities and . . . it does not offend against the beneficiary principle; and unless, therefore, it is void for uncertainty, it is a valid trust. As it is a private trust and not a charitable one, it is clear that, however it be regarded, the individuals for whose benefit it is designed must be ascertained or capable of ascertainment at any given time …"
Carl Zeiss Stiftung -v- Herbert Smith No.2; CA 1969 -  2 WLR 427
Re CL  1 Ch 587
Trustees sought the court permission to distribute assets in such a way as to extinguish the beneficiary's interest in favour of her adopted children with a consequent saving of estate duty on her death with no real detriment to the material position of the beneficiary. Held: The word benefit included the proposed arrangement.
Denvir -v- Denvir 1969 SLT 301
in Re: Abrahams' Will Trust  1 Ch 463
The trustees of a 1948 settlement had advanced funds in 1957 by way of a new settlement, the terms of which did not comply with the rule against perpetuities. Not all the terms of the 1957 settlement would infringe the rule against perpetuities, but the effect of the rule was extensive. For example a child had a life interest subject to protective trusts. The effect of the rule was that the life interest was valid but that the discretionary trusts arising on forfeiture would be invalid, so that, upon a forfeiture, the property would be held on the trusts of the original 1948 settlement. The argument in favour of holding the advancement wholly void was advanced by the Inland Revenue. Held. The revenue succeeded.
Cross J said: "The power which the trustees purported to exercise by setting up Carole's fund (to take her as an example) and declaring the trusts of it which are contained in the 1957 settlement was a power exercisable for the benefit of Carole, and for nobody else. The various other persons to whom the settlement purported to give benefits were not objects of that power of advancement. The position was that the trustees had a discretion as to the manner in which they would benefit Carole, and they considered that an appropriate way to benefit her would be to create this settlement under which beneficial interests were given to other members of her family besides herself. If one looks at the matter in that way, it seems to me reasonable to hold that the effect of the invalidity of some of the limitations in the settlement by reason of the rule against perpetuities may not be the same as it would have been had the settlement been created by the exercise of a special power of appointment under which all the supposed beneficiaries were objects. It is one thing to say that if a trustee has power to appoint a fund to all or any of a class of objects and he appoints a life interest to one object which is not void for perpetuity and remainders to other objects which are void, then the life interest survives the invalidity of the remainders; but it is another thing to say that if a trustee has power to benefit A. in a number of different ways and he chooses to benefit him by making a settlement on him for life with remainders to his issue, which remainders are void for perpetuity, then A can claim to obtain that part of the benefit intended for him which is represented by the life interest. The interests given to separate objects of an ordinary special power are separate interests, but all the interests created in Carole's fund were intended as part and parcel of a single benefit to her." and
"Of course, it may well be that, if the invalidity caused by the operation of the rule against perpetuities is quite small as compared with the parts of the settlement which are unaffected by the rule, the court might be prepared to say that the valid parts of the settlement would survive intact. Thus Lord Evershed MR held in the Vestey case that the exercise of the discretion there could be upheld notwithstanding the fact that the trustees were to some extent under a misapprehension as to what its effect would be. But here there is no doubt that the effect of the operation of the rule is wholly to alter the character of the settlement. In my judgment the result of that must be that there never was a valid exercise by the trustees of the power of advancement."
In re Abrahams' Will Trusts; 1969 -  1 Ch 463
In Re Holt's Settlement; ChD 1969 -  1 Ch 100
Pettitt -v- Pettitt; HL 23-Apr-1969 -  2 WLR 966;  2 All ER 385;  AC 777;  UKHL 5
|Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.|