Scott v The National Trust: ChD 12 Nov 1998

The Trust applied to be joined in an application by the plaintiffs.
Neuberger J
[1998] EWHC 318 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromScott v The National Trust CA 1998
Trustees, in the exercise of their fiduciary discretions, are under constraints which do not apply to adult individuals disposing of their own property. Walker LJ said: ‘Certain points are clear beyond argument. Trustees must act in good faith, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 January 2021; Ref: scu.263756

Singh v Bhasin and Others: ChD 21 Aug 1998

A trustee who defended a claim would always be at risk of an order to pay the costs personally even if advised by counsel to defend if he did not seek a protective Beddoe order before defending.
Times 21-Aug-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam CA 1893
In case of doubt as to the desirability of the intended proceedings (whether as plaintiff or defendant), trustees may apply to the court for directions. This will protect the trustees from adverse costs orders. If given leave to sue or defend by the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.89271

Darby v Darby; Rebecca Darby v Alfred Edmund William Darby, Alice Mary Darby, Alfreda Lucy Darby, Abraham Darby: 8 Mar 1856

A. and B. purchased land on a joint speculation with their joint monies for the purpose of laying it out in building plots, and reselling it at the joint profit or loss of A. and B. Held, that it was converted out and out, and the share of one of the partners deceased in part of the unrealised real estate passed to his personal representatives.
[1856] EngR 328, (1856) 3 Drew 495, (1856) 61 ER 992
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.291083

Polly Peck International Plc v The Marangos Hotel Company Ltd and Others: CA 7 May 1998

Leave had been given for the insolvent plaintiff company to bring proceedings. The defendant now challenged that leave.
Held: A claim that a massively insolvent company had wrongfully occupied Turkish Cypriot property would not allow a claim of remedial constructive trust against assets held by liquidator here. A so-called ‘remedial constructive trust’ is not known in English law. Mummery LJ pointed to the lack of any material distinction between compulsory winding up and administration.
Nourse LJ, Potter LJ, Mummery LJ
Times 18-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 789, [1998] 3 All ER 812, [1998] 2 BCLC 185
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedUltraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
CitedHarms Offshore AHT Taurus Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others CA 26-Jun-2009
The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the release of assets from attachment by the court in new York.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 December 2020; Ref: scu.144267

Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire and Another: ChD 25 Feb 2000

The claimant had an equitable charge over the property, and sought a possession order after failures to keep up repayments. The order was sought under the Act, and the claimants asserted that the conditions for the grant of possession were unchanged.
Held: Parliament had clearly intended a change. The interests of a chargee ranked alongside those of, for example, children living in the house. This might act to the detriment of banks, and the old authorities, whilst not entirely irrelevant, should be viewed with caution. Where the parties have reached a consensus on the beneficial interests in the property, the court will give effect to it, unless there is very good reason for not doing so, such as a subsequent renegotiation.
Neuberger J
Gazette 16-Mar-2000, Times 21-Mar-2000, [2000] 1 FLR 973, [2001] Ch 743, [2000] EWHC Ch 452
Bailii
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14 15, Law of Property Act 1925 30
Cited by:
CitedStack v Dowden CA 13-Jul-2005
The parties purchased a property together. The transfer contained a survivorship restriction but no declaration of the beneficial interests. The judge had held the property to be held as tenants in commn on equal shares.
Held: In a case where . .
[2006] 1 FLR 254, [2005] EWCA Civ 857
CitedStack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
[2007] 2 WLR 831, [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 All ER 929, [2007] 2 WLR 831, [2007] AC 432, Times 26-Apr-07, [2007] 1 FLR 1858, [2007] BPIR 913, [2007] Fam Law 593, [2007] 2 FCR 280, [2007] 18 EG 153, (2006-07) 9 ITELR 815, [2007] WTLR 1053

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.83867

Clarke (Executor of the Will of Francis Bacon, Deceased) v Marlborough Fine Art (London) Ltd and Another: ChD 5 Jul 2001

Francis Bacon sold his paintings through the defendant agents for many years. The original contractual arrangement grew into a fiduciary one. The claimants asserted that the defendants were in breach of that fiduciary duty, the defendants asserted that the relationship remained contractual, and that it was now time barred.
Held: There may be a true constructive trust which would not be time barred, rather than a remedial constructive trust. The test was whether the trustee was a true trustee, whether of a constructive or an express trust. Nor was it clear that a court of equity would have time barred a claim in undue influence.
Patten J
Times 05-Jul-2001
Limitation Act 1980 36(1)(f)
Cited by:
CitedMcLaughlin and Others v Newall QBD 31-Jul-2009
The claimant asked the court to strike out the defence that the claimant had compromised his claim by agreement. The defendant had written letters critical of the claimants who were governors of a school which had disciplined his daughter a teacher . .
[2009] EWHC 1925 (QB)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.79197

Bath and Wells Diocesan Board of Finance and Another v Jenkinson and Others: ChD 6 Sep 2000

Where there was a gift of land on charitable trusts, but where the gift was first expressed to be unlimited in time, but later in the deed provided powers for revocation, and conditions for defeasance, it must remain a matter of construction of the particular deed to decide whether the gift was in perpetuity. In the current cases the reversionary provisions were void for remoteness, and the trustees had acquire a possessory title for charity on the trusts of the original deeds.
Times 06-Sep-2000, Gazette 05-Oct-2000

Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.78288

Alsop Wilkinson v Neary and Others: ChD 4 Nov 1994

The second defendant, a solicitor, had fraudulently taken money from trusts, and paid money into trusts for his own family. It was claimed that the payments were intended to defeat the recovery of the funds. The trustees sought protection on costs through a Beddoe application.
Held: Trustees who sought directions from the court on whether to defend an action, should ask that question in separate proceedings begun for that purpose. By applying within the proceedings, they exposed the strengths and weaknesses of the trustees’ case: ‘it would be quite inappropriate for all this to be revealed to the court which has to try the case or the other parties to the litigation.’ Nor did the application bring the necessary parties before the court. A trustee has a duty to remain neutral when the trust faces hostile litigation regarding the validity of trust itself.
Lightman J
Independent 03-Nov-1994, Times 04-Nov-1994, [1995] 1 All ER 431
Insolvency Act 1986 423
Citing:
CitedFearns v Young 1804
A trustees’ duty may extend to taking or defending proceedings to protect the assets of the trust. . .
(1804) 10 Ves 184
CitedIn re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam CA 1893
In case of doubt as to the desirability of the intended proceedings (whether as plaintiff or defendant), trustees may apply to the court for directions. This will protect the trustees from adverse costs orders. If given leave to sue or defend by the . .
[1893] 1 Ch 547
CitedJenour v Jenour 1804
A trustee taking legal action properly to defend the assets of the trust can expect to be indemnified from those assets. . .
(1805) 10 Ves 562
CitedRe Biddencare Ltd ChD 1994
The court set out the principles applicable on making a Beddoe application. The court should consider the strength of the case, the likely costs order in the eventual proceedings, and the justice of the application itself. . .
[1994] 2 BCLC 160
DoubtedIdeal Bedding Company Ltd v Holland 1907
The plaintiffs had obtained against the trustees an order that the settlement was void as against the plaintiffs and other creditors. The court considered the trustees’ position on costs.
Held: A trustee has a duty to defend the trust, and . .
[1907] 2 Ch 157
CitedMcDonald and Others v Horn and Others CA 8-Aug-1994
A court may make a pre-emptive award of costs to pension fund members who wished to sue the trustees. Hoffmann LJ said: ‘if one looks at the economic relationships involved, there does seem to me to be a compelling analogy between a minority . .
Ind Summary 08-Aug-94, Times 10-Aug-94, [1995] 1 All ER 961, (1994) 144 NLJ 1515, [1995] ICR 685, [1995] 1 CR 685
CitedNational Anti-Vivisection Society Ltd v Duddington 23-Nov-1998
The trustee of the Society had actively defended a trust action but failed. He sought an indemnity for his costs.
Held: He was not entitled to an indemnity for costs out of the trust assets. His acts had preferred one group of beneficiaries . .
Times 23-Nov-85

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.77770

Nestle v National Westminster Bank: ChD 1988

The plaintiff was the remainder beneficiary under the will trust of her grandfather, who died in 1922. The trust fund was then worth about andpound;50,000. The last outstanding life interest under the trust was that of her father John, who died in 1986. Thereafter she was absolutely entitled to the trust fund, by that time worth some andpound;269, 203. The plaintiff complained that, after adjusting the 1922 value for changes in the retail prices index to date, it should have been worth about andpound;1 million. She further said that, if adjusted for increases in the ordinary shares index on the stock market, that part of the fund which her grandfather had invested in ordinary shares would have been worth over andpound;1.8 million. She attributed the fact that it was not worth so much to breach of trust on the part of the bank trustee in both misinterpreting the trust investment clause and investing badly.
Held: Hoffmann J said: ‘There was a claim by Miss Nestle for income accounts for the funds since their inception. For the period during which any income might have accrued to capital, namely until John Nestle turned 25 in 1938, those accounts were delivered a long time ago. In respect of the period since that date she has as a capital beneficiary no interest in the disposal of the income and is not in my judgment entitled to accounts.’
Hoffmann J
[2000] WTLR 795, (1988) 10 Tru LI 112
Cited by:
CitedRoyal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .
[2016] EWHC 1948 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.567851

In re Tillott: ChD 1892

The plaintiff was entitled under a will trust to a one twelfth share in the capital of the residue, contingently on the death of his mother, who was a life tenant. The residue included Bank of England Consols. He had already obtained from the court an order that the defendant will trustee write to the Bank of England authorising it to inform the plaintiff of the amount of such Consols and to produce all the documents relating to property in which the plaintiff was interested. He now sought an order that the defendant trustee authorise the Bank to inform him of any incumbrances on that property, such as charging orders or stop notices. The trustee objected, on the grounds that the plaintiff might thereby obtain information as to the dealings of other contingently entitled remaindermen with their own shares.
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to have the further information sought, so that he would know whether the fund in which he was interested was incumbered or not.
Speaking of the trustee’s argument, Chitty J said: ‘this may give the Plaintiff more information than he is entitled to ask, because as there are twelve shares in this fund, it may be that there are several distringases of the fund obtained by persons who have charges on the continent interest of the other persons, and it is clear that the trustee is not bound to give the cestui que trust of one share any information as to the dealings of the other cestui que trust in whose share he has no interest, shewing whether those shares are or are not incumbranced.’
Chitty J
[1892] 1 Ch 86
Cited by:
CitedRoyal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .
[2016] EWHC 1948 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.567852

Brittlebank v Goodwin: 1868

A trustee is bound to inform a beneficiary, who, on attaining majority is entitled to share in a trust fund, of that interest
(1868) LR 5 Eq 545
Cited by:
CitedRoyal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .
[2016] EWHC 1948 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.567856

In re Dartnall: CA 1895

[1895] 1 Ch 474
Cited by:
CitedRoyal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .
[2016] EWHC 1948 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.567853

In Re Skinner: ChD 1904

A beneficiary of a will trust brought an action for an account, having had little or no accounting from the executors and trustees (one a professional solicitor, entitled to charge) since the testator died more than two years before the action was commenced. The court made a full administration order, and the question whether the executor trustees should pay the costs was reserved.
Held: After further argument, Farwell J held that the plaintiff was entitled to her costs. He said: ‘The gist of the complaints against the defendants . . is that they would not, and did not, render any proper accounts, though repeatedly requested to do so by the plaintiff and by . . their co-executor. Now it is clear that in the case of a small estate like this it is very hard that the plaintiff should be obliged to have recourse to proceedings of this nature in order to get an account. I am always unwilling to make trustees pay costs; but, on the other hand, beneficiaries have a right to expect the performance of their duty by executors, and not the less when one of them has power to make professional charges. In my opinion the conduct of these two defendants amounts to a gross neglect to account. ‘
Farwell J
[1904] 1 Ch 289
Citing:
AppliedHeugh v Scard CA 1875
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘In certain cases of mere neglect or refusal to furnish accounts, when the neglect is very gross or the refusal wholly indefensible, I reserve to myself the right of making the executor or trustee pay the costs of . .
(1875) 33 LT 659

Cited by:
CitedRoyal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .
[2016] EWHC 1948 (Ch)
CitedBlades v Isaac and Another ChD 21-Mar-2016
Claim by beneficiary under discretionary trust.
Held: A trustee’s wrongful failure to provide information does not necessarily justify an adverse costs order. . .
[2016] EWHC 601 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.567857

Re Cowin: 1886

(1886) 33 ChD 179
Cited by:
CitedRoyal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .
[2016] EWHC 1948 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.567854

Re Boyer’s Settled Estates: 1916

A right to reside shared by two persons was recognized as a valid and effective right. Sargant J said: ‘I think that the effect of s58 is, broadly speaking, to give to the large class of persons comprised in the nine headings of subs(1) of s58 the powers of a tenant for life, although they are not strictly tenants for life by reason of their estates not being strictly estates for life. But, apart from that, I think that the persons who are dealt with under s58 are persons who fall within the general defining provisions of s2(5), under which in determining tenancy you have to regard beneficial title to possession’.
Sargant J
[1916] 2 Ch 404
Settled Land Act 1882 2(5) 58
Cited by:
CitedBinions v Evans CA 27-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs had bought a cottage subjecty to a tenancy to the defendant. They sought possession saying that she held under a tenancy at will. It was a renancy for her life but described as a tenancy at will. The judge had held that the other . .
[1972] 2 All ER 70, [1972] Ch 359, [1972] EWCA Civ 6, [1972] 2 All ER 70, [1972] Ch 359, [1972] 2 WLR 729, [1972] EWCA Civ 6, [1972] 2 WLR 729

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.450173

Whitmarsh v Robertson: 25 Jan 1845

By a marriage settlement certain stock in the funds was settled upon the intended husband and wife for their joint lives and the life of the survivor, and then upon the children of the marriage, with a power to the trustees, with the consent of the wife, to advance part of the fund for the benefit of the children in her lifetime. were four children of the marriage. The husband died. The wife married again. The second husband assigned the wife’s life interest for value. After the assignment the trustees, with the consent of the wife, exercised the power of advancement in favour of the children of the first marriage. Held, that the power was well executed as against the assignee of the second husband.
[1845] EngR 416, (1845) 1 Coll 570, (1845) 63 ER 548
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.303558

Chamberlain v Hutchinson: 9 Jul 1856

A lady had a general power of appointing a trust fund by deed or will, and in default, half was limited to A. arid the other to B. By her will, she appointed the fund to her executor arid made it chargeable with her debts and some legacies, and she gave half the residue, composed of the appointed fund and her own property, to A. Held, that the moiety of the fund subject to the power thus appointed in favour of A. passed to the appointor’s next of kin, as part of her estate undisposed of, and not to the executors of A. as in default of appointment.
[1856] EngR 762, (1856) 22 Beav 444, (1856) 52 ER 1179
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.291517

Mussumat Thukrain Sookraj Koowar v Government, Baboo Ajeet Sing, And Others: PC 3 Jul 1871

In Oude, before its annexation to the British rule, a Rajah was a TaIookdar of a large Talook. A younger branch of his family had a separate Mehal in the possession of A., wholly distinct from and independent of the Talook the Rajah possessed as representing the elder branch of the family. The Oude Government, for fiscal purposes, included A’s Mehal with the Rajah’s Talook so that the Rajah as the elder branch of the family represented A.’s Mehal at the Court at Lucknow, notwithstanding that A. remained in undisturbed possession as absolute Owner, paying through the Rajah for his Mehal a proportion of the jumma fixed on the Talook. This relation between the Rajah and A. subsisted up to the time of the annexation of Oude by the British Government. While the Government was making a settlement with the Landowners, and A. was about to apply for a distinct settlement of his Mehal, he, and after him his Widow was, induced by the Rajah not to do so, the Rajah in Letters fully recognizing As absolute right to the Mehal. After the suppression of the rebellion in Oude, and the Government had recognized the Talookdary tenure with its rights, a provisional settlement of the Talook including A.’s Mehal, was made with the Rajah ; but before a Sunnud was granted to him, Government confiscated half his estate for concealment of Arms. The Rajah suppressed the fact of the trust relation of the Mehal of A., and contrived that it should be included in the half part of the estate the Government had confiscated ; which Mehal the Government as a reward granted to Oude loyalists. A.’s Widow brought a suit against the Government and the Grantees for the restoration of the Mehal and a settlement, The Financial Commissioner held that as the Rajah was the registered Owner of the Mehal of A., included in his Talook, it had been properly forfeited. Such finding reversed on appeal, on the ground that A. was the acknowledged cestui que trust of the Rajah, and that A.’s Widow, as equitable Owner was not affected as between her and the Government by the act of confiscation of half the Rajah’s Talook.
[1871] EngR 27, (1871) 14 Moo Ind App 112, (1871) 20 ER 728
Commonlii

Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.280208

Pryor v Pryor: CA 29 Apr 1864

Parents having a power of appointing an estate to all or any of their children appointed it absolutely to two of their sons, upon the understanding that the appointments should resettle the estate upon certain trusts for the benefit of all the children then living during their respective lives, and subject thereto for the benefit of the children of the sons. This resettlement was made by a contemporaneous deed. Held, that the transaction could not be supported by analogy to the common case of an appointment to a daughter in contemplation of her marriage, accompanied by a contemporaneous settlement of the appointed fund, but that the appointment was void in equity, as made upon a bargain for the benefit of persons not objects of the power,
Knight Bruce LJ
[1864] EngR 412, (1864) 3 De G J and S 205, (1864) 46 ER 353
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedEclairs Group Ltd and Glengary Overseas Ltd v JKX Oil and Gas Plc SC 2-Dec-2015
Company Director not Trustee but is Fiduciary
The Court was asked about an alleged ‘corporate raid’, an attempt to exploit a minority shareholding in a company to obtain effective management or voting control without paying what other shareholders would regard as a proper price.
Held: The . .
[2015] UKSC 71, [2015] WLR(D) 497, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 413, [2016] 3 All ER 641, [2016] BCC 79, [2015] BUS LR 1395, [2016] 1 BCLC 1, UKSC 2014/0179

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.282126

Rochdale Canal Company v King: 1853

Sir John Romilly MR said: ‘The principle on which the Defendants rely is one often recognised by this Court, namely, that if one man stand by and encourage another, though but passively, to lay out money, under an erroneous opinion of title, or under the obvious expectation that no obstacle will afterwards be interposed in the way of his enjoyment, the Court will not permit any subsequent interference with it, by him who formally promoted and encouraged those acts of which he now either complains or seeks to take advantage. This is the rule laid down in Dann v Spurrier (7 Ves 231), Powell v Thomas (6 Hare 300), and many other cases, to which it is unnecessary to refer, because the principle is clear.’
Sir John Romilly MR
(1853) 16 Beav 630
Citing:
CitedDann v Spurrier 1802
The tenant had carried out improvements to the property. It was uncertain whether the length of the term (7, 14 or 21 years) was at the option of the lessee alone.
Held: The case was decided on construction of the lease. Lord Eldon made it . .
(1802) 7 Ves Jun 231, [1789] EngR 482, (1789-1817) 2 Ves Jun Supp 26, (1789) 34 ER 982 (A)

Cited by:
CitedYeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
[2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 35 EG 142, [2008] 31 EG 88, [2008] WTLR 1461, [2008] 1 WLR 1752

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.276430

Re Smith: 1880

Once an estate has been administered, the personal representative becomes a trustee; and at that stage the court’s inherent jurisdiction to control trusts arises allowing if necessary an order for his removal.
(1880) 42 Ch D 302
Cited by:
CitedThe Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation v Carvel and Another ChD 11-Jun-2007
The husband and wife had made mutual wills in the US with an express agreement not to make later alterations or dispositions without the agreement of the other or at all after the first death. The wife survived, but having lost the first will made a . .
[2007] EWHC 1314 (Ch), [2007] 4 All ER 81

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.267735

Re Lead Co.’s Workmen’s Fund Society: 1904

[1904] 2 Ch 196
Cited by:
CitedHunt and Another v McLaren and others ChD 4-Oct-2006
Land had been given to a football club under a trust for its exclusive use as such. That land was sold and a new ground acquired and a stadium built, but the land was subject to restrictive covenenats limiting its use to sports, which considerably . .
[2006] EWHC 2386 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.245261

Re Ball’s Settlement Trusts: ChD 1968

The curt was asked whether a resettlement of part of a trust fund on a new trust could be a variation which the court could approve under the 1958 Act.
Held: A variation under the Act must not be such as to change the fundamentals of the trust.
Megarry J said: ‘If an arrangement changes the whole substratum of the trust, then it may well be that it cannot be regarded merely as varying that trust. But, if an arrangement, while leaving the substratum, effectuates the purpose of the original trusts by other means, it may still be possible to regard that arrangement as merely varying the original trusts, even though the means employed are wholly different and even though the form is completely changed.’
Megarry J
[1968] 1 WLR 899
ariation of Trusts Act 1958
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGoulding and Goulding v James and Daniel CA 10-Dec-1996
The family sought approval of a proposed variation of the will to make best advantage of tax allowances. Because the beneficial interests of children would be affected, the court’s approval was necessary. The judge had refused to approve the . .
Times 07-Feb-97, [1996] EWCA Civ 1156, [1997] 2 All ER 239

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.241671

Cowcher v Cowcher: 1972

Where property is to be transferred into the names of two or more people, solicitors should take the instructions of transferees as to the beneficial interests in the transferred property.
Bagnall J
[1972] 1 WLR 425
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCrossley v Crossley CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed an order that a house was to be held in equal shares with her son. The house was registered in their joint names, but the transfer contained no declaration of the interests. The house had been originally bought by the mother . .
[2005] EWCA Civ 1581

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.237545

Barclay v Barclay: CA 1970

The question arose prior to sale between the sole trustee and an occupying beneficial tenant in common as to whether the property should be sold.
Held: The trustee of land was entitled to sell the property and divide the proceeds as the prime object of the trust was that the house should be sold, notwithstanding the fact that one of the beneficiaries had subsequently moved into the house.
[1970] 2 QB 677
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWilkinson v Chief Adjudication Officer CA 24-Mar-2000
The claimant owned a half share in a property. It was said that this brought her disposable capital above the limit to make a claim. She had inherited it, but had transferred it to her brother in satisfaction of her mother’s wishes. . .
[2000] EWCA Civ 88

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.207072

In re Locker’s Settlement Meachem v Sachs: 1977

The court considered how the trustees of a pension scheme could appropriate different parts of the funds as between long standing and new classes of members.
Held: Objects (that is, those who had only recently qualified as beneficiaries) could not benefit from what he called stale income (that is, income which ought to have been distributed at an earlier date).
Goulding J
[1977] 1 WLR 1323
Cited by:
CitedBank of New Zealand v Board of Management of the Bank of New Zealand Officers’ Provident Association PC 14-Jul-2003
PC (New Zealand) The defendant operated a superannuation scheme for and on behalf of the officers of the bank it regulated. The trustees ought to amend the scheme, but it had been set up by statute.
Held: . .
[2003] UKHL 58

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.195609

Pullen v Palmer: 1696

The essential difference between tenants in common and joint tenants is that while tenants in common may hold their lands either by several titles or by several rights, joint tenants hold them by one title and by one right. There is no difference as to the possession and manner of taking profits.
(1696) 3 Salk 207
England and Wales

Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.190119

Murphy v Murphy: ChD 2 May 1998

Where a plaintiff could show that he might have some potential interest under a discretionary trust, the settlor could be obliged by the court to disclose the names and addresses of the settlement trustees.
Times 02-May-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 282
Cited by:
CitedRoyal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .
[2016] EWHC 1948 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.84129

In Re Estate of Monica Dale Dec, Proctor v Dale: ChD 11 Feb 1993

The claimant’s parents had made mutual wills dividing their estates equally between the claimant and her brother. After the father’s death the mother chaged her will to give the biggest benefit to the brother.
Held: The mother could change her will, but was under a binding trust to deal with the assets subject to the mutuality trust in accordance with that trust. With the rules on mutual wills, the element of mutuality operates to extend the enforceability to allow others beyond the couple making the wills to enforce the gifts agreed to be made. The aim of the principle was to prevent one party who transferred assets relying upon the mutuality of the wills to protect them, from being defrauded. The doctrine did not depend upon the second testator having received a benefit under the first will. To be enforceable there had to be a legally binding contract to make and not to revoke wills and one testator had had to have died having performed his or her part of that bargain.
Morritt J
Gazette 07-Apr-1993, Times 16-Feb-1993, Independent 14-Apr-1993, [1993] 4 All ER 129
Citing:
CitedDufour v Pereira 1769
Nature of Joint and Mutual Wills
The court was asked as to the validity and effect of a single joint will.
Held: Lord Camden considered the nature of joint or mutual wills. Lord Camden LC said: ‘The parties by mutual will do each of them devise, upon the engagement of the . .
(1769) 1 Dick 419, (1769) 2 Harg Jurid Arg 304, [1769] EngR 63, (1769) Dick 419, (1769) 21 ER 332
CitedLord Walpole v Lord Orford HL 1797
The court considered the difference between an obligation accepted in law, and what was described as ‘an honourable engagement’. . .
(1797) 3 Ves Jun 402, [1797] EngR 489, (1797) 3 Ves Jun 402, (1797) 30 ER 1076

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.81867

D’Abo v Paget and Others (No 2): ChD 10 Aug 2000

Where a beneficiary having brought successful action against the trust fund, the rule in In re Buckton should still apply, but where the trustees could have brought the same action themselves, and had been ready and willing to do so, the beneficiary should not be awarded costs out of the trust fund. Under the new procedure, the court should take a more robust attitude to such claims. In effect the sole reason for the claimant’s participation was to make a claim for costs if the trustees failed.
Gazette 05-Oct-2000, Times 10-Aug-2000

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.79774

Abrahams v Trustee In Bankruptcy of Abrahams: ChD 26 Jul 1999

A member of a lottery syndicate having paid into it, acquired the right that any winnings should be held in trust upon the terms of the syndicate’s lottery agreement which then applied. It was possible that such a right could be held as a property right upon a resulting trust. A couple, members of a syndicate, separated, but the wife paid in both names. She was entitled since she was the originator of both fees.
Times 26-Jul-1999, Gazette 11-Aug-1999

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.77621

Campbell v Gillespie: ChD 1900

Certain businesses and property were held on trusts for the benefit of the Claimant’s creditors, with the Defendant the trustee. The estate was re-conveyed to the Plaintiff and the re-conveyance contained a recital that the Plaintiff’s debts had been paid. At that stage a detailed account was not required and not long afterwards the trustee destroyed all the books of account. The Plaintiff then alleged that the trustee had acted fraudulently and brought a claim for fraud and an account on the basis of wilful default. Those elements of the claim were not pursued and the Plaintiff now sought only an order for a common account.
Held: A court had a discretion under Order 55 rule 10, to decline to make an order for an account and although Cozens-Hardy J felt ‘unable to acquit the defendant of some misconduct’ declined to make an order to direct a common account from 1887 – 1896 as to do so ‘ . . would be to enable the plaintiff to blackmail the defendant.’
Cozens-Hardy J
[1900] 1 Ch 225
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHenchley and Others v Thompson ChD 16-Feb-2017
The Claimants sought an order directing the Defendant to provide a full account of his dealings with the assets of the two trusts as a trustee or as a de facto trustee.
Held: The court has a discretion whether or not to make an order for an . .
[2017] EWHC 225 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.608335

Attorney General v Cocke: ChD 1988

Harman J
[1988] 1 Ch 414
Limitation Act 1980 21(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHenchley and Others v Thompson ChD 16-Feb-2017
The Claimants sought an order directing the Defendant to provide a full account of his dealings with the assets of the two trusts as a trustee or as a de facto trustee.
Held: The court has a discretion whether or not to make an order for an . .
[2017] EWHC 225 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.608336

Jones v Morgan: 24 Mar 1783

(Lincoln’s Inn Hall) Devise to trustees to pay debts, then to stand seised to the use of A ‘for Life, without impeachment of waste ; after his decease to the use of the heirs male of his body, severally, respectively, and in remainder, is an estate-tail in A. Where tenant for life pays off an incumbrance upon the estate, he shall be considered as a creditor for the money so paid ; but where tenant in tail pays, it is in exoneration of the estate of which he may make himself absolute owner. This is merely a general rule of presumption or primary inference ; and therefore liable to be rebutted by circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
[1783] EngR 55, (1778, 1783) 1 Bro CC 206, (1783) 28 ER 1086
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.372184

Stiffe v Everitt: 23 Jan 1836

A testator gave his residuary estate to trustees, upon trust to invest the proceeds, and pay the profits, dividends, or interest thereof to the separate use of his daughter for life, exclusive of any husband she might marry, without power of anticipation, but with a power to appoint the capital of the fund, such appointment to take effect only from and after her decease. The daughter, who, at the date of the will, and at the testator’s death, was a feme sole, afterwards married, ancl joined with her hushand in petitioning to have the fund transferrecl to him absolutely, oflering, at the same time, to execute any appointment which the Court might think proper for that purpose ; but the Court refused to make any order.
Semble, a husband and wife cannot effectually clispose of the life interest of the wife in a fund not settled to her seperate use, heyond the duration of the coverture.
[1836] EngR 342, (1836) 1 My and Cr 37, (1836) 40 ER 290
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.314674

Ann Rycroft, The Wife Of Henry Rycroft, And Pamela Rycroft, An Infant, By Their Next Friend v William M Christy And Henry Rycroft: 15 Jun 1840

A feme covert made a disposition of property, as to which it was doubtful whether it;
was settled to her separate use, The husband disclaimed.
Held: That whether separate property or riot, the husband’s disclaimer gave effect to the disposition of
the wife.
[1840] EngR 693, (1840) 3 Beav 238, (1840) 49 ER 93
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.310119

Re Walker: 1901

[1901] 1 Ch 897
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedX v A and others ChD 29-Nov-2005
The wife sought confirmation that the trustees of a discretionary marriage settlement created by her husband could release sums which she intended to pay out for charitable purposes.
Held: The trust required money to be released for the . .
[2005] EWHC 2706 (Ch), Times 10-Jan-06, [2006] 1 WLR 741

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 December 2020; Ref: scu.237755

Jones v Westcomb: 1711

A gift on a contingency which does not occur nevertheless takes effect on the happening of an event which is a fortiori.
(1711) Prec Ch 316
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Applied – Brock v Bradley 1864
    A legacy to a single woman if she survives her husband takes effect if she never marries. . .
    (1864) 33 B 670
  • Cited – Venables and others v Hornby (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 4-Dec-2003
    The company director taxpayer had retired from his company but stayed on as an unpaid non-executive director. The trust deed for the company’s pension scheme provided for payments to be made to an employee. The director sought relief from payment of . .
    [2003] UKHL 65, Times 05-Dec-03
  • Applied – Murray v Jones 1813
    A gift over in the event of a prior legatee having only one child takes effect if the prior legatee has no child. . .
    (1813) 3 Ves and B 313

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.189911

McHardy and Sons (A Firm) v Warren and Another: CA 8 Apr 1994

A gift of the deposit to a couple can create an equal interest in the home for the spouses though the house is purchased in one name only. Lord Justice Dillon said: ‘To my mind it is irresistible conclusion that where a parent pays the deposit, either directly to the solicitors or to the bride and groom, it matters not which, on the purchase of their first matrimonial home, it is the intention of all three of them that the bride and groom should have equal interests in the matrimonial home, not interests measured by reference to the percentage half the deposit [bears] to the full price.’
Lord Justice Dillon
Times 08-Apr-1994, [1994] 2 FLR 338
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Midland Bank v Cooke and Another CA 13-Jul-1995
    Equal equitable interest inferrable without proof
    The bank sought to enforce a charge given by the husband to secure a business loan. The property was purchased from the husband’s and his family’s resources and the loan, and was in his name. There had been no discussion or agreement between husband . .
    Independent 26-Jul-95, Times 13-Jul-95, Gazette 31-Aug-95, [1995] 4 All ER 562, [1995] 2 FLR 915, [1995] EWCA Civ 12, [1996] 1 FCR 442

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.83547

Fuller v Evans and Others: ChD 27 Oct 1999

A settlor created a trust in favour of his wife and children with provision preventing them from making any disposition which would benefit him. The parties were divorced and he was ordered to pay maintenance to the children. The Trustees were concerned that in making payments to the children they would be reducing his liability.
Held: The trustees had to take that into account, but that need not stop a proper decision to fulfil the duties under the trust.
Times 10-Nov-1999, Gazette 27-Oct-1999
England and Wales

Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.80705

Re Halstead’s Will Trusts: ChD 1937

The term ‘benefit’ in a trust instrument is to be construed widely. To exercise a power of advancement by settling on an object of the power and his wife and children, property in which he has otherwise only a life interest was an ‘application’.
Farwell J
[1937] 2 All ER 570
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Barclays Bank Trust Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 14-Jul-2011
    Parents had each left a share of their estate to the bank on trusts for their disabled son. The revenue said that the gifts were caught by and taxable by virtue of sections 5, 49 and 89 of the 1984 Act, the residuary estates of both parents forming . .
    [2011] EWCA Civ 810, [2011] NPC 75, [2011] WTLR 1489, [2011] BTC 375

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2020; Ref: scu.441864

In Re Pilkington’s Will Trusts; Pilkington v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 1959

Whether Trust was void for perpetuity
Danckwerts J
[1959] 1 Ch 699
England and Wales
Cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2020; Ref: scu.402928

Birley v Birley: CA 12 Mar 1858

An absolute appointment was made to an object of a power, under a prior ‘understanding’ between the appointor and appointee, to hold in ‘In trust ‘ for persons, some of whom were objects and some not.
Held: The whole was void.
Sir John Romilly MR
[1858] EngR 441, (1858) 25 Beav 299, (1858) 53 ER 651
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Eclairs Group Ltd and Glengary Overseas Ltd v JKX Oil and Gas Plc SC 2-Dec-2015
    Company Director not Trustee but is Fiduciary
    The Court was asked about an alleged ‘corporate raid’, an attempt to exploit a minority shareholding in a company to obtain effective management or voting control without paying what other shareholders would regard as a proper price.
    Held: The . .
    [2015] UKSC 71, [2015] WLR(D) 497, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 413, [2016] 3 All ER 641, [2016] BCC 79, [2015] BUS LR 1395, [2016] 1 BCLC 1, UKSC 2014/0179

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2020; Ref: scu.288912

Lady Mary Topham v The Duke Of Portland: 30 Jun 1862

The donee of a trust power cannot execute it for an object foreign to purposes for which it was intended, and therefore an ordinary power in a marriage settlement of appointment amongst the children cannot be made subservient to the accomplishment of any particular fancies or inclinations which the donee of the power may have as to the profession in life which a child may choose to adopt, nor can it be exercised in such a mode as to prevent a child marrying a particular person.
An appointment was made to A. (an object of a power) with trusts in favor of B (another object), but intended to accomplish a purpose not warranted by the power. Held, that it could not be treated as an absolute appointment of B. discharged of the void purpose. An appointment, under a previous agreement, that the appointee will deal with the appointed fund in a manner foreign to the purposes for which the power was intended is void, and so is such an appointment where the agreement is subsequent, if accomplished by the inevitable influence possessed by the appointor over the appointee. A parent, having by his settlement an exclusive power of appointment of a fund to his children, was desirous of preventing a daughter marrying a particular gentleman. For that purpose, he appointed part of the fund to his son, who, about a month afterWards, settled it on discretionary trusts in favor of the daughter, the object being to prevent that marriage. Held, that this was one transaction, that the object aimed at was foreign to the purposes for which the power was intended, and that the appointment was altogether void in equity.
[1862] EngR 870, (1862) 31 Beav 525, (1862) 54 ER 1242
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • See also – Lady Mary Topham v Duke Of Portland 20-Jun-1863
    Commonlii The costs of an application to stay the execution of a decree pending an appeal to the House of Lords were to be paid by the applicant. . .
    [1863] EngR 721, (1863) 1 De G J and S 603, (1863) 46 ER 239
  • See Also – Duke of Portland v Topham CA 1864
    Commonlii The donee of a power of appointing portions among his younger children appointed a double share to a younger child without previous communication with him. But it appeared from the instructions for the . .
    [1863] EngR 1051, (1863) 1 De G J and S 517, (1863) 46 ER 205
  • See Also – The Duke Of Portland And Others v Lady Mary E Topham And Others HL 6-Apr-1864
    A power, to be validly executed, must be executed without any indirect object. The donee of the power must give the property which is the subject of it, as property, to the person to whom he affects to give it.
    A created a power to appoint a . .
    (1864) 11 HL Cas 32, [1864] EngR 339, (1864) 11 HLC 32, (1864) 11 ER 1242, (1869) LR 5 Ch App 40

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2020; Ref: scu.287036

Robinson v Robinson: CA 1851

The trustee defendants had been directed by their testator to realise his investments and invest the proceeds in one or other of two forms of investment; but the trustees had delayed the realisation of the testator’s investments. When they actually sold they realised more than they would have realised if they had sold immediately after the testator’s death, but less than if they had sold immediately after the testator’s death and had thereupon invested the proceeds in one, rather than the other, of the two authorised forms of investment. The plaintiff sought to charge the trustees for what they would have received if they had followed that course of realisation and investment which in the event would have been the most favourable to the beneficiaries.
Held: The claim was rejected. Cranworth LJ said: ‘Where a man is bound by covenants to do one of two things, and does neither, there in an action by the covenantee, the measure of damage is in general the loss arising by reason of the covenantor having failed to do that which is least, not that which is most, beneficial to the covenantee: and the same principle may be applied by analogy to the case of a trustee failing to invest in either of two modes equally lawful by the terms of the trust.’
Cranworth LJ
(1851) 1 De GM and G 247, [1851] EngR 994, (1851) 1 De G M and G 247, (1851) 42 ER 547
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Nestle v National Westminster Bank CA 6-May-1992
    The claimant said that the defendant bank as trustee of her late father’s estate had been negligent in its investment of trust assets.
    Held: The claimant had failed to establish either a breach of trust or any loss flowing from it, though . .
    [1992] EWCA Civ 12, [1993] 1 WLR 1260, [1994] 1 All ER 118

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2020; Ref: scu.268064

Re Recher’s Will Trusts: ChD 1972

The deceased gave a share of the residue, to ‘The Anti-Vivisection Society, 76 Victoria Street, London S.W.1.’ She died in 1962 and her husband died in 1968. Until the end of 1956 a non-charitable unincorporated society, known as the ‘London and Provincial Anti-Vivisection Society’ had carried on its activities at 76 Victoria Street, but in 1957 it was amalgamated with a larger non-charitable unincorporated society, known as ‘The National Anti-Vivisection Society’ of 27 Palace Street, London S.W.1. and the Victoria Street premises were closed down. It changed its name to ‘The National Anti-Vivisection Society (incorporating the London and Provincial Antivivisection Society).’ In 1963 the National Anti-Vivisection Society Ltd was incorporated and the assets were vested in it. It was not a charity. The gift had to be construed as a gift to the London and Provincial Anti-Vivisection Society, 76 Victoria Street, and not to the larger combined society. It was not to be construed as a gift in trust for the purposes of the Society. It could have taken effect as a legacy to the members of the society beneficially, as an accretion to the funds which constituted the subject matter of the contract by which the members had bound themselves inter se. But since the Society had been dissolved, the gift could not be construed as a gift to the members of a different association and they therefore failed. A trust for non-charitable purposes, as a distinct from a trust for individuals, was clearly void because there is no beneficiary.
But: ‘It does not, however, follow that persons cannot band themselves together as an association or society, pay subscriptions and validly devote their sums in pursuit of some lawful non-charitable purpose. An obvious example is a members’ social club. . . Such an association is bound . . to have some sort of constitution; that is to say, the rights and liabilities of the members of the association will inevitably depend on some form of contract inter se, usually evidenced by a set of rules .. As and when a member paid his subscription to the association, he would be subjecting his money to the disposition and expenditure thereof laid down by the rules . . The resultant situation, on analysis, is that the . . society represented an organisation of individuals bound together by a contract under which their subscriptions became, as it were, mandated towards a certain type of expenditure … Just as the two parties to a bi-partite bargain can vary or terminate their contract by mutual assent, so it must follow that the life members, ordinary members and associate members of the . . society could, at any moment of time, by unanimous agreement (or by majority vote, if the rules so prescribe), vary or terminate their multi-partite contract. There is no private trust or trust for charitable purposes or other trust to hinder the process.’
Brightman J
[1972] Ch 529
England and Wales
Citing:

  • Approved – Neville Estates Ltd v Madden ChD 1962
    A charitable trust was created for the benefit of the members of Catford Synagogue.
    Held: The court considered three categories of valid non-charitable purpose gifts: (1) an absolute gift to members of an association at the date of the gift, . .
    [1962] Ch 832

Cited by:

  • Cited – Hunt and Another v McLaren and others ChD 4-Oct-2006
    Land had been given to a football club under a trust for its exclusive use as such. That land was sold and a new ground acquired and a stadium built, but the land was subject to restrictive covenenats limiting its use to sports, which considerably . .
    [2006] EWHC 2386 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.245266

Passee v Passee: 1988

[1988] 1 FLR 263
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Stack v Dowden CA 13-Jul-2005
    The parties purchased a property together. The transfer contained a survivorship restriction but no declaration of the beneficial interests. The judge had held the property to be held as tenants in commn on equal shares.
    Held: In a case where . .
    [2006] 1 FLR 254, [2005] EWCA Civ 857

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.230912

In re W (EEM): 1971

It would be for the ‘benefit’ of the patient to exercise the powers conferred by section 95(1) of the 1983 Act so as to enable there to be done something which the patient would have wished to do if he had been able to act for himself.
Mr Justice Ungoed-Thomas
[1971] Ch 123
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others CA 11-Mar-2005
    The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed . .
    [2005] EWCA Civ 248

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.223513

Coulthard v Disco Mix Club Ltd: CA 2000

The expression ‘constructive trustee’ creates a trap.This ‘type of trust is merely the creation by the court . . to meet the wrongdoing alleged: there is no real trust and usually no chance of a proprietary remedy.’
[2000] 1 WLR 707
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
    A solicitor had been alleged to have dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
    Held: The acts complained of were so close to the . .
    Times 06-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65, [2002] UKHL 48, [2002] 3 WLR 1913, [2003] 2 AC 366, [2003] 1 All ER 97, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 451, [2003] 1 LLR 65, [2003] 1 BCLC 32, [2003] IRLR 608, [2003] 1 CLC 1020, [2003] WTLR 163

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.193892

Francis Harmore and Elizabeth His Wife v Doble Brook, Birkenhead Collins, John Hamlin, Tho Hamlin An Infant, By The Said John His Guardian, And George Banister: 1674

Articles in Marriage to pay 500 pounds with his Daughter by such a ime, and to secure to her all his real and Personal estate when he died; and afterwards he devised all his personal Estate to another, which being contrary to the Articles, that Agreement was deemed to be performed.
[1674] EngR 26, (1674) Fin H 183, (1674) 23 ER 101 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 December 2020; Ref: scu.406025

Parsons v McBain: 5 Apr 2001

Federal Court of Australia – BANKRUPTCY – constructive trust – transfer of property to beneficiary – whether void as against trustee in bankruptcy
EQUITY – equity of exoneration – how defeated
TRUSTS – ‘common intention constructive trust’ – whether trustee in bankruptcy takes subject to trust – time at which trust ari
A surety, or a person in the position of a surety, has a right of exoneration whereby he or she is entitled to be indemnified by the principal debtor against any liability incurred as a consequence of being called on to pay the debt, describing it as an incident of the relationship between surety and principal debtor.
‘Where co-owners mortgage their property so that money can be borrowed for the benefit of one mortgagor, the other co-owner will be treated as if he or she was a surety and the equity of exoneration will also arise. In those circumstances that other has an interest in the property of the co-mortgagor whose property is to be regarded as primarily liable to pay the debt: Parsons at [21], Duncan, Fox and Co v North and South Wales Bank (1880) 6 App Cas 1 at 10.
However, the right to exoneration is lost where the surety receives a benefit from the loan or the funds raised in respect of which the charge has been given. ‘So, if the borrowed funds are applied to discharge the surety’s debts, the surety could not claim exoneration, at least in respect of the benefit received.’
Here, the giving of the [Brighton Westpac mortgage] might have created a relationship whereby Mr Mogilevsky would be treated as a surety and Mrs Mogilevsky would be treated as principal debtor if:
the mortgage was for the purpose of raising money to benefit the co-owner, in this case Mrs Mogilevsky;
the money borrowed was used for that purpose; and
Mr Mogilevsky derived no benefit from the money so raised.’
References: [2001] FCA 376, (2001) 109 FCR 120, 192 ALR 772
Links: Austlii
Judges: Black CJ, Kiefel, Finkelstein JJ
Jurisdiction: Australia
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Armstrong v Onyearu and Another CA 11-Apr-2017
    Exoneration of partner’s equity on insolvency
    The court considered the equity of exoneration, where property jointly owned by A and B is charged to secure the debts of B only, A is or may be entitled to a charge over B’s share of the property to the extent that B’s debts are paid out of A’s . .
    (, [2017] EWCA Civ 268, [2017] WLR(D) 271,, )

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.581747

Amand v Bradbourne: 1649

Trustee sued concerning the Trust in Chancery obtained a Dismission and had Costs paid him as in Course, but the Costs allowed him and taxed were short of his real Costs. After a Bill by the Cestuy qui Trust to have account of the Trust, on Account of his disbursements he shall be aIIowed his true and necessary Costs in the former Suit, and not be concluded, and co, and so ordered.
References: [1649] EngR 2, (1649-1779) 2 Chan Cas 138, (1649) 22 ER 884 (A)
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.417047

Clarke v Woodward: 17 Apr 1858

A fund in Court belonged in reversion to a married woman. After her death the husband, in 1821, sold arid assigned it. The tenant for life died, arid it having been found impossible to obtairi from him an affidavit of no settlement, the Court, in 1858, orclerecl payment to the assigtiee without one, on proof of there having
been no children.
References: [1858] EngR 547, (1858) 25 Beav 455, (1858) 53 ER 710
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.289018

Paragon v Thakerer: 1993

A claim for fraudulent or intentional breach of trust/fiduciary duty is a different cause of action from a claim for breach of trust/fiduciary duty generally and must be separately and distinctly pleaded.
References: [1993] 1 All ER 400
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Berezovsky v Abramovich ComC 22-May-2008
    Applications were made to amend pleadings and for consequential orders. The claimant sought damages of $4.3 billion alleging breach of trust. The claimant sought to add claims which the defendant said were out of time.
    Held: The proposed . .
    (, [2008] EWHC 1138 (Comm))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.268053

John And Mary Gratwick Infants, By William Gratwick Their Guardian v Thomas Freeman Gent: 1673

The Father devised Legacies to his children being Infants, and made their Mother Executrix, and died ; she married again, and died : Upon a Bill brought by the Infants against their Father in Law, to have an Account of the personal Estate of their Father, it was decreed against them, because they did not call him to Account in the Life-time of their Mother.
References: [1673] EngR 54, (1673) Fin H 95, (1673) 23 ER 51 (B)
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.406236

Campbell v Campbell: 8 May 1844

Executors were directed to apply a competent part of the interest of a fund towards the maintenance and education of the testator’s son, during his minority, and accumulate the rest; and, after attaining twenty-one, to apply a moiety of the dividends for his support till he attained twenty-five, and to transfer the fund at twenty-five, with a gift over if he died between twenty-one and twenty-five. The son attained twenty-one between the periods of paymerit of the half-yearly dividends. Held, that there should be no apportionment, and that he was entitled to the whole half-yearly dividend received after he came of age.
References: [1844] EngR 536 (A), (1844) 7 Beav 482
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.305128

Re Freiburg Trust: 2004

(Jersey)
References: [2004] JRC 056, (2003-04) 6 ITELR 1078
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Gomez and others v Vives CA 3-Oct-2008
    The claimant appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction over income payable to a trust governed by English law under which the claimant was beneficiary.
    Held: The appeal failed in part. Because Article 5 is in derogation from . .
    (, [2008] EWCA Civ 1065)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.276696

Re Burney’s Settlement Trusts: ChD 1961

The court approved a proposed variation of a trust.
References: [1961] 1 WLR 545, [1961] 1 All ER 856
Judges: Wilberforce J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Goulding and Goulding v James and Daniel CA 10-Dec-1996
    The family sought approval of a proposed variation of the will to make best advantage of tax allowances. Because the beneficial interests of children would be affected, the court’s approval was necessary. The judge had refused to approve the . .
    (Times 07-Feb-97, , [1996] EWCA Civ 1156, [1997] 2 All ER 239)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.241674

Spens v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 1970

The court declared the exercise of a power of appointment to create a sub-trust void under the rule against perpetuities.
References: [1970] 1 WLR 1173, [1970] 3 All ER 295
Judges: Megarry J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Goulding and Goulding v James and Daniel CA 10-Dec-1996
    The family sought approval of a proposed variation of the will to make best advantage of tax allowances. Because the beneficial interests of children would be affected, the court’s approval was necessary. The judge had refused to approve the . .
    (Times 07-Feb-97, , [1996] EWCA Civ 1156, [1997] 2 All ER 239)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.241672

Arethusa Lady Dowager Clifford v Earl of Burlington, Lord Clifford and Others: 1680

Tenant for life, with power to make a jointure of andpound;1000 per ann, upon marriage, covenants to make a jointure on his wife of andpound;1000 per ann. Afterwards gives a particular of lands mentioned to be andpound;1000 per ann. which are settled for the jointure, but prove to be but andpound;600 per ann. Decreed the jointure to be made up andpound;1000 per ann. by the issue in tail.
Tenant in tail covenants to settle a jointure and dies, issue in tail not bound by the covenant
References: [1680] EngR 21, (1680-1687) 2 Vern 379, (1680) 23 ER 841
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.402232

Ex Parte Newton: 3 Jun 1841

Where money is in Court under a railway act, previous to being laid out in lands to be settled ” to the like uses,’ the Court will lend its aid to an advantageous purchase beyond the amount of the money in Court; and will direct the extra costs to be paid out of the money in Court.
References: [1841] EngR 743, (1841) 4 Y and C Ex 518, (1841) 160 ER 1112 (A)
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.308921

Wilson v Wilson and others By Bill Of Revivor; Grosslob others v Same: 1838

Where the payment of rents, in consequence of disputes among the trustees, had been permitted to fall into arrear, on a ‘bill filed by the Plaintiff, who was entitIed to the renta and profits for her life, against the truetees, the Court ordered a receiver to be appointed, and the costs of the suit to be paid by the trustees.
References: [1838] EngR 18, (1838) 2 Keen 249, (1838) 48 ER 624
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.312024

Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v Cooley: 1972

Mr Cooley was the managing director of the claimant. His duties included procuring business in the field of developing gas depots. The company had unsuccessful negotiations with the Eastern Gas Board for the development of four depots. However, the Gas Board were not prepared to let the contracts to the company. The Gas Board subsequently approached Mr Cooley in his private capacity; and indicated that they would be prepared to contract with him personally. In the course of the meeting, Mr Cooley acquired knowledge that the company did not have; and would have wanted to have. Mr Cooley therefore resigned his office (on the basis of a false excuse) and entered into the contracts with the Gas Board.
Held: He was accountable for the profit. Where a fiduciary obtains a benefit in breach of his fiduciary duty, he is liable to account even if the beneficiary could not itself have obtained that benefit or opportunity. A company director owes a fiduciary duty to report relevant information of concern to the company: ‘Information which came to [the director] while he was managing director and which was of concern to [the company] and was relevant for [the company] to know, was information which it was his duty to pass on to [the company] because between himself and [the company] a fiduciary relationship existed . . ‘ and ‘Therefore, I feel impelled to the conclusion that when the defendant embarked on this course of conduct of getting information . . using that information and preparing those documents . . and sending them off . . , he was guilty of putting himself into the position in which his duty to his employers, the plaintiffs, and his own private interests conflicted and conflicted grievously. There being the fiduciary relationship I have described, it seems to me plain that it was his duty once he got this information to pass it to his employers and not to guard it for his own personal purposes and profit. He put himself into the position when his duty and his interests conflicted.’
References: [1972] 1 WLR 443
Judges: Roskill J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Crown Dilmun, Dilmun Investments Limited v Nicholas Sutton, Fulham River Projects Limited ChD 23-Jan-2004
    There was a contract for the sale of Craven Cottage football stadium, conditional upon the grant of non-onerous planning permissions. It was claimed that the contract had been obtained by the defendant employee in breach of his fiduciary duties to . .
    (Times 05-Feb-04, [2004] EWHC 52 (Ch), , [2004] 1 BCLC 468)
  • Cited – Fassihim, Liddiardrams, International Ltd, Isograph Ltd v Item Software (UK) Ltd CA 30-Sep-2004
    The first defendant (F) had been employed by a company involved in a distribution agreement. He had sought to set up a competing arrangement whilst a director of the claimant, and diverted a contract to his new company.
    Held: A company . .
    ([2004] EWCA Civ 1244, Times 21-Oct-04, , [2004] BCC 994, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 17, [2005] ICR 450, [2005] 2 BCLC 91, [2004] IRLR 928)
  • Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
    The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
    (, [2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch))
  • Cited – O’Donnell v Shanahan and Another CA 22-Jul-2009
    The claimant appealed against dismissal of her petition for an order for the defendants to purchase her shares at a fair value, saying that they had acted unfairly toward her. Her co-directors had acquired, for another company of which they were . .
    (, [2009] EWCA Civ 751, Times 21-Aug-09)
  • Cited – Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and others CA 15-Dec-2006
    Whilst employed by the claimants as a salesman, the defendant came to want to develop his idea for a modular helmet suitable for fire-fighters and others. He took certain steps including showing the proposal confidentially to a competitor, and then . .
    (, [2006] EWCA Civ 1735, [2007] FSR 16, [2007] IRLR 126)
  • Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
    The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
    (, [2011] EWHC 1441 (Comm), [2011] ArbLR 55)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192208

Wilson v Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc: ChD 1995

Rattee J upheld the trustees’ refusal to give reasons for a discretionary decision, on what he described as well established principles of trust law. He added: ‘Moreover, there is in my judgment sound reason for the parties to the trust instrument in the present case having conferred such a discretion on the trustee in the hope of minimising the potential for dispute and possibly litigation by various groups of employees and ex-employees, dissatisfied by an exercise of the trustee’s quantification of the amount to be transferred in a situation such as the present.’
References: [1995] 2 All ER 337
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.570866

Heugh v Scard: CA 1875

Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘In certain cases of mere neglect or refusal to furnish accounts, when the neglect is very gross or the refusal wholly indefensible, I reserve to myself the right of making the executor or trustee pay the costs of litigation caused by his neglect or refusal. But I expressly guard myself against saying that in every case of mere neglect, or even in every case of mere neglect, or even in every case of mere refusal, an honest executor or trustee who has fairly discharged his duty – an onerous and thankless one – is to pay costs . . In this case I find inexcusable delay, inexcusable refusal to furnish accounts, and misconduct in dealing with the trust fund . . I think he [the executor] must pay the costs of the suit, except the cost of vouching the accounts.’
References: (1875) 33 LT 659
Judges: Sir George Jessel MR
This case is cited by:

  • Applied – In Re Skinner ChD 1904
    A beneficiary of a will trust brought an action for an account, having had little or no accounting from the executors and trustees (one a professional solicitor, entitled to charge) since the testator died more than two years before the action was . .
    ([1904] 1 Ch 289)
  • Cited – Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
    Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
    The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
    Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .
    (, [2016] EWHC 1948 (Ch))
  • Cited – Blades v Isaac and Another ChD 21-Mar-2016
    Claim by beneficiary under discretionary trust.
    Held: A trustee’s wrongful failure to provide information does not necessarily justify an adverse costs order. . .
    (, [2016] EWHC 601 (Ch))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.567858

The Law Debenture Trust Corporation v Ural Caspian Oil Corp Ltd: ChD 9 Sep 1992

The burden of agreements binding on shares which had been assigned did not pass simpliciter with the shares.
References: Gazette 09-Sep-1992
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.89823

Burton and Another v FX Music Ltd and Another; Taube v FX Music Ltd: ChD 8 Jul 1999

To decide that a party had made itself a trustee of a promise, the court had first to look at whether the person making the promise had indicated he had intended such. Once clear instructions had been evidenced, and payments made, the court would be reluctant to find that no trust had been created. Letters requesting payment of royalties had been acted upon.
References: Times 08-Jul-1999, [1999] EMLR 826
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.78767

Lohia and Another v Lohia: ChD 7 Sep 2000

Land was transferred from son to his father with no consideration expressed. The father died and the son claimed that the absence of consideration meant that the house was to be held upon trust for the donor and donee as beneficial joint tenants in equal shares, and that accordingly upon the death of the father he was entitled to his share.
Held: The section was clear and that a conveyance for nil value meant what it said. A person seeking to establish a resulting trust had to prove it. The voluntary conveyance was effective in the terms in which it was expressed.
References: Gazette 07-Sep-2000
Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 60 (3)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.83151

Gold and Another v Hill; Hill v Fold and Others: ChD 24 Aug 1998

A nomination of a beneficiary to take proceeds of a life policy, where that beneficiary was in turn to pay it on to somebody else, was akin to a secret trust, but nominations are not subject to Law of Property Act 1925 s 53 since a nomination is not a disposition.
References: Times 24-Aug-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998
Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 53(1)( c)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.80892

Train v Buchanan’s Trustee (Clapperton): HL 25 May 1908

A testator directed his trustees to hold a certain sum and to pay to a beneficiary during his lifetime ‘either the whole or only a portion of the annual revenue thereof, and that subject to such conditions and restrictions, all as my trustees in their sole and absolute discretion think fit’; and on the beneficiary’s death to pay to his children the sum ‘with any revenue accrued thereon that has not been paid’ to the beneficiary; failing such children the sum ‘and accumulations of revenue, if any,’ fell into residue. The trustees from time to time paid the beneficiary some very small sums. The beneficiary having assigned his interest in the trust, the assignee brought an action to obtain the unpaid balance of revenue on the ground that the trustees had never exercised the discretion given them to restrict the amount to be paid, and consequently that the whole annual revenue had become the property of the beneficiary.
Held, in the circumstances of the case, that the trustees had exercised the discretion conferred upon them.
References: [1908] UKHL 682, 45 SLR 682, 46 SLR 682
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Earl of Halsbury, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Robertson, and Lord Collins
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621512

Johnstone v Mackenzie’s Trustees: HL 26 Jul 1912

A testator conveyed his whole estate to trustees for the following purposes-( a) payment of debts and ‘the expenses of executing this trust’ ( b) giving the widow ‘the liferent use and enjoyment of my dwelling-house . . together with the whole household furniture and plenishing therein at the time of my death . . without, however, any obligation upon her to replace articles broken or perishing with the using . . and in the event of the said dwelling-house . . being sold by my trustees, as they are hereby with the consent of my said wife empowered to do, they shall pay to her the annual income of the price . . obtained therefor during all the days of her life, declaring that the said liferent provisions shall be for the alimentary use of my said wife, and shall not be assignable by her or affectable by the diligence of her creditors’ ( c) payment to the widow, in name of aliment allenarly, of an annuity at the rate of pounds 500 per annum; ( d) payment of two legacies to two brothers; ( e) payment, after setting aside the sum of pounds 20,000 to provide for the foresaid annuity, of one-half of the residue to the widow, and the other half in certain proportions to the two brothers, and, on the death of the widow, of the dwelling-house and the sum set aside to provide the annuity and ‘any surplus revenue accrued thereon’ in the same proportions to the two brothers.
Held ( rev. decision of the Second Division) that the widow’s interest in the house was a liferent, not a right of occupancy, and consequently that she was liable for feuduty, proprietor’s taxes, and landlord’s repairs.
References: [1912] UKHL 986, 49 SLR 986
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Macnaghten, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619248