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 benefit of the wife. She therefore had to show that she would receive some benefit, and the spending of the money for charitable purposes alone was not possible. The trustees are not at liberty to enter into the proposed transaction.
 EWHC 2706 (Ch), Times 10-Jan-2006,  1 WLR 741
England and Wales
Cited – In Re Pilkington’s Will Trusts; Pilkington v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 8-Oct-1962
The trustees proposed establishing a new trust in respect of the share of an estate to which an infant beneficiary had a contingent entitlement. A portion of the trust fund would be allocated to the new trust.
Held: This was a lawful exercise . .
Cited – Public Trustee v Cooper 2001
The court identified two jurisdictions for the court in construing trusts: (1) the jurisdiction to decide questions of construction as to the ambit of trustees’ powers, and (2) the jurisdiction to ‘bless’ a particular transaction proposed by the . .
Cited – Re Clore’s Settlement Trusts ChD 1966
A 21 year old beneficiary of a substantial trust fund requested the trustees to apply for his benefit a sum (equal to about one-seventh of the fund) to a family charitable foundation. He would be entitled to the capital of the fund on attaining 30, . .
Cited – Re CL 1969
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 . .
Cited – Richard v Mackay 1997
In construing a trust deed, it is not the task of the court to say how it would exercise any discretion given, but ‘ . . to ensure that the proposed exercise of the trustees’ powers is lawful and within the power and that it does not infringe the . .
Cited – Re Walker 1901
Cited – Re Leigh’s Will Trusts; Handyside v Durbridge ChD 1970
The testatrix’s husband and only child had drowned in an accident. She was his administratrix and sole beneficiary under his intestacy. At his death, the husband had been the owner of 51% of the issued shares in a company and had been owed money by . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 March 2021; Ref: scu.235446