Trusts of imperfect obligation - i.e. trusts where there is no certainty of objects - is it possible to have a purpose trust (non charitable)?

Problems
1. Unenforceability
  1. For a trust to be valid there must be individuals for whose benefit it is created - human beneficiaries
    1. They are the ones who may enforcce it is the trustees are in breach
    2. Re Astors (human beneficiary)- good understanding between nations
      1. Re Endacott - anamolus exceptions not to be extended
        Monuments, Masses, Animals
        BELOW
        Masses
        Re Hetherington - public benefit
        Bourne v Keen- private
  2. Morice v Bishop of Durham [1804] - beneficiary principle
2. Uncertainty of objects
  1. May be that a purpose is expressed which is simply too vague to be capable of judicial contol
  2. Morice v Bishop of Durham [1804]
  3. Re Astor [1952]
3. Contravening perpetuity rule
  1. Means that one is not permitted to tie up capital for a period of longer than that permitted by law
    1. Period permitted by law is essentially a human life in being plus 21 years
      1. Position unchanged by the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009
    2. e.g. if you have a trust to build something - can be spent immediately BUT a trust to maintain is not possible? Unless limited to perpetuity rule
  2. Re Hooper "so long as trustee can legally do so" VALID (family graves)
Exceptions
1. The court has recognised certain exceptions - where the court have allowed the trustees to carry out if they are willing to do so
  1. This is why they are trusts of impefect obligation - no one to enforce them
  2. Monuments
    1. A trust to maintain all tombs in a graveyard is charitable - an individual tomb is private
    2. Couts will allow a tomb to be maintained as a purpose providing the trustees are prepared to and it doesnt break the perpetuity rule
    3. Musset v Bingle [1876] erection and maintenance
    4. Re Endacott [1960] to myself - uncertainty
    5. Brown v Burdett (blocking windows - Capricious)
      1. Capricious - Shaws will trust - Alphabet
    6. McCraig v Glasgow Uni -artistic towers (capriicious)
  3. Animal cases
    1. A trust to look after animals generally is charitable but a trust to look after a specific animal is private
      1. But a trust to look after a specific animal will be allowed to exist providing it does not offend the perpetuity rule
    2. Re Dean [1889]- 50 years - perpet not addressed
      1. Re Kelly - Life in being must be human
    3. Re Howard [1908]
    4. Re Haines [1952]
    5. Re Thompson [1934] Fox hunting
  4. Unincorporated associations
    1. Unincorporated association = a group of people who contract together to further a specific purpose e.g. a club or a poltical purpose
    2. Typically, people might leave property to an UA and might even specify the purpose for which the property is to be applied
    3. If the testator specifies a purpose then one possibility is precatory words (no effect) and say simply a gift
      1. Re Clarke [1901]
    4. Trusts for purpose of UA recognised
      1. Re Drummond [1914]
      2. BUT then later said they were not allowed since offended beneficiary principle
        Leahy v A-G for New South Wales [1959] - nuns- failed for purpose as closed order no public benefit
    5. Different approaches
      1. Re Denley [1969] - sports field for employees. appeared to fail under beneficiary principle BUT not so abstract to not involve people who could enforce
        Only true pupose trust?
        If purpose tust directly or indiectly benefits a class of ascertainable individuals then, provided it does not offend the perpetuity period...
        Applied in Re Lipinski [1976]]
      2. Re Reacher [1972]-
        Neville Estates v Madden - Severance possible depending on nature of property
        below
      3. Conservative Central Office v Burrell [1982]- not unicorportate Association as lacked key characteristics- no rules and no mutla rights re contract
        Re Lipinskis - Hull Judeans - was is a trust for building or individuals - HELD not charitable in favour of association as was trust indectly for human beneficiaries (re Denleys) and could be outright gift re rules (Re Reacher) and can transfer to themselves (re Turkington
        4 ways to gift to Unicorportated association - 1. Outright gift to be held as joint tenants or tenants in common 2. Trust for associations purpose 3. Thrust for members and future members 4. outright gift to members subject to their contractual obligations
      4. not anomalous as members are human beneficiaries
        Re Grants WT - Failed- Labour party- not own rules - merely a direct contribution to funds
      5. Re Turkington - gift for present member of club - were trustee and beneficiaries could invest capital in themselves
    6. 1. 2 or more people 2. mutual understanding arising from contract. 3. Body of rules 4. Body can be joined at will
      1. No legal personality = cannot own property
      2. Below
      3. =

Nächster

Trusts of imperfect obligation - i.e. trusts where there is no certainty of objects - is it possible to have a purpose trust (non charitable)?

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von v.whittemore vor mehr als 9 Jahre

	Kopiert von sarah leach vor mehr als 9 Jahre