More Trusts Cases

Question 1

Paul v Constance [1977] — held?

Accepted Answer

Repeated words such as "this money is as much yours as mine" were sufficient to show intention to create a trust, even though the word "trust" was never used. (Source: [1977] 1 WLR 527 (CA))

Question 2

Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments [1970] — principle?

Accepted Answer

Money lent for a specific purpose that fails is held on trust for the lender (the Quistclose trust). (Source: [1970] AC 567 (HL))

Question 3

Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805) — principle?

Accepted Answer

The beneficiary principle: a private trust must have ascertainable beneficiaries who can enforce it; a trust for non-charitable purposes generally fails. (Source: (1805) 10 Ves 522)

Question 4

Re Denley's Trust Deed [1969] — held?

Accepted Answer

A trust expressed as a purpose but directly benefiting ascertainable individuals (a sports ground for employees) is valid. (Source: [1969] 1 Ch 373)

Question 5

Charities Act 2011, s 3 and s 4?

Accepted Answer

s 3 lists thirteen descriptions of charitable purposes (e.g. relief of poverty, education, religion); s 4 requires every charitable purpose to be for the public benefit. (Source: Charities Act 2011, ss 3–4)

Question 6

Pennington v Waine [2002] — held?

Accepted Answer

A gift of shares was complete in equity because it would have been unconscionable for the donor to resile, even though not everything had been done (Re Rose extended). (Source: [2002] EWCA Civ 227)

Question 7

Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington LBC [1996] — significance?

Accepted Answer

Resulting trusts arise from the common intention of the parties, not from unjust enrichment; equitable proprietary claims need an identifiable trust fund. (Source: [1996] AC 669 (HL))

Question 8

Foskett v McKeown [2001] — held?

Accepted Answer

Beneficiaries whose money paid some insurance premiums could trace into the policy proceeds and claim a proportionate share. (Source: [2001] 1 AC 102 (HL))

Question 9

AIB Group v Mark Redler & Co [2014] — held?

Accepted Answer

Equitable compensation for breach of trust is assessed with the benefit of hindsight and requires a causal link to the loss (following Target Holdings v Redferns [1996]). (Source: [2014] UKSC 58)

Question 10

Ottaway v Norman [1972] — doctrine?

Accepted Answer

Fully secret trusts: communication of the trust to the legatee and acceptance during the testator's lifetime binds the legatee. (Source: [1972] Ch 698)

1.Paul v Constance [1977] — held?

2.Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments [1970] — principle?

3.Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805) — principle?

4.Re Denley's Trust Deed [1969] — held?

5.Charities Act 2011, s 3 and s 4?

6.Pennington v Waine [2002] — held?

7.Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington LBC [1996] — significance?

8.Foskett v McKeown [2001] — held?

9.AIB Group v Mark Redler & Co [2014] — held?

10.Ottaway v Norman [1972] — doctrine?