Fahim & Irfa - Creation Of A Trust

The Trust is designed to benefit countries in the Commonwealth, and ‘deliver iconic projects … that are a fitting and enduring tribute to Her Majesty the Queen’, according to their website. These include investments in areas such as sport for youths, helping the disabled, and protecting our country’s heritage. Whether or not the money was raised seems to be an undisclosed matter, perhaps a stark indication that the profit they originally anticipated wasn’t reached.

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

The decision of the tribunal was that the appellant was found guilty of having acted with dishonesty when he relied on the documents, but not when he created them, here he was charged with lack of integrity. The court had to therefore consider what the definition of the words ‘dishonesty’ and ‘integrity’ was.

"As stated by Lord Evershed in Re Endacott, 'no principle perhaps has greater sanction or authority behind it than a general proposition that a trust by English law, not being a charitable trust, in order to be effective must have ascertained or ascertainable beneficiaries”. However, although the certainty of object is an important principle, it appears that the question in regards to the certainty of objects is one that asks whether there is a limit on the flexibility that exists in regards to discretionary trusts—which applies the ‘class test’ as opposed to the more definitive ‘list based test’ applied to fixed trusts—it may therefore be more appropriate to ask, what degree of uncertainty will be tolerated by the courts?

CHBR has been denied as POA’s cannot change beneficiaries on the accounts as the documents do not specifically state the AIF is authorized to change beneficiaries for the PO,

“PAM “it’s like certified contract that been between Watani and other organizations, in the PAM they write the name of the foundation, reason and the amount of the money. The foundation or Watani send the money either through wire transfer or a check and keep it with them but also have to make sure that it been signed by the general

This document is the agreement for the rental or lease of the building identified below between the Landlord and the signed Tenant on the following terms and conditions:

The ABN have 3 different type of forms that a written notice you must issue to a Fee-For-Service beneficiary before

Satisfaction of the first element requires the identity of the parties to be bound. Purchase Nursery, Inc., 568 S.E.2d at 907. Here, Mr. Massey as the landowner with YTNH (represented by Mr. Bennett) as the tenant of the property.

The three certainties rule was established in Knight v Knight where the court held that the will was not specific enough to result in a valid trust. The court noted that in order for a trust instrument to be valid, it must be certain in intention,

This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety

Certainty of subject matter is where there must be an identification of the trust property and certainty as to whom is which part of the trust property to be held. In relation to uncertainty of beneficial interests, the trust will fail where the method of distribution is stipulated by the sethlow but cannot take effect (Boyce v Boyce). However the trust will not fail where the method of distribution is not stipulated by the sethlow leaving the court to intervene (re napton). If there is an effect of lack of certainty in

For a trust instrument to be valid and effective, it must be properly constituted. For a trust to be deemed as completely constituted, all of the relevant formalities must have been satisfied by the settlor, hence the legal title of the property must transfer to the trustees. The reason for a conveyance of property to the hands of trustee is explained in Milroy v Lord (1862) by Turner L.J. is that a valid and effectual voluntary settlement will exist, when the settlor have done everything which was necessary according to the nature of property comprised in the settlement, which is to transfer that particular property to the trustee. This requirement of constitution of trust is clear and straightforward, the

The general rule on constitution of trusts is ‘equity will not assist a volunteer to perfect an imperfect trust’. It is apparent that subsequent case law has sought to depart from such principle by introducing various exceptions which allow incomplete gifts to be perfected. Nevertheless, there has been many criticism and debate in regards to this area of the law since it is felt on the one hand, that the scope is for exceptions is being widened too far, whilst it is argued on the other that it will be unconscionable to the parties for the gift not to be perfected. Nonetheless, the exceptions is inevitable will continue to advance and thus create a topic for criticisms and debate.

In Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts (1987) Megarry J held that in order to found a claim for knowing receipt, the defendant had to have actual knowledge that his receipt was in breach of trust or was ‘willfully blind’ shutting his eyes to the obvious; or willfully and