Re Manisty Essay Question

From a wide range of available case law it can be safety suggested that secret trusts are enforced on the basis of fraud prevention but the courts remain concerned as to the possible uncertainty and confusion that could be created by upholding a doctrine that completely undermines all forms of formalities.

This question require us to consider the three certainty requirements and the circumstances in which a valid trust is said to be properly constituted. The general requirement to create a trust is that if the trust is properly constituted, it bind the settlor and be enforceable by the beneficiaries. On the other hand, if the trust is not completely constituted, it will be ineffective as the general rule requires. Equity will not be able to help because of two of its maxims "equity will not assist a volunteer" and "equity will not perfect the imperfect gift" . The court will be prevented from coming to the aid of a volunteer beneficiary regardless of how undesirable the outcome might appear.

The above authority and powers granted to the Trustee are in addition to any powers and elective rights conferred by state or federal law or by other provision of this Living Trust and may be exercised as often as required, and without application to or approval by any court.

I will be reflecting on my experience as a student nurse on my participation in patient-centred care. I will be focusing on how communication is a key factor to ensuring the comfort of your patient during their journey in hospital. My reflection will be based on my practice learning experience in a neurology ward. I have chosen a particular example for ineffective communication. The aim of this essay will be to use the framework of Gibbs reflective Cycle (1988) to allow me to reflect in a written and clear way, this will gives me the chance to look at communication from different angles and allows me to explore areas of practice which could be changed in the future (Jasper, 2003).

The procedural requirements for revoking or amending this trust are intended to prevent fraud, reduce the risk of undue influence, and provide certainty with respect to the Settlor’s intentions. A court, in order to give effect to the actual intentions of a Settlor, may give effect to a document not satisfying all procedural requirements for revoking or amending a trust if the court finds that (1) the Settlor was competent; (2) the attempted revocation or amendment was not the result of fraud, undue influence, or duress; (3) the document was clearly intended to amend or revoke the trust; and (4) there is no reason to deny equitable relief. The proponent of the document shall have the burden of proof. The standard

One particular criticism of the decision of Spry is the argument against the decision of the majority as demonstrated in Glover’s article who states that ‘finding that the husband had a beneficial interest in the trust based in his power to appoint the wife and the wife’s right to be considered surely means that the dispositive power must be exercised in the wife’s favour. Where has the discretion gone? Only through illegal and fraudulent denial of discretions which qualified his positive power could the Spry trustee act consistently with the Chief Justice’s findings.’ The power vested in Spry is strongly against the purpose of a discretionary trust according to Glover who further states that ‘the fact that exercise of the power may result in property (for the power-holder or someone else) does not mean that the power is itself property. Power is a capacity to act and not a thing which one owns. Equity jurisprudence has distinguished between powers and property for

For single name cases like Lloyds, claimant should acquire beneficial interest before it can be quantified. There are two types of common intention constructive trusts: (i) express common intention constructive trust and (ii) inferred (implied) common intention constructive trust. Lord Bridge made two distinctions, where he referred the first category to constructive trust and proprietary estoppel whereas the second category to constructive trust.

This essay focuses on the principle laid down by lord denning J, In the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd, the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which is an equitable doctrine that has arisen to mitigate the harshness of the rule that emanated from the case of Foakes v Beer, which states that part-payment of debt is never a good consideration for a promise to discharge the entire debt. And The essay will also discuss the concept of consideration and with case laws and relative authorities will show how the doctrine of promissory estoppel is exception to the general rule. The doctrine gives an idea that one can be “estopped” from going back on their word

LEGT 5512 LEGAL FOUNDATIONS FOR ACCOUNTANTS SESSION 2, 2010 CASE LIST This Case List is not intended to cite every case quoted in lectures and tutorials during the course. Its purpose is to give students a handy citation of a number of leading cases with brief statements to help identify them. This list may not be taken into the Final Examination.

There must be “sufficient practical certainty in [the trust’s] definition for it to be carried out, if necessary with the administrative assistance of the court, according to the expressed intention of the settlor” (Lord Wilberforce in McPhail v Doulton (1970))

In order to establish intention the court will assess the wording used (Re Adams and Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394). Fahim has shown his intention by his words “hold on trust’.

The amount of £300,000 is used to create a discounted discretionary trust using an investment bond, Jeans is the (Settlor) and both her children are made the trustees and her wishes have been made known to them. As a standard process of establishing the trust a discount has to be determined and this is done

The essay concurs with Paul Matthews where a trust is made in favour of the entire world the trustees are bound to carry that duty, which will be really hard for the courts to enforce it as the courts in terms of powers can only tell the trustees to consider his powers whether to exercise it. However in terms of Trusts, if a trustee fails his discretion it will be impossible for the courts to consider anyone in the world as an object of that class. Lastly, the essay also agree with Gribich that a complete list test for powers and trusts will favour the trustees to know who the objects are but will create more difficulties for the courts. As Lord Wilberforce previously mentioned that the intention of the settlor was not to divide equally among the trustees except in the case of a fixed trust. The diversity of the tests of certainty of objects was debated and argued by the learned judges but according to this essay, they have successfully provided the test which is most suitable for powers and also for

A harsh decision would been seen in the case of Re Fry (1946), as the donor in this case had completed necessary forms and returned them. He also applied for the necessary consent which required by the Defence Regulation (Amendments No.2) SI 1939/1620, but the consent was not given before his untimely demise. Romer J. did not upheld the trust because the donor has not done everything that is necessary for the transfer of the title. As Romer J. stated that if the donor had been asked for further details, he is not compelled to proceed with the transfer, he have the choice to refuse as he obtain more details about the transfer of share.The law had been very clear with regards to imperfect gifts or incompletely constituted trust, as some judges even decided harshly to comply with the maxim and general rule. However there are judges that came out with different rule to curb such harsh decision and strict principle, this is known as ‘the every effort rule’. The ‘every effort rule’ which was established in the case of Re Rose [1952] explained by Rimer L.J in Zeital v Kaye [2010] that “once a donor has done all in his own power to transfer the shares, he will be regarded as holding the legal title to them upon trust for the donee, who will thereupon become their beneficial owner”. This rule will not render the gift or trust failed

However, it is false to state that is solely thus equitable principle that enables the enforcement of secret trusts. An alternative theory is that they arise, dehors, or, outside of the will. It was stated by Danckwerts J in Re Young, in holding a secret trust valid, that in fact ‘the whole theory of the formation of a secret trust is that the Wills Act has nothing to do with the matter.’