1|Page
PGDL EQUITY AND TRUSTS FINAL EXAM NEWEST
2025 ACTUAL EXAM COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS
AND CORRECT DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED
ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED A+ //LATEST EXAM!!!
A mother's valid will contained the following clause, "I give
£500,000 to my Trustees to hold for my husband for life,
remainder to such of my children who attain the age of 25
if more than one in equal shares. If all of my children die
before attaining the age of 25, then for the MS Society a
registered charity." When she died last year, the mother
was survived by her husband and their three children, twin
daughters aged 16 years and a son aged 17 years.
Which of the following statements best describes when the
husband and the children could bring the trust to an end?
They will be able to bring the trust to an end when the son
attains the age of 18.
They will never be able to bring the trust to an end as the
trust was created by will.
They can end the trust at any time because the husband is
an adult.
,2|Page
They will be able to bring the trust to an end when the
twins are 18.
They will be able to bring the trust to an e - Answer-Option
E is correct. If the son attains the age of 25, at least one of
the children will have satisfied the contingency. The MS
Society will no longer be a potential beneficiary under the
trust. As such, as the husband and the children will all then
be over 18; if they agree, they could bring the trust to an
end under the rule in Saunders v Vautier.
Option A is wrong because, even though the son is 18, the
twin daughters will only be 16. Also, the MS Society would
need to be considered as no child has satisfied the
contingency.
Option B is wrong, because the rule in Saunders v Vautier
can be considered by beneficiaries of any trust regardless
of the circumstances of its creation.
Option C is wrong because all the beneficiaries must be
considered in any decision to bring a trust to an end, not
merely those who are adults.
Option D is wrong because, even though all the children
are legally competent, while the contingency remains
unfulfilled, the MS Society is a potential beneficiary and
would have to be consulted in any possible Saunders v
Vautier arrangement to end the trust.
,3|Page
A trust deed contains the following provision:
'My Trustees shall hold my house in Oxford on trust to
permit my husband to live in the property for the remainder
of his life and after his death to hold the property upon
trust for such of my son and daughter who survive my
husband and attain the age of 25 years.'
The son is aged 28 years and the daughter is aged 20
years.
Which of the following best describes the beneficial
interests in the trust fund?
The husband, son and daughter all have vested interests.
The husband and the son have vested interests, but the
daughter's interest is contingent.
The husband has a vested interest, but the son's and
daughter's interests are contingent.
The husband, son and daughter all have contingent
interests.
The husband has a contingent interest, but the son's and
daughter's interests are vested. - Answer-Option C is
, 4|Page
correct. The husband has a vested interest. (Ordinarily, the
life tenant will receive trust income - in the case of a
residential dwelling, this would be any rent generated from
letting the dwelling. Instead of receiving rental income,
however, the life tenant can instead live in that dwelling
rent- free for the rest of his life.). Remainder beneficiaries
will have vested (albeit postponed) interests in capital,
unless the trust makes it clear that their interests are in
fact conditional on events that might not happen. In this
case, there are two such conditions:
the children must reach the age of 25 years; and
they must still be alive when the husband dies (the
husband's death is a certainty - the children surviving him
is not).
The son's and daughter's interests will only vest if they
satisfy these two conditions. We do not currently know
whether the son and daughter will survive the husband
(and can only know that when he dies). Given the specific
wording of this trust, their interests are still contingent.
Option A is wrong. The son's and daughter's interests are
conditional, not vested.
PGDL EQUITY AND TRUSTS FINAL EXAM NEWEST
2025 ACTUAL EXAM COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS
AND CORRECT DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED
ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED A+ //LATEST EXAM!!!
A mother's valid will contained the following clause, "I give
£500,000 to my Trustees to hold for my husband for life,
remainder to such of my children who attain the age of 25
if more than one in equal shares. If all of my children die
before attaining the age of 25, then for the MS Society a
registered charity." When she died last year, the mother
was survived by her husband and their three children, twin
daughters aged 16 years and a son aged 17 years.
Which of the following statements best describes when the
husband and the children could bring the trust to an end?
They will be able to bring the trust to an end when the son
attains the age of 18.
They will never be able to bring the trust to an end as the
trust was created by will.
They can end the trust at any time because the husband is
an adult.
,2|Page
They will be able to bring the trust to an end when the
twins are 18.
They will be able to bring the trust to an e - Answer-Option
E is correct. If the son attains the age of 25, at least one of
the children will have satisfied the contingency. The MS
Society will no longer be a potential beneficiary under the
trust. As such, as the husband and the children will all then
be over 18; if they agree, they could bring the trust to an
end under the rule in Saunders v Vautier.
Option A is wrong because, even though the son is 18, the
twin daughters will only be 16. Also, the MS Society would
need to be considered as no child has satisfied the
contingency.
Option B is wrong, because the rule in Saunders v Vautier
can be considered by beneficiaries of any trust regardless
of the circumstances of its creation.
Option C is wrong because all the beneficiaries must be
considered in any decision to bring a trust to an end, not
merely those who are adults.
Option D is wrong because, even though all the children
are legally competent, while the contingency remains
unfulfilled, the MS Society is a potential beneficiary and
would have to be consulted in any possible Saunders v
Vautier arrangement to end the trust.
,3|Page
A trust deed contains the following provision:
'My Trustees shall hold my house in Oxford on trust to
permit my husband to live in the property for the remainder
of his life and after his death to hold the property upon
trust for such of my son and daughter who survive my
husband and attain the age of 25 years.'
The son is aged 28 years and the daughter is aged 20
years.
Which of the following best describes the beneficial
interests in the trust fund?
The husband, son and daughter all have vested interests.
The husband and the son have vested interests, but the
daughter's interest is contingent.
The husband has a vested interest, but the son's and
daughter's interests are contingent.
The husband, son and daughter all have contingent
interests.
The husband has a contingent interest, but the son's and
daughter's interests are vested. - Answer-Option C is
, 4|Page
correct. The husband has a vested interest. (Ordinarily, the
life tenant will receive trust income - in the case of a
residential dwelling, this would be any rent generated from
letting the dwelling. Instead of receiving rental income,
however, the life tenant can instead live in that dwelling
rent- free for the rest of his life.). Remainder beneficiaries
will have vested (albeit postponed) interests in capital,
unless the trust makes it clear that their interests are in
fact conditional on events that might not happen. In this
case, there are two such conditions:
the children must reach the age of 25 years; and
they must still be alive when the husband dies (the
husband's death is a certainty - the children surviving him
is not).
The son's and daughter's interests will only vest if they
satisfy these two conditions. We do not currently know
whether the son and daughter will survive the husband
(and can only know that when he dies). Given the specific
wording of this trust, their interests are still contingent.
Option A is wrong. The son's and daughter's interests are
conditional, not vested.
