EQUITY AND TRUSTS EXAM COMPLETE QUESTIONS
AND 100% VERIFIED ANSWERS
Knight v Knight - ANSWER The 3 Certainties to create express trust
1. Intention (to create a trust)
2. Subject matter (the land/property)
3. Objects (the beneficiaries of the trust)
Paul v Constance - ANSWER Not necessary to use the word "trust" if the
context of wording is sufficient. Trusts can be created informally... providing
the trust concerns anything other than land (money/shares/furniture etc etc)
Palmer v Simmonds - ANSWER Cannot create a trust with subjective wording
...."the bulk of my estate"
Re Golay's WT - ANSWER Can use wording such as "reasonable income"....
for a housekeeper
IRC v Broadway Cottages [1955] - ANSWER the "list test"
If beneficiaries are described as a group - can a comprehensive list be made of
them. "to all my grandchildren living at my death"
Re London Wine Co - ANSWER Must be able to distinguish which goods are
held in trust for you. Don't bulk with everyone else!
Boyce v Boyce - ANSWER Update your will if one of the beneficiaries dies,
because otherwise you stuff it for everyone!
2 daughters - Dads will said, No1 daughter could pick one house & No2
daughter then got the remaining houses. No1 daughter died before Dad, as they
didn't know which house she would have picked they declared the will void &
therefore Dad died intestate & everything went to the next male heir!!
,McPhail v Doulton - ANSWER Is/Is not test List of beneficiaries does not need
to be absolute, but it must be possible to clearly distinguish between potential
beneficiaries - who IS who IS NOT test
s53(1)(c) LPA 1925 - ANSWER Formalities - Dispositions of existing
equitable interests - must be in writing (either owner or agent ....lawfully
authorised agent)
1. Any kind of trust property
2. Must be in writing
3. Signed by existing beneficiary or agent
4. If not purported disposition is void
s53(1)(b) LPA 1925 - ANSWER Formalities - Brand new trusts of land -
Requires evidence in writing
- Signed by Grantor/Settlor
- if not trust is valid but unenforceable
- If evidence is after oral declaration, trust takes effect from date of oral
declaration
Vandervell exception - ANSWER Provided legal title & equitable interest
transferred at the same time. There is no need for signed writing under
53(1)(c).....basically using Saunders v Vautier (breaking the trust) D's bank held
some shares on trust for D. Bank = Legal title / D = Equitable interest.
Transferred both to the College of surgeons.
Instruction to Trustee - 53(1)(c) does not apply - ANSWER Instructions to
Trustee - transfer my equitable interest to another person. Verbal conversation
will suffice, but have to provide written evidence of the conversation (legally
applies from point of conversation)
Grey v IRC - ANSWER Oral instructions not valid for disposition - needs to be
in writing 53(1)(c).... but confirmatory deed (confirmation of the oral
instructions) was valid & transferred the equitable interests of the trust Hunter -
set up trust, self equitable interest & trustees.
Saunders v Vautier - ANSWER Beneficiaries of a trust can break the trust
- Providing they are all over 18
- Providing they are all in agreement
, Grainge v Wilberforce - ANSWER Obiter Dicter - Assign subtrust to another
beneficiary then this constitutes a disposition, so written confirmation needed
53(1)(c)
Zeital v Kaye - ANSWER Signature of trustee does not constitute legal transfer
on behalf of the beneficiaries (they are not the lawful agent!)
To transfer legal title - must do all that you can....
States that Pennington & Wane is restricted to cases where the facts are the
same (done all you can)
Glaister-Carlisle - ANSWER Transfer legal title - must be clear &
unequivocable intention to transfer.
During an argument the husband threw black poodle at wife saying "keep the
bitch, she's yours"
Equitable Maxims - ANSWER [Milroy v Lord]
1. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift (trust)
2. Equity will not assist a volunteer
3. Equity will not treat a failed transfer as a self-declaration of trust.
4. Equity looks to substance not form
5. Equity will not permit a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud
6. Equity regards as done that which ought to be done
7. He who seeks equity must do equity
8. He who seeks equity must come with clean hands
9. Delay defeats equity
10. Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee
11. Equality is equity
Re Rose - ANSWER Exception to failed transfer of legal title:
RR exceptions....must
1. Uses the correct method
2. Does all he can [Zeital v Kaye]
3. Puts beyond his control
a. Send to 3rd party
b. Hands to donee
AND 100% VERIFIED ANSWERS
Knight v Knight - ANSWER The 3 Certainties to create express trust
1. Intention (to create a trust)
2. Subject matter (the land/property)
3. Objects (the beneficiaries of the trust)
Paul v Constance - ANSWER Not necessary to use the word "trust" if the
context of wording is sufficient. Trusts can be created informally... providing
the trust concerns anything other than land (money/shares/furniture etc etc)
Palmer v Simmonds - ANSWER Cannot create a trust with subjective wording
...."the bulk of my estate"
Re Golay's WT - ANSWER Can use wording such as "reasonable income"....
for a housekeeper
IRC v Broadway Cottages [1955] - ANSWER the "list test"
If beneficiaries are described as a group - can a comprehensive list be made of
them. "to all my grandchildren living at my death"
Re London Wine Co - ANSWER Must be able to distinguish which goods are
held in trust for you. Don't bulk with everyone else!
Boyce v Boyce - ANSWER Update your will if one of the beneficiaries dies,
because otherwise you stuff it for everyone!
2 daughters - Dads will said, No1 daughter could pick one house & No2
daughter then got the remaining houses. No1 daughter died before Dad, as they
didn't know which house she would have picked they declared the will void &
therefore Dad died intestate & everything went to the next male heir!!
,McPhail v Doulton - ANSWER Is/Is not test List of beneficiaries does not need
to be absolute, but it must be possible to clearly distinguish between potential
beneficiaries - who IS who IS NOT test
s53(1)(c) LPA 1925 - ANSWER Formalities - Dispositions of existing
equitable interests - must be in writing (either owner or agent ....lawfully
authorised agent)
1. Any kind of trust property
2. Must be in writing
3. Signed by existing beneficiary or agent
4. If not purported disposition is void
s53(1)(b) LPA 1925 - ANSWER Formalities - Brand new trusts of land -
Requires evidence in writing
- Signed by Grantor/Settlor
- if not trust is valid but unenforceable
- If evidence is after oral declaration, trust takes effect from date of oral
declaration
Vandervell exception - ANSWER Provided legal title & equitable interest
transferred at the same time. There is no need for signed writing under
53(1)(c).....basically using Saunders v Vautier (breaking the trust) D's bank held
some shares on trust for D. Bank = Legal title / D = Equitable interest.
Transferred both to the College of surgeons.
Instruction to Trustee - 53(1)(c) does not apply - ANSWER Instructions to
Trustee - transfer my equitable interest to another person. Verbal conversation
will suffice, but have to provide written evidence of the conversation (legally
applies from point of conversation)
Grey v IRC - ANSWER Oral instructions not valid for disposition - needs to be
in writing 53(1)(c).... but confirmatory deed (confirmation of the oral
instructions) was valid & transferred the equitable interests of the trust Hunter -
set up trust, self equitable interest & trustees.
Saunders v Vautier - ANSWER Beneficiaries of a trust can break the trust
- Providing they are all over 18
- Providing they are all in agreement
, Grainge v Wilberforce - ANSWER Obiter Dicter - Assign subtrust to another
beneficiary then this constitutes a disposition, so written confirmation needed
53(1)(c)
Zeital v Kaye - ANSWER Signature of trustee does not constitute legal transfer
on behalf of the beneficiaries (they are not the lawful agent!)
To transfer legal title - must do all that you can....
States that Pennington & Wane is restricted to cases where the facts are the
same (done all you can)
Glaister-Carlisle - ANSWER Transfer legal title - must be clear &
unequivocable intention to transfer.
During an argument the husband threw black poodle at wife saying "keep the
bitch, she's yours"
Equitable Maxims - ANSWER [Milroy v Lord]
1. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift (trust)
2. Equity will not assist a volunteer
3. Equity will not treat a failed transfer as a self-declaration of trust.
4. Equity looks to substance not form
5. Equity will not permit a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud
6. Equity regards as done that which ought to be done
7. He who seeks equity must do equity
8. He who seeks equity must come with clean hands
9. Delay defeats equity
10. Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee
11. Equality is equity
Re Rose - ANSWER Exception to failed transfer of legal title:
RR exceptions....must
1. Uses the correct method
2. Does all he can [Zeital v Kaye]
3. Puts beyond his control
a. Send to 3rd party
b. Hands to donee
