When jurisdiction allowed trusts without beneficiaries for charitable purposes,
arises the question whether non-charitable purposes trusts didn’t have
objection? Non-charitable trust are considered a "myth" in UK because there
is no justification for such a trust. Because trust must be clearly state the class
of individual and ascertained, the absence of beneficiaries would generally
cause a trust to fail as the objects. In Morris v Bishop of Durham, William
Grant MR declared that "every other trust must have a definite object." the
trust is void when a private purpose trust has no enforcer, no officer and the
trustee has unlimited power of disposition or ownership. When the class of
beneficiaries could not be identified, the trust was declared void as per Re
Astor. As a result, when no one is present, the trustee does not assume to
have equitable obligation.
In sense that beneficiaries able to sue the trustee to court if trustee fails to
perform his obligation. If no one is able to do so, the court will not do so since
they will not be able to manage in every trust. Trustee require to hold some
asset on trust for beneficiary, granting locus standi to one who able to sue in
court. In Morice, whenever there is no trust, the court will not take control
unless there is a beneficiary who can hold the trustee accountable by bringing
a controversial matter. On the other hand, the Attorney General(AG) is
responsible for enforcing the trust in a public purpose trust but AG does not
have a correlative equitable right in a private purpose trust. The case of Re
Endacott favoured the conservative view, which requires the existence of
beneficiaries in a trust. In addition, the court in Re Shaw stated that invalid
trusts for purposes will not be validated by interpret them as valid powers for
purposes. In his judgement, Lord Millett explained that when settlor passed
legal title to trustee, the trustee transferred the equitable interest to the
beneficiaries, allowing the beneficiaries to manage their own trust property
while policing the trustee's conduct. All of this is impossible to happen in a
private purpose trust, when no one is bound to perform it, as it is invalid under
English law.
More recent cases, Re Denley, have tended to validate trusts if there is some
individual or group of people who may reasonably be considered to be
capable of regulating the trust by taking it to court as per . As per Re Denley
land was conveyed to a trustee for the purpose of maintaining a sports
ground, primarily for benefit of employees, but also for the benefit of those
whom the trustees allowed to use it. The test or certainty of object and
perpetuity rule was found to be satisfied by the courts. We must distinguish
between 2 types of purpose trust. When the benefit is indirect or intangible,
the purpose trust will fail and no one will have locus standi. Although, if the
trust is indirectly or direct for the benefit of a single person or a group of
people it is enforceable. This form of purpose trust, according to Goff J,
was "outside the harm of the beneficiary principle." In Rickett 1980,
he interpretated that trust is enforced when the requirement of human
beneficiaries is met. According to Lord Millet, the law tends to favour the
enjoyment of the purpose over the indirect benefit of people become
secondary.
arises the question whether non-charitable purposes trusts didn’t have
objection? Non-charitable trust are considered a "myth" in UK because there
is no justification for such a trust. Because trust must be clearly state the class
of individual and ascertained, the absence of beneficiaries would generally
cause a trust to fail as the objects. In Morris v Bishop of Durham, William
Grant MR declared that "every other trust must have a definite object." the
trust is void when a private purpose trust has no enforcer, no officer and the
trustee has unlimited power of disposition or ownership. When the class of
beneficiaries could not be identified, the trust was declared void as per Re
Astor. As a result, when no one is present, the trustee does not assume to
have equitable obligation.
In sense that beneficiaries able to sue the trustee to court if trustee fails to
perform his obligation. If no one is able to do so, the court will not do so since
they will not be able to manage in every trust. Trustee require to hold some
asset on trust for beneficiary, granting locus standi to one who able to sue in
court. In Morice, whenever there is no trust, the court will not take control
unless there is a beneficiary who can hold the trustee accountable by bringing
a controversial matter. On the other hand, the Attorney General(AG) is
responsible for enforcing the trust in a public purpose trust but AG does not
have a correlative equitable right in a private purpose trust. The case of Re
Endacott favoured the conservative view, which requires the existence of
beneficiaries in a trust. In addition, the court in Re Shaw stated that invalid
trusts for purposes will not be validated by interpret them as valid powers for
purposes. In his judgement, Lord Millett explained that when settlor passed
legal title to trustee, the trustee transferred the equitable interest to the
beneficiaries, allowing the beneficiaries to manage their own trust property
while policing the trustee's conduct. All of this is impossible to happen in a
private purpose trust, when no one is bound to perform it, as it is invalid under
English law.
More recent cases, Re Denley, have tended to validate trusts if there is some
individual or group of people who may reasonably be considered to be
capable of regulating the trust by taking it to court as per . As per Re Denley
land was conveyed to a trustee for the purpose of maintaining a sports
ground, primarily for benefit of employees, but also for the benefit of those
whom the trustees allowed to use it. The test or certainty of object and
perpetuity rule was found to be satisfied by the courts. We must distinguish
between 2 types of purpose trust. When the benefit is indirect or intangible,
the purpose trust will fail and no one will have locus standi. Although, if the
trust is indirectly or direct for the benefit of a single person or a group of
people it is enforceable. This form of purpose trust, according to Goff J,
was "outside the harm of the beneficiary principle." In Rickett 1980,
he interpretated that trust is enforced when the requirement of human
beneficiaries is met. According to Lord Millet, the law tends to favour the
enjoyment of the purpose over the indirect benefit of people become
secondary.
