INTRODUCTION 2. What is a Trust? a. Introduction b.

A Contract Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd (1970) Twinsectra Ltd v Francis John Yardley (1999) Westdeutsche LandesBank v Islington LBC (1996) c. A Power Saunders v Vautier (1841) Burroughs v Philcox (1840) Re Gestetner (1953) d Administration of a Deceaseds Estate Trustee Act 1925 PRIVATE TRUSTS 1. Creation of Trusts a. Certainty Knight v Knight (1840) i. Certainty of words Lambe v Eames (1871) Re Adams and Kensington Vestry (1884) Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury (1905) Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd (1994) Paul v Constance (1977) Duggan v Full Sutton Prison Governor (2004) Re Steeles Wills Trusts (1948) ii. Certainty of Subject-Matter Palmer v Simmonds (1854) Re Goldcorp (1994) Hunter v Moss (1994) Boyce v Boyce (1849) Re Golay (1965) * Gifts Over - Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury (1905) - Ottaway v Norman (1972) - Birmingham v Renfrew (1936) iii. Certainty of Objects * Fixed Trusts - Matthews, [1984] Conv.22 - Hayton and Martin, [1984] Conv.307 - Re Endacott (1959) - Re Eden (1957)

* Discretionary Trusts - IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust (1955) - Re Llewellyn (1921) - Re Gulbenkian (1970) - McPhail v Doulton (1971) - Re Baden (No.2) (1972) - Barlows WT (1979) - R v District Auditor (No.3), Audit District of West Yorkshire MCC (1985) - Re Manisty (1973) - Re Hay's ST (1981) b. Formalities Paul v Constance (1977) i. Wills s9 Wills Act 1837 s17 Administration of Justice Act 1982 ii. Trusts of Land s53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925 Smith v Matthew (1861) iii Dispositions of the Equitable Interest s53(1)(c) Law of Property Act 1925 * Oral Direction by Beneficiary - Grey v IRC (1960) A holds shares for B1. B1 orally instructs him to transfer those shares to B2 (B1s grandchildren). According to Section 53(1)(c), there needed to be writing to prove that A was aware of the transaction, and an oral declaration was not enough. * Transfer of Legal and Equitable Interest - Vandervell v IRC (1967) A holds shares on trust for Mr. Vandervell, who asks A orally to give actual ownership of the shares to C (he would then no longer have an interest in the shares). Since A held the shares, there was no need for a written agreement since A necessarily knew about the transaction. However C had, as a condition, to give Vandervell Trust Company an option to repurchase the shares. This option was considered to be held by A2 on a resulting trust for Vandervell, since the trust company had an unjust enrichment at Mr Vandervells expense. This unjust enrichment was because a trust company would not use such an option for

themselves. As such, Mr. Vandervell had an interest in the shares and had to pay a surtax on the option. * Declaration by Trustees with Consent of the Beneficial Owner - Re Vandervell (No.2) (1974) Following the last case, Vandervell asked orally his trust company to use money it held on trust for his children and get the shares, on trust for the children as well. * Declaration of Self as Trustee - 53(1)(b) vs. 53(1)(c) - Grainge v Wilberforce (1889) * s53(2) Law of Property Act 1925 - Hussey v Palmer (1972) - Oughtred v IRC (1960) - Re Tyler (1967)