The Charity Commission a Structure and functions: Honesty and efficiency in charity management a Introduction b Detecting and preventing maladministration c The limits of the supervisory framework Index xvii Preface to the fourth edition This book seeks to present the law of trusts in a different way from conventional texts.
In Hunter v Moss2, the CA held that a declaration of trust of 50 shares from a holding of did not fail for uncertainty of subject matter. The first objection may be seen in a celebrated dictum of Sir William Grant M. Every trust has an obligation. Sir William Grant M.
There can be no trust, over the exercise of which this Court will not assume a control; for an uncontrollable power of disposition would be ownership, and not trust… Every trust other than a charitable one must have a definite object. There must be somebody, in whose favour the court can decree performance.
The test is very appropriate for fixed trusts, but creates unfair and unjust results for discretionary trusts. Lord Wilberforce recognised this as unsatisfactory while giving judgment in McPhail v Doulton5: A new test has been adopted for power and discretionary trusts.
The court held that trust was void for uncertainty on the ground that means by which the trustees were to attain the stated aims were unspecified and the person who was entitled, as of right, to enforce trust was unnamed. The main question is whether the court can execute the trust upon the failure of the trustees to do so.
However, different minds may take different views on the question of whether a particular description is conceptually certain or not. These are as follows: The justification for this less strict test was that in the case of individual gifts, unlike trust and powers, uncertainty as to some beneficiaries did not affect the quantum of the gift in respect of those who clearly qualified.
In this way the class of the objects would otherwise have failed or rescued by the settlor provided that the description offered by the settlor is clear enough for the courts to supervise.
A variation in this theme entitles the settlor to appoint a third person as sole arbiter of the definition of the class of objects and perhaps all issues incidental to the exercise or non-exercise of the discretion. However, to impose this trust, it is necessary to interpret the meaning of the good -looking girls.
The relationship between testator and the trustee is very important. However, the list will be too large, so it is possible to fail the trust. He regarded the employees as persons so directly benefited by the purpose that 1 the purpose was not such an abstract kind so to fall foul of the beneficiary principle, and 2 that the employees had to standing enforce the purpose against the trustees.
Thus, the case appears to have been read to deny that it represents a true departure from the beneficiary principle. It was in fact for the benefit of ascertainable individuals, namely, the members of the club, and he therefore held the trust to be valid.
It was argued that because the testator had made the gift in memory of his late wife, this tented to perpetuity and precluded the association members for the time being from enjoying the gift beneficially.The emergence of the Internet has impacted the health information and the healthcare industry.
The information revolution has reduced the distance between the healthcare providers and consumers. to the pari passu principle of distribution. Instead, secured creditors can rely In Re Kayford Ltd. 12, a mail order company, which was in the twilight of insolvency, opened a separate account upon the advice of its accountant and paid customers' monies into it.
According to this principle, for there to be a valid trust there must be, amongst other things, a beneficiary in whose favour the court can enforce the trust. Recently, the case of Re Denley encapsulates a new pragmatism within the courts as far as this area of law is concerned.
Re Denley’s Trust Deed  1 Ch is an English trusts law case, concerning the policy of the "beneficiary principle". It held that so long as the people benefitting from a trust can at least be said to have a direct and tangible interest, so as to have the locus standi to enforce a trust, it would be valid.
scope of the beneficiary principle,10 the only area on which all of their lordships could agree was the foundation of the principle on the need for there to be some person who .