Equity and the Law of Trusts

Product Information

At common law there was only ever one person who could be said to have a right to land, which was the person entitled to seisin. Sometimes, however, the Lord Chancellor would hold that somebody was bound by good conscience to hold some land they had the right to ad opus alterius (for the benefit of another). At first these nascent trusts were intended to be temporary. Eg. when a tenant by copyhold (a kind of tenure where the tenant was obliged to perform manorial duties to his lord who left the original deeds in the manorial roll) wanted to convey his land to another, the procedure, until 1925, was to surrender the land to the lord. He then held it for the benefit of the transferee, until the lord admitted him as his feudal tenant. [7] Types of Trusts o Express private trust - Inc. Secret trusts, constructive trusts. o Secret Trusts - Person who is the settlor, may not want other to know about the particular beneficiary. For example, a child resulting from an affair. o Purpose Trusts and Unincorporated Associations - No named person who can claim the beneficiary right to the trust. Unincorporated trusts = A company or sports club. o Charitable Trusts - For a trust to be charitable purpose trust, a specific purpose must be specified. Further, the purpose needs to be able to fit into one of four categories recognised as exclusively charitable. Those categories are: trusts for the relief of poverty, trusts for the advancement of religion, trusts for the

The trustee has a fiduciary obligation towards the beneficiary. It is a duty to act with loyalty in These testamentary devices, however, did not develop into the inter vivos (living) trusts which apply while the creator lives and which would develop in England in the Middle Ages that created the basis for the modern English trust. contain a class of beneficiaries rather than a list of named ones. The leading test of certainty oforiginal justification for the presumption of advancement is losing its strength, because wives are Ellesmere's death in 1617 and his replacement with Francis Bacon sought to foster better relations with the Common Law judges, preventing the open hostility from arising again. Thus even if the King James's ruling of 1616 would come to be seen as illegal, [42] the supremacy of Equity would eventually prevail when the different jurisdictions were amalgamated in the 19th Century into what today is are Senior Courts of England and Wales. [43] [44] Shift to Equity by rule [ edit ] Under s25(11), equitable rule prevails so that the variation is upheld. But even pre1875, same outcome would have been arrived at - wife first goes to Common Law court with deed and gets judgment, and husband then goes to Court of Chancery for common injunction to restrain wife from enforcing Common Law judgment. Three stage test on granting interlocutory injunctions was introduced in the English case (American Cyanamid) this was accepted and followed as law in the Irish case (Campus Oil V The Minister for Energy) : This combines elements from different trusts. For example, it might give the beneficiary a right to the income

executor of an estate until the estate is disposed of according to the wishes of the testator, and the This type of conveyance to create a trust would indeed be the most usual until 1926 when the Statute of Uses was finally abolished by the Law of Property Act 1925. The change of nomenclature from Use to Trust was not immediate and is not clear cut, but rather it was a gradual process. Contemporary scholars like Neil Jones, however, generally draw a line between uses/trusts created before the Statute of Uses, calling them Uses, and those created after, calling them Trusts, following the common words of conveyance cited above. [29] Thus, the 'pedigree' of the modern trust can be directly linked to those post-Statute Uses. Analyses recent developments in the law relating to the grant of interlocutory injunctions and specific performance. This classic text has been fully updated to take account of recent developments. The coverage of unincorporated associations has been expanded in this new edition, and greater detail has been applied to contemporary issues in constructive, resulting and charitable trusts. for mutual vigilance. Hence, don't assume that the only cause for difference is in historical origin. Should we be abolishing any reference to equity, and move instead to "event-based" categorisation of private law rights? No!The module will be reassessed by like-for-like reassessment of failed individual component(s) of assessment. Indicative reading In this type of trust, the trustee has discretion as to the distribution of the trust property. For transferor intended to retain equitable rights in the property. Resulting trusts are very similar to

Assets in a bare trust are held in the name of a trustee. However, the beneficiary has the right to the contents These scenarios are at the heart of trust law and it’s not unusual for your work to be intertwined with family law or other areas of law. You will need to be versatile and able to react to changing circumstances in a constantly evolving area of law. Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd, 1991: where third party receives misapplied trust money, why should she be at fault before she can be required to restore trust fund?a b Virgo, Graham (2020). The Principles of Equity & Trusts (4thed.). Oxford: OUP. p.6. ISBN 978-0-19-885415-9. Principle established in (Parkin v Thorold 1852). This maxim is where the equitable remedy for rectification was established this allows for a contract to be corrected when the terms are not correctly recorded. This maxim allows the judge to interpret the intentions of the parties if the terms aren’t recorded properly. Eg. Tort of nuisance is Common Law right of action, but if you want more than Common Law damages, like an equitable remedy of injunction, you must get judgment from Common Law court first and then bring judgment to Court of Chancery to get injunction (can't start off with latter because it has no jurisdiction) Instead of one Lord Chancellor, Cromwell and the House of Commons appointed several Commissioners of the Great Seal of England and tasked them with reforming the court. [51] However, when the House of Commons took up law reform in 1650, they proposed no changes in the Chancery. [53] It has been suggested that a possible reason for this was the large and power lobby that was formed by Chancery officeholders. [52] In any event, and after several pamphlets criticising the Court had circulated, reforms were proposed in a bill that would have seen the process become more efficient and direct with the creation of a Chief Clerk to handle most of the procedure and with heavy penalties for refusing to answer or appear in court (a novelty). The bill never became law however, as Parliament delegated its authority on Cromwell in 1654. [54] Birth of modern equity [ edit ] Supremacy over the Common Law [ edit ] Cardinal Wolseley, Lord Chancellor (1515-29)

in any way she may think best, for the benefit of herself and her family" The Court held that

Region:

this gift by endorsing on the lease of the business premises a short memorandum: "This deed" Furthermore, the use as a method of evading the feudal law of succession to land threatened the revenue of the Crown. Lords, and particularly the Crown, had certain rights over their tenants' land, sometimes called 'incidents of tenure'. [16] Some of the most important were wardship and premier seisin. Under these doctrines, the Crown had the right to enjoy the profit of the tenant's land until he was of age (21) and to select a suitable marriage for the ward, something that could involve a profitable transaction for the Crown as it was allowed to sell the right to marry a rich heir. Likewise, under premier seisin, the Crown could claim the profits of an heir's land for a year. [16] If the only beneficiary is vulnerable, for example someone who is disabled or an orphan, they will pay less tax