Understanding Trust Law Essentials

Introduction

Trust law under the English Common law has various requirements but in order to fulfil the needs a valid trust, the three essentials of a trust fund should be butted and bounded by the trust creator before engaging the trust fund unto someone. While the constituency of trust might seem complex and troublesome, it has simple point of view by the help of which a trust fund is held and created in the name of the beneficiary on a certain subject matter. Trusts are largely two types – Constructive trust and executed trust. Under the branch of executed trust, there are certain kinds of trusts as well such as private trust, purpose trust, public trust, charitable trust etc. Hence, trust can be defined as right of a property int eh nature of movable or immovable, held by one party in the benefit of the other. If you are navigating the complexities of trust law, seeking law dissertation help can provide the most valuable insights and guidance.

In the given case study, we shall explore the definition of trust and how the constituency of trust can be stated valid and how trusts can be held valid in the eyes of law whatsoever. From the given case study, we shall disclose and discover the legal validity of the trusts and gifts that have been created in the given question from the basic concept for the constituency of trust fund.

Legal issues involved

However, before explaining the questions therein, it is essential to understand the constitution of a trust and understand the circumstances therein as to when a trust can said to be fully created by a party herein.

1. Constitution of Trust

In the first instance, the constitution of trust, the settlor must and essentially fulfil certain formalities or legalities before a trust can said to be created against a beneficiary therein. Those are as follows:

The settlor must have the mental capacity of instituting the trust.

The settlor in order to create a valid trust, must and essentially comply with the three necessities of a trust fund i.e. the certainty of intention, the certainty of beneficiary and the certainty of the subject matter.

---

1. Michael Albery. Modern Developments In Equity Law And Variation Of Trusts Act. Real Property, Probate And Trust Journal, 6(4), 1971, P.504-512
2. Ibid

A trust must be created by a settlor under the exclusive type of trust that has been instituted under the English common law therein.

The trust that has been created in favor of a beneficiary should not infringe the term of perpetuity.

In the case where any one of the abovementioned terms of constitution has been violated by the settlor therein, the trust shall be regarded as void and it shall not be executed in favor of the particular beneficiary. Hence the constitution of a trust is completed only when the settlor has fully given the hold of the subject matter of the trust to the trustee and for the time being the trustee becomes the legal owner of the property therein while complying with the terms of the settlor as it has been given whatsoever.

Trust law under the English Common law has various requirements but in order to fulfil the needs a valid trust, the three essentials of a trust fund should be butted and bounded by the trust creator before engaging the trust fund unto someone. While the constituency of trust might seem complex and troublesome, it has simple point of view by the help of which a trust fund is held and created in the name of the beneficiary on a certain subject matter. Trusts are largely two types – Constructive trust and executed trust. Under the branch of executed trust, there are certain kinds of trusts as well such as private trust, purpose trust, public trust, charitable trust etc. Hence, trust can be defined as right of a property int eh nature of movable or immovable, held by one party in the benefit of the other.

2. The essential of gift and the relationship between Trust and Gift

It can be defined and stated that trusts are effectively an arching bend of a gift. A gift can be defined as a transfer of property in the nature of movable or immovable when the no point of consideration has been brough between them and a gift is absolute in nature and it has no accruing benefit for the settlor. The relationship between gift and trust how they are presented. Gift is direct while trust is indirect and goes through the third party i.e. the trustee herein.

For the purpose of a process of gift to be completed, three requirements are needs:

There must be a donor who can gift and the donor must possess the intent of donating the property therein.

1. Theodore W. Dwight. The Legality Of "Trusts." Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 4. 1888, Pp. 592-632
2. Iris Goodwin. “Gifts: A Study In Comparative Law.” Real Property, Trust And Estate Law Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2010, Pp. 823–836

The gift must be delivered to the donee. It can be symbolic delivery or constructive delivery.

The gift must be accepted by the donee unconditionally therein.

3. Causa Mortis Gift

Causa Mortis gift which can be defined as a gift that is given by the donor to the donee on his deathbed with the contingent condition that the gift shall only be complete and fulfilled once the donor is dead.

Questions of law

Hence considering the background and the circumstances of the given case study, it is therefore essentially decided that in the instant question, three points of law have been involved.

Whether the trust created in favor of Ragnor by Alfred was valid?

Whether the gift made to Rolo by Alfred is valid?

Whether the gift created to Brida, Hilda and Midrith are valid?

Explanation

Considering the abovementioned question therein and the relevant circumstances, it is therefore held that the whole problem question can be divided into three segments that shall deal with the differences of trust and gifts and whether the trusts and gifts created by Alfred herein are valid and whether they have fulfilled the essentials of the trusts and the gifts under the English Common law therein.

From the limited information as it has been provided in the given question problem, it can be stated that Alfred intended to create a valid trust in favor of Ragnor where Uhtred was employed as the trustee. There was certainty of intention and certainty of subject matter i.e. shares of the Viking Ltd. And a certain beneficiary i.e. the nephew of Alfred, Ragnor. Hence according to the case of Morice v. Bishop of Durham and Knight v. Knight, that deals with the essentials of the constitution of a trust, it can be said that the trust was complete in favor of Ragnor.

1. Horsley V Phillips Fine Art Auctioneers Pty Ltd [1995] Nswsc 78 (16 October 1995)
2. Sprankling, John; Coletta, Raymond (2018). Property: A Contemporary Approach (4 Ed.). St. Paul, Mn: West Academic Pubishing. Pp. 209–225.
3. Sen V Headly [1991] Ch. 425
4. Russell L. Bradford. Evolution Of The Meaning Of The Words "Gifts Made In Contemplation Of Death" In Inheritance Tax Legislation. Virginia Law Review , Feb., 1923, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Feb., 1923), Pp. 267-291

However, there was one question of fact that has been stated that the Uhtred could not obtain the registration of the shares in his own name and hence after a year, the shares were returned back to Alfred who then disposed the shares in name of Rolo, the executioner of his will. Hence, even though essentials of the trust was maintained and fulfilled, the constitution of trust could not be established in the given case as Uhtred could not obtain the legal registration of the shares therein and hence the trust would be stated as not constituted in favor of Ragnor. In the case of Milory v. Lord, the test of such constitution of trust was verified and it was said that in order to create a valid trust, the whole process needs to be completed. Hence considering the abovementioned point of law, it can be stated that the trust was not created in favor of Ragnor.

In the second scenario, after Alfred got back the shares from Uhtred, he executed the abovementioned shares in the name of Rolo, his cousin. From the abovementioned scenario as it has been stated and mentioned herein, Rolo was given the shares of Alfred as an absolute gift and as such the donee i.e. Rolo has accepted the gift without any consideration or exchange of anything between them. Hence from the case law of Horsley v Phillips Fine Art Auctioneers Pty Ltd, it can be stated that the abovementioned gift made by Alfred in favour of Rolo was valid and absolute.

In case of the third scenario, it can be seen that Alfred has made three gifts to his three daughters in his death bed and he has expressively used the term that the daughters are to enjoy the gifts once Alfred is dead. While from the abovementioned essentials of gifts, it is to be deduced that a gift is needed to be present and at that moment in order to facilitate a perfect hold, there are exemptions to it and that gifts under the English common law has different types under which contingent gift can be made.

In the last scenario, the type of gift that has been made by Alfred comes under the purview of the Causa Mortis gift which can be defined as a gift that is given by the donor to the donee on his deathbed with the contingent condition that the gift shall only be complete and fulfilled once the donor is dead. Hence, the abovementioned gifts are said to be valid in the eyes of law as they are to be regarded as causa mortis gift and that the daughters of Alfred are to enjoy the gifts as it has been separately given to them once Alfred is dead. In the case of Sen v. Headly, the courts of England dealt with donatio causa mortis and held that a gift made in Land or house or any other property on a person’s deathbed shall be held as valid and fruitful in the eyes of law therein.

1. Morice V Bishop Of Durham [1805] Ewhc Ch J80
2. Ibid
3. Knight V Knight (1840) 49 Er 58
4. Milroy V Lord [1862] Ewhc J78
5. Sprankling, John; Coletta, Raymond (2018). Property: A Contemporary Approach (4 Ed.). St. Paul, Mn: West Academic Pubishing. Pp. 209–225
6. Horsley V Phillips Fine Art Auctioneers Pty Ltd [1995] Nswsc 78 (16 October 1995)

Conclusion

Hence from the abovementioned discussion and critically dissecting of the question problem with reference to relative case laws, it can be stated that the trust in favor of Ragnor is void but the gifts made in favor of the three daughter of Alfred and Rolo, the nephew of Alfred are to be held as valid under the English Common Law.

1. Russell L. Bradford. Evolution Of The Meaning Of The Words "Gifts Made In Contemplation Of Death" In Inheritance Tax Legislation. Virginia Law Review , Feb., 1923, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Feb., 1923), Pp. 267-291
2. Sen V Headly [1991] Ch. 425

Q2 Introduction

With the implication of the Inheritance and Trustees Power Act of 2014, several changes have made into the segment of the Trustee’s statutory power of advancement and maintenance and it has made several big changes in the sector of both income and capital investments that are mandated by and under section 31 & 32 of the Trustees Act, 1925 herein. It is to be noted and discussed herein that how the Inheritance and the Trustees Power Act of 2014 has made flexible and valuable changes in the Trustees Act, 1925 and how trust law of England has been made better with the more flexible power unto the hands of the Trustee therein.

Changes made by ITPA, 2014

With the help of the section 8 of the ITPA, 2014, huge changes were made to the advancement and maintenance power of the Trustee’s statutory duties. Section 8 of the Inheritance and the Trustee’s power Act of 2014 has amended the section 31 of the Trustee’s Act, 1925 where it has clearly amended the trustee’s statutory duty and right to use to the income of the trust fund for the maintenance and education or any other benefit of the minor beneficiary therein. Before the enactment and the amendment done by the ITPA, 2014, the trustee needed to provide the income or any other beneficiary accrued from a trust fund of a minor beneficiary to the guardian or the minor whatsoever and the trustee had no power in regulating it. But with the new amendment done by section 8(a) of the ITPA, 2014, the trustee has been given substantial power of applying their own mind and flexibility into the same situation and provide the beneficiary accruing from the trust fund of a minor to the guardian as the “trustee deems fit.”

Also, section 8(b) of the ITPA, 2014 removed and amended the second part i.e. section 31(1) of the Trustee’s Act, 1925 where it was said that he trustee should exercise their discretionary power which shall go and fit the factors listed under the said section. With the amendment of the section 8(b) of the ITPA, 2014, the said clause and the factors were duly amended and it has been said that the trustee is given much more flexibility and their own discretion while exercise their power of maintenance of a trust fund.

1. Thomas Flatcher. A Significant Change. Trust Quaterly Review, 2014 [Accessed On 7th Sept, 2021] < Https://Www.Step.Org/Tqr/Tqr-December-2014/Significant-Advance >
2. Ibid

Also, as to the advancement power of the trustee which is regarded as a statutory power of the trustee under the Trustee’s Act, 1925, amendment has been made by the ITPA, 2014. Section 9(3)(b) of the ITPA, 2014 amended the statutory power of the trustee in case of advancement to such an extent that it enabled the flexibility of section 32 of the Trustee’s Act, 1925. Before the amendment of the ITPA, 1925, the trustee could advance capital for the advancement or benefit of a beneficiary who has an interest in the capital but such advancement was further limited by a certain limit that the trustee could only exercise such power up to the limit of one half of the beneficiary’s presumptive share only. The amendment section now provides the trustee with the whole of the beneficiary’s share with prior consent of the any person who has an interest in the said share whatsoever. Also, it has been mentioned under the Act that this section shall be applicable to any trusts that have been created before the commencement of the said Act in the year of 2014. Also, section 9(4) of the ITPA, 2014 stated and amended the section 32(1)(a) of the TA, 1925 where the trustee has been given the power to advance non-cash assets to the beneficiaries.

Critical Assessment of the amended power of the Trustee

From the abovementioned discussion on the amendment of the trustee’s statutory powers in advancement and maintenance, it can be stated that the statutory powers of Trustee’s under the Trustee’s Act, 1925 are now adequate and flexible to such extent that the trustee can actually enjoy and apply their power of discretion without facing so much resistance therein. The problem in the resisting the flexibility in the statutory power of the Trustees was first assessed and identified in the case of Re Collard’s Will Trust. In this case, it was held by the court of law that the statutory power of trustees is extremely limited in terms of advancement and maintenance of the trust fund but their duties are extremely rigid which makes the position of a trustee in a trust fund imbalanced and it becomes critical for the trustee to hold the interest of the beneficiary in a trust fund and the rigidity and orthodox mentality of the trust law under English Common Law has made it more and more difficult.

In view of the above-mentioned case law, it can be stated that the new statutory powers in terms of advancement and maintenance that has been provided to the trustee has wide prospective and flexible and they can be said to be balanced with the duties of a trustee that has been stated under the Trustee’s Act, 1925.

1. Re Collard’s Will Trust, [1964] Ac 612, [1962] 3 All Er 622

Q3

The case of Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd is one of the leading cases of trust law in England that establishes a basic concept of trust and strengthens the roots of trust law and trust fund herein. In the year of 1970, Lord Wilberforce pronounced an important judgement based on the abovementioned case law and the nomenclature of the trust type was derived from this instant case law. It not only acts as a precedent to other similar cases but it has raised a separate concept of trust law that provides for a better understanding of the relationship between trust fund, insolvency and loopholes therein.

By dissecting the commentary of Lord Wilberforce, we shall critically discuss the concept of Quistclose Trust in English law and discuss to what extent it has applicability in real life.

What is Quistclose Trsut?

Originated from the case of Barclays Bank Ltd., Quistclose trust can be bluntly defined as the ‘security interest that a creditor can hold over a loan.’ Hence, Quistclose trust concept essentially provides the creditor with the power to limit how the borrower should be spending their borrowed money and it shall be within the power of the creditor that if the borrower uses the money for any other reason than the reason mentioned to the creditor under any written contract, the creditor shall reserve the right to claim back the credited fund therein. In simple terms, during the time of lending money, the moneylender creates a trust around the fund to trace any inappropriate spending of money by the borrower and this action is to be taken to protect the interest of the creditor herein.

However, in order to fulfil the intention of Quistclose Trust, Lord Wilberforce essentially maintained in the abovementioned case that it should be the intention of the creditor that a secondary trust in benefit of the moneylender to be created to protect the loaned amount in case the primary trust, if any, fails. To pronounce such concept of Quistclose trust, Lord Wilberforce essentially drawn reference from an old case of Toovey v Milne, which also deals with the same concept.

Element of Quistclose Trust

In order to establish the basic of a Quistclose trust, there must be two elements present – a) It must be clear from the arrangement between both the parties, either by any written contract or any gesture b) It also must be clear that the borrower shall not use the money as a free disposal to any purposes as he pleases.

1. Barclays Bank Ltd V Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] Ac 567
2. Alastair Hudson, Equity And Trusts (6th Ed., Routledge-Cavendish) 2009, P. 50-55
3. Toovey V Milne, (1819) 2 B&Ald 683

Apart from these two elements, another element of Quistcloe Trust is to paid or put the loaned amount in a certain separate account that emphasizes that the money was loaned only for a particular purpose.

Critical Discussion of Lord Wilberforce’s definition of Quistclose Trust

The paradigm of the Quistclose Trust essentially draws attention of different segments of law including the insolvency law and the security law of the English legislation. Hence the concept and application of Quistclose Trust has always attracted criticisms where some of the scholars are of the opinion that the concept of Quistclose Trust provides only temporary solution to a vast concept of security device herein.

However, in order to criticize or critically discuss the concept of Quistclose Trust, it is needed to understand the maxim of pari passu rule where it is said that when a company liquidates, it is the duty of the company that it distributes all of its valuables as a security device among the lenders and it is to be considered as trust asset. But again, the elite class of creditors are not subjected to such treatment. Also, in order to recover assets during the time of liquidation of company, the creditor must show or fulfil the question whether a trust was created through the loaned money that it implied that that a trust was created. In the case of Re Kayford Ltd, it was held that the intention of any oral or written contract must be there to bind the borrower under a trust therein.

Apart from this basic concept, if we are to critically discuss the concept of Quistclose Trust as it has been forearded by Lord Wilberforce in the case of Barkley therein, the case of Twinsectra v. Yardley, needs to be taken into reference as it provides us with a good insight as to what should be expansion of the concept of the Quistclose Trust. In this particular case, the lawyers of the parties were involved in a breach of trust and when the applicant brought an appeal against the company who was not involved in the case, it was held that in the instant case the purpose of the Quistclose Trust has been frustrated and it should not be only considered to be mere case of trust fund but a serious offence in the nature of misappropriation of money. This important decision which draws an important line between Quistclose Trust and to what extent the parties in a case shall be using the concept.

1. Fiona R Burns. "The Quistclose Trust: Intention And The Express Private Trust". Monash University Law Review. 1992, 18 (2): 147–168
2. British Eagle V Compagnie Nationale Air France [ 1975] 1 Wlr 758
3. Hugh Beale, The Law Of Security And Title-Based Financing (2nd Edn, Oup) 2012
4. Re Kayford Ltd. [1975] 1 All Er 604.
5. Twinsectra V. Yardley, [2002] 2 All Er 377.

Thus, to critically dissect the commentary held by Lord Wilberforce, it can be stated that the enigma of the Quistclose Trust still provides us a with a vague concept as in the case of Barkley, Lord Wilberforce did not draw a clear distinction between the concept of primary and the secondary trust whatsoever. While it can be guessed that the primary trust might be in the nature of a private trust but that is an assumption and no definite decision was held by Lord Wilberforce. Contending the words of William Swaddling from his book of “Quistclose Trust: Critical Essays”, it was discussed whether in the particular case of Barkley, any intention was expressed by either of the parties to create a trust fund or not and the author found it objectionable that the court implied the conduct of the parties therein from a mere purpose that was attached by the lender in the abovementioned given case study in the question. Thus, according to the concept presented by Swaddling, the concept of Quistclose Trust, even though essential, does not have a strong foothold and it did not rise from a point of view where there existed anything beyond an ordinary debtor-creditor relationship.

Hence, to critically assess and understand the abovementioned case of Barkley, it can be stated that Lord Wilberforce in the given matter did not examine whether the creditor was aware of the creation of trust fund or whether any of such procedure of creating a trust fund was held but only a mere expression was intimated by the creditor. Thus, it can be critically said that Lord Wilberforce assessed the judgement in order to be protective of the loaned amount to the debtor and the judgement stopped the lender form using the loaned amount in some other purpose i.e. to misappropriate the money amount. While in the view of debtor-creditor parameter, this decision might be one of the exceptional judgement which secured the creditor of their loaned money if the company becomes insolvent, the decision is nevertheless is a disappointment to the doctrine of trust as no emphasize was given on the point of “certainty of intention” in the given case study. From the given commentary, it is still vague what would be the nature of the mentioned primary trust and what would be requirement by either of the party in order to create a trust and whether in any of such cases, the creditor should always be at an advantage or not.

1. Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No. 2) [1974] Ch 269
2. William Swaddling. Quistclose Trust: Critical Essays (2nd Edn, Oxford University Publication: Oxford) 2004, P. 47
3. Ibid
4. Lamb V. Eames, [1817] L.R. 6 Ch, 597

Also, along with all these criticisms, another point of criticism can be brough up as to whether Quistclose Trust falls under the category of a purpose trust or not. As per the words of Swaddling, Quistclose trust is essentially a purpose trust where the purpose of the creditor of recovering their loan amount in the case of insolvency of a company was protected. Quistclose Trust heavily relies on the purpose and it is the only point of view of this trust case and the whole point of the trust depends on this very purpose that the creditor shall be able to recover the loaned amount to the borrower and that the borrower shall not be able to use the loaned amount for any other purpose than the purpose that has been mentioned by the creditor therein. However, a big critical argument arises therein that if we regard the concept Quistclose Trust as a purpose trust, there must be a beneficiary. A purpose trust must adhere to the beneficiary principle and under no circumstance a purpose trust shall exist without a beneficiary. A purpose trust is ipso facto void if there exist no beneficiary. The exemption of beneficiary principle has been only given to charitable trusts. But Quistclose Trust is by nature is more of a private trust to raise the quality of being a charitable trust.

Hence, if Quistclose trust is a purpose trust as it has been declared, it has a grave flaw of not having any beneficiary or any third party. It can be critically held and assessed that Quistclose Trust does not provide any explanation to the doctrine of the beneficiary principle and does not provide any explanation as to what would be nature of the trust fund as well. Thus, the concept of Quistclose Trust only provides with a dual structure that becomes void within itself.

Again, to such point of question, Millett provided with an explanation where he was of the opinion that the nature of Quistclose Trust would be to create an absolute transferee right and benefits and hence the question of beneficiary principle was to be set aside and leave alone.

Thus, going by these criticisms as put forward by Swaddling and Miller therein, it is therefore critically held that the concept of Quistclose Trust as forwarded by Lord Wilberforce might have the essential intention to keep a safe place for the creditor but it does not provide enough scope for the trust doctrine to be fulfilled and as such it can only be stated that thw abovementioned concept can be only agreeable in the English courts of law as a constructive trust, a concept that is often regarded as a valid form of trust by the Canadian Courts since long. In the case of constructive trust concept lies at the fact that if the borrower uses the lent amount of money for any other purposes that it was mentioned by the lender or without express knowledge of the lender, it would come under the purview of the constructive trust fund and the lender shall be liable to recover the amount as it would be right of the lender therein. Hence, it can be safely stated that given the concept of Quistclose Trust provides a notable argument in favour of the creditors in case of misappropriation of money and when the misappropriation can be detected, we can let go of keeping the concept under a strict jacket of formula of a certain trust doctrine and provide an exception to this case under the concept of a constructive trust herein.

1. Ibid
2. Morice V. Bishop Of Durham, [1804] 9 Ves Jr 399
3. Peter Millett, ’The Quistclose Trust” Who Can Enforce It?’ Law Quarterly Review, 1985, 101, P.269
4. Pettkus V. Becker, [1980] 2 S.C.R 834

Conclusion

However, in critically discussing the nature of the same, it is also to be held that the purpose or intention of creating of such a trust fund must be forwarded by the lender at the time of providing such money amount and the borrower must be alert of existence of such trust fund or any of such intention in order to act accordingly. Otherwise, it would be only a fruitless point of law that unjustifiably favours the creditors against the borrowers before the court of law.

Continue your exploration of Understanding the Role of Punishment in Society with our related content.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Journals

R Burns, Fiona. "The Quistclose Trust: Intention And The Express Private Trust". Monash University Law Review. 1992, 18 (2): 147–168

Goodwin, Iris. “Gifts: A Study In Comparative Law.” Real Property, Trust And Estate Law Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2010, Pp. 823–836

Albery, Michael. Modern Developments In Equity Law And Variation Of Trusts Act. Real Property, Probate And Trust Journal, Vol. 6(4), 1971, pp. 504-512

Millett, Peter. ’The Quistclose Trust” Who Can Enforce It?’ Law Quarterly Review, 1985, 101, P.269

L. Bradford, Russell. Evolution Of The Meaning Of The Words "Gifts Made In Contemplation Of Death" In Inheritance Tax Legislation. Virginia Law Review , 1923, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Feb., 1923), Pp. 267-291

Sprankling, John; Coletta, Raymond (2018). Property: A Contemporary Approach (4 Ed.). St. Paul, Mn: West Academic Pubishing. Pp. 209–225.

Dwight, Theodore W. The Legality Of "Trusts." Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 4. 1888, Pp. 592-632

Books

Hudson, Alastair, Equity And Trusts (6th Ed., Routledge-Cavendish) 2009

Beale, Hugh. The Law Of Security And Title-Based Financing (2nd Edn, Oup) 2012

Swaddling, William. Quistclose Trust: Critical Essays (2nd Edn, Oxford University Publication: Oxford) 2004

Article

Flatcher, Thomas. A Significant Change. Trust Quaterly Review, 2014 [Accessed On 7th Sept, 2021] < Https://Www.Step.Org/Tqr/Tqr-December-2014/Significant-Advance >

Case Laws

Barclays Bank Ltd V Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] Ac 567

British Eagle V Compagnie Nationale Air France [ 1975] 1 Wlr 758

Horsley V Phillips Fine Art Auctioneers Pty Ltd [1995] Nswsc 78 (16 October 1995)

Knight V Knight (1840) 49 Er 58

Lamb V. Eames, [1817] L.R. 6 Ch, 597

Milroy V Lord [1862] Ewhc J78

Morice V. Bishop Of Durham, [1804] 9 Ves Jr 399

Pettkus V. Becker, [1980] 2 S.C.R 834

Re Collard’s Will Trust, [1964] Ac 612, [1962] 3 All Er 622

Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No. 2) [1974] Ch 269

Re Kayford Ltd. [1975] 1 All Er 604.

Sen V Headly [1991] Ch. 425

Toovey V Milne, (1819) 2 B&Ald 683

Twinsectra V. Yardley, [2002] 2 All Er 377.