Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Trusts L6 Exam 2019 A

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALL

LA3002 ZA
LLB
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Equity and Trusts (Level 6)

Wednesday 22 May 2019: 10.00 – 13.15

DO NOT TURN OVER UNTIL TOLD TO BEGIN

Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES in which to


answer the questions. Candidates must answer all parts of a question unless
otherwise stated.

Candidates must answer THREE of the following SIX questions.

Permitted materials
Candidates are permitted to bring into the examination room the following
specified document: one copy of Core Statutes on Property Law 2018-19
(Palgrave Macmillan).

© University of London 2019


UL19/0376
Page 1 of 3
1. ‘The rules relating to certainty of subject matter are illogical. There is
no good reason to treat company shares and bank accounts differently
from gold ingots or identical cases of wine. If a trust to provide a
reasonable income is acceptable, then there is nothing wrong with a
trust of the bulk of an estate.’

Discuss.

2. In Angove’s Pty Ltd v Bailey (2016), Lord Sumption said: ‘English law is
generally averse to the discretionary adjustment of property rights, and
has not recognised the remedial constructive trust favoured in some
other jurisdictions. It has recognised only the institutional constructive
trust.’

Discuss.

3. By his will, Albion left his title to his house to Britannia ‘on trust for such
person or persons as I shall communicate to her’. A week after making
his will, Albion phoned Britannia. Britannia was out, and so Albion left
a message on her answering machine, telling her to hold the title on
trust for Caledonia. In his will, Albion also left his title to a yacht to
Dania ‘to do with as Dania in her absolute discretion pleases’. In fact,
he wrote to Dania after making his will, asking her to hold the title on
trust for Europa. Europa and Gaul, Britannia’s husband, witnessed the
will.

Albion has now died. Advise Caledonia and Europa.

4. Charlie died recently. In his will, Charlie stipulated that his entire estate
should be sold and the proceeds held in trust and invested, with the
income to be used each year as follows:

‘(a) £50,000 to be used to help my children and grandchildren


should they become impoverished and otherwise to
educate the British public on the need for food banks;

(b) the remainder to be used to further the purposes of the


Brotherhood of St Linus.’

The Brotherhood of St Linus was a group of monks who lived a


cloistered, self-sufficient life in a medieval hall house. Once a year,
they opened the house to the public and invited people in to pray with
them. The Brotherhood was dissolved five years ago and the house
has been sold.

Patty has been appointed as Charlie’s executor and seeks your advice
regarding the validity of these trusts.

UL19/0376
Page 2 of 3
5. Nixon was a solicitor who, with his sister Pat, was a trustee of the Bush
Family Trust set up by their grandfather. He knew that Pat was not
interested in financial matters and was happy to go along with his
decisions. She was in the habit of signing blank cheques and share
transfer forms to enable him expeditiously to deal with all trust matters.
Nixon was also sole surviving trustee of the Watergate Family Trust set
up by his wife’s grandfather.

Nixon’s mistress was his wife’s sister Mamie, who owned 40% of the
shareholding in White House Co Ltd and was its managing director.
Four years ago, in breach of trust, Nixon gifted to Mamie an 11%
shareholding in White House, which formed part of the Bush Trust,
believing that his wife would soon die and that he would be free to
marry Mamie. Mamie suspected that the shares might be trust rights
but chose not to make any inquiries. Six months ago, the value of her
by now 51% shareholding dropped to zero because of an accounting
fraud by the chief accountant that caused the company to be
liquidated.

Two months ago, Nixon added to the £1,000 balance in his current
account, £10,000 from the Bush Trust and later £5,000 from the
Watergate Trust. He then withdrew £12,000 in cash, giving it to his wife
Rosalyn to buy a diamond ring to celebrate their 25 th wedding
anniversary. She paid £11,995 to a Hatton Garden Diamond dealer for
a ring and spent the remaining £5 on lottery tickets, one of which won
£3 million. The diamond dealer was surprised to be paid in cash but
asked no questions. On her way home, Nixon’s wife was mugged and
her new ring stolen.

The beneficiaries of the Bush Trust and the Watergate Trust seek your
advice.

6. ‘I think there may be a purpose or object trust, the carrying out of which
would benefit an individual or individuals, where that benefit is so
indirect or intangible or which is otherwise so framed as not to give
those persons any locus standi to apply to the court to enforce the
trust, in which case the beneficiary principle would, as it seems to me,
apply to invalidate the trust, quite apart from any question of
uncertainty or perpetuity. … The present is not, in my judgment, of that
character … The beneficiary principle … is confined to purpose or
object trusts which are abstract or impersonal. The objection is not that
the trust is for a purpose or object per se, but that there is no
beneficiary or cestui que trust.’ (Goff J in re Denley’s Trust Deed
(1969)).

Discuss.

END OF PAPER

UL19/0376
Page 3 of 3

You might also like