Contemporary Trust Law Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Contemporary Trust Law - Assignment Example If there are no beneficiaries with equitable interests in the trust assets, there is in theory no one "in whose favour the court can decree specific performance": Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) 9 Ves.399. The complexity, of course, with this approach is that it frustrates the requirements of a settler or testator, who may want to profit a legitimate public object or useful social experiment which does not fall stringently within the definition of charity. A trust, for example, for the promotion of a particular sport (such as angling or yacht racing) is not charitable unless linked to education: Re Nottage [1895] 2 Ch. 649 and Re Clifford [1912] 1 Ch. 29. Similarly, a trust to be relevant income for the purposes of research into a proposed new alphabet also falls outside the description of charity: Re Shaw [1957] 1 W.L.R. 729. To what extent, however, is it legitimate to use the mechanism of a trust for the haulage out of mere purposes where there are no beneficiaries vested with equitable ownership in the trust property The law that a valid trust "must be for the benefit of individuals" (Bowman v Secular Society Ltd [1917] A.C. 406, 441, per Lord Parker) is not complete. A trust for charitable purposes is valid even with the absence of an equitable beneficial owner to put into effect the trust. Here, of course, it is the Crown (acting through the Attorney-General or the Charity Commissioners) who takes on the role of parens patriae on behalf of the public at large. Apart from this, there are several well-known "inconsistent" exceptions, classified by Lord Evershed M.R. in Re Endacott [1960] Ch. 232, where the trustee may perform the terms of the trust if he so wishes, but the court will not compel him to do so. These so-called "trusts of imperfect obligation" comprise (1) trusts for the creation of monuments and graves; (2) trusts for the saying of masses; and (3) trusts for the maintenance of particular animals. They will be valid (though unenforceable) provided they do not offend the rule against continuous trusts. Presumably, in the dearth of a beneficiary, the trustee is mutually the legal and beneficial owner of the trust property so that, if he fails or refuses to carry out the trust, the property will relapse back to the testator's residuary estate upon a resulting trust as to both the legal and equitable title. In reality, there is no trust here at all, rather a meagre power to apply for the stated purposes, with a contribution over or a resulting trust in evasion of exercise of the power. There are, of course, other cases where there may be a conviction despite the lack of an equitable owner. The understandable example is that of a discretionary trust in favour of a large class which is too large to list but, nevertheless, theoretically certain in definition. In the same way, there is no equitable title to the estate of a deceased person until such time as the administration is completed. The personal representatives are simply the legal owners during the administration