Nelson v Greening & Sykes [2007] EWCA Civ 1358

Facts

  • The case involved a dispute regarding the creation and operation of sub-trusts and equitable assignments in the context of English trust law.
  • The parties contested whether a sub-trust had been validly established or if there was merely an equitable assignment of an interest.
  • The focus was on the nature of equitable interests, the division between legal and equitable ownership, and the requisite formalities for their transfer.
  • The Court of Appeal examined the parties’ intentions, communications, and conduct, evaluating whether these supported the existence of a sub-trust or an equitable assignment.
  • The situation gave rise to practical considerations for trustees and beneficiaries regarding their respective rights, duties, and the legal effects of their actions.

Issues

  1. Whether a valid sub-trust had been created, or if the parties had instead effected an equitable assignment.
  2. What legal requirements and formalities are necessary for the creation of a sub-trust versus an equitable assignment.
  3. How the intention of the parties should be determined in disputes involving trust and assignment arrangements.
  4. What are the practical legal consequences for trustees and beneficiaries arising from these distinctions.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the declaration of a sub-trust must be clear and unequivocal, distinguishing it from an equitable assignment.
  • A sub-trust imposes fiduciary duties on the original beneficiary as trustee for the new beneficiary, while an equitable assignment transfers only the beneficial interest without a trust relationship.
  • The court found that intention is critical; the absence of formal documentation does not preclude a valid equitable assignment if the conduct and communications demonstrate clear intent.
  • Certainty in identifying the subject matter and the object of the trust or assignment is essential; ambiguity may render such arrangements ineffective.
  • The judgment clarified the legal consequences and obligations for parties involved in such trust arrangements.

Legal Principles

  • Creation of a sub-trust requires all three certainties: intention, subject matter, and objects, along with statutory formalities.
  • An equitable assignment may be effective without formal documentation if the intention to transfer the beneficial interest is sufficiently clear.
  • Sub-trusts and equitable assignments are distinct: a sub-trust imposes fiduciary duties, whereas an equitable assignment only transfers beneficial rights.
  • Intention to create a trust or to assign an interest is ascertained objectively from conduct and communications.
  • Certainty is fundamental for the validity of trusts and assignments; lack of clarity may invalidate the arrangement.

Conclusion

Nelson v Greening & Sykes [2007] EWCA Civ 1358 clarified the distinction between sub-trusts and equitable assignments, underscoring the necessity for clear intention, certainty, and formalities in trust law and detailing the respective legal effects and duties arising from these arrangements.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal