Introduction
The rule of administrative unworkability in trust law states that a trust will not be valid if it cannot operate as the settlor intended. This rule arises from the requirement that a trust must be manageable and enforceable. Essential elements of a valid trust are a clear aim, specific assets, and identifiable beneficiaries. If a beneficiary group is too large or vague, the trust may not function.
The West Yorkshire Case and Administrative Unworkability
The House of Lords in R v District Auditor ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council [1986] RVR 24 considered a discretionary trust intended to benefit all residents of West Yorkshire, a group exceeding two million people. The court found the trust unmanageable due to the group’s size. Lord Wilberforce, in the main judgment, stated that a trust must be workable in its structure. He concluded that a group of this scale made it unfeasible for trustees to perform their duties effectively.
Certainty of Objects and Administrative Workability
The certainty of objects rule requires trustees to identify potential beneficiaries. While large groups are not inherently invalid, West Yorkshire shows that extreme size can render a trust’s goals unattainable. This differs from cases where beneficiary definitions are vague. Here, the group was defined (West Yorkshire residents), but its scale caused impracticality. This links precise beneficiary descriptions to practical management.
Conceptual Certainty vs. Evidential Certainty
A difference exists between conceptual certainty (clear group boundaries) and evidential certainty (proving membership). West Yorkshire did not challenge whether residency could be confirmed; the problem was solely the group’s size. This establishes administrative unworkability as an independent ground to invalidate a trust.
Examples of Administrative Unworkability
Beyond size, other factors can make trusts unmanageable. Trusts with excessively complicated or contradictory terms may leave trustees uncertain of their obligations. For example, a trust requiring distributions based on vague criteria might fail. Similarly, a trust demanding unrealistic actions (e.g., perfect market forecasts) would also be invalid.
The Implications of West Yorkshire
R v District Auditor ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council remains a key authority on administrative unworkability. It decided that trusts with defined beneficiaries can still fail if the group is too large or terms too unrealistic. This ruling emphasizes the need to draft trusts that can be feasibly managed.
Conclusion
The principle of administrative unworkability, as seen in R v District Auditor ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council, limits trust structures by requiring practical operation. While clear aim, assets, and beneficiaries are essential, administrative feasibility serves as an additional check against unworkable trusts. This case illustrates how trust law balances formal rules with practical constraints. Cases like McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424 established tests for beneficiary clarity, but West Yorkshire confirms that even defined groups may fail due to size. This highlights the importance of clear, realistic trust drafting.
