R v District Auditor ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council [1986] RVR 24

Facts

  • The case involved a discretionary trust created by West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council intended to benefit all residents of West Yorkshire, totaling over two million people.
  • The trust defined its intended beneficiaries as the population of West Yorkshire.
  • The trustees would have been required to consider the interests of an extremely large group, raising concerns about manageability.
  • The adequacy of trust aims, assets, and identifiable beneficiaries in line with valid trust requirements was addressed.
  • The dispute focused on whether the sheer size of the beneficiary group made the trust unworkable.

Issues

  1. Whether a trust benefiting an extremely large and defined class of beneficiaries (all West Yorkshire residents) is administratively workable.
  2. Whether the certainty of objects requirement, satisfied by a clear definition of beneficiaries, can be separately overridden by concerns about practical administration.
  3. Whether a trust can be invalidated solely on the ground of administrative unworkability, regardless of conceptual certainty or evidential certainty of membership.

Decision

  • The court held that the trust was administratively unworkable due to the sheer number of beneficiaries (over two million people), rendering it impossible for trustees to carry out their duties.
  • It was found that a group of this magnitude made the operation of the trust unfeasible and resulted in the trust being invalid.
  • The decision established that administrative unworkability is a distinct ground for invalidating a trust, separate from issues of vague or uncertain beneficiary definitions.

Legal Principles

  • Administrative unworkability provides an independent basis for invalidating a trust where the size or structure makes it impossible for trustees to adequately manage and fulfill its objectives.
  • Certainty of objects requires trustees be able to identify beneficiaries, but this alone does not guarantee validity if the class is impractically large.
  • The difference between conceptual certainty (clear boundaries of the group) and evidential certainty (ability to prove membership) was emphasized; administrative unworkability may arise even when both are satisfied.
  • The case affirms that practical management is essential in upholding trust structures regardless of conceptual clarity.

Conclusion

R v District Auditor ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council [1986] confirmed that, while trusts must have clearly defined aims, assets, and beneficiaries, administrative feasibility remains an additional and essential requirement; a defined class can nonetheless invalidate a trust if its size renders management impractical.

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