## Facts

- The settlor in Re Smith created a trust with specific instructions regarding asset distribution.
- Beneficiaries sought to alter the trust’s terms to better suit their current needs.
- The case arose before the enactment of the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, so it was decided on equitable principles.
- The Chancery Division was required to determine if beneficiaries could override the settlor's wishes without judicial involvement.
- The trust's fundamental purpose and the balance between settlor autonomy and beneficiary interests were at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether beneficiaries may vary the terms of a trust contrary to the settlor’s original wishes through unanimous consent.
2. Whether such variations require the court’s approval to ensure consistency with the trust’s central purpose.
3. To what extent the settlor’s intent limits the beneficiaries' power to alter trust provisions.

## Decision

- The court held that beneficiaries could, by unanimous agreement, vary the terms of a trust, even if this contradicts the settlor’s expressed wishes.
- Unanimous consent of all beneficiaries is required for any such variation.
- The court emphasized that variations must not fundamentally undermine the trust’s essential purpose as set by the settlor.
- Judicial oversight is necessary, and courts retain the authority to review and approve any agreed changes.

## Legal Principles

- The doctrine of unanimous consent permits all beneficiaries to collectively alter trust terms.
- Variations to a trust must not contravene the settlor’s original intent or undermine the trust’s fundamental purpose.
- Even with unanimous beneficiary consent, courts have supervisory power to ensure that variations are equitable and consistent with the trust’s objectives.
- The principles established in Re Smith were later codified in part by the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, but at the time relied on equitable doctrine.

## Conclusion

Re Smith [1928] Ch 915 confirmed that trust beneficiaries may vary trust terms by unanimous agreement, provided those changes align with the trust’s core purpose and do not subvert the settlor’s intent, and reaffirmed the court’s essential oversight role in supervising such changes.
