Free UK Trust Law Study Guide

Overview

Our free UK Trust Law notes provide a comprehensive guide to understanding the key principles and cases in UK trust law. Whether you're studying for exams or simply want to learn more, these notes will help you understand concepts such as the creation of express trusts, the duties of trustees, and more. If you think something could be improved, let us know, and we'll take a look.

1. Creation of Express Trusts

Understanding Express Trusts

• Understanding Express Trusts - Explains the creation and operation of express trusts

Certainty of Intention

• Knight v Knight (1840) 3 Beav 148 - Addressed the importance of clear intention to create a trust
• The Three Certainties of a Trust - Summarizes certainty of intention, subject matter, and objects
• Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394 - Examined precatory vs. imperative words
• Jones v Lock [1865] 1 Ch App 25 - Illustrates the necessity of clear intention and formality in declaring a trust
• Richards v Delbridge [1874] LR 18 Eq 11 - Reinforced that an outright gift must not be mistaken for a trust
• Re Schebsman [1944] Ch 83 - Considered implied trust intention in contractual contexts
• Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527 - Held that words and conduct can show intention to create a trust
• T Choithram International SA v Pagarani [2001] 1 WLR 1 (HL) - Clarified the equitable maxim “equity will not strive officiously to defeat a gift”
• JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2017] EWHC 2426 (Ch) - Addressed intention to create trusts within complex financial structures

Certainty of Subject Matter

• Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131 (CA) - Addressed whether future property could be subject to a trust
• Re London Wine Co [1986] PCC 121 - Held that trust property must be identifiable
• Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1995] 1 AC 74 - Reinforced the need for segregated or identifiable trust assets
• Hunter v Moss [1994] 1 WLR 452 (CA) - Recognized that intangible property (like shares) can satisfy certainty of subject matter
• Re Harvard Securities Ltd, Holland v Newbury [1997] 2 BCLC 369 - Confirmed that uncertain allocation of shares can still be valid in some circumstances

Certainty of Objects

• IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust [1955] Ch 20 - Established the complete list test for fixed trusts
• Re Gulbenkian's Settlement Trusts [1970] AC 508 (HL) - Introduced the “is or is not” test in powers of appointment
• McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424 (HL) - Shifted the test for discretionary trusts to the “is or is not” test
• Re Baden (No 2) [1973] Ch 9 - Clarified the application of McPhail v Doulton
• Private Trust Law - Overview of how certainty of objects operates in private trusts
• Re Manisty's Settlement [1974] Ch 17 - Examined administrative unworkability
• Re Hay's Settlement Trusts [1982] 1 WLR 202 - Further clarified trustee duties regarding discretionary trusts
• R v District Auditor ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council [1986] RVR 24 - Considered whether large classes can render a trust administratively unworkable
• Re Barlow's Will Trusts [1979] 1 WLR 278 - Allowed close friends to be a valid class of beneficiaries in certain circumstances
• Re Coxen [1948] Ch 747 - Considered additional provisions for resolving uncertainty
• Dundee Hospitals Board v Walker [1952] 1 All ER 896 - Provided further guidance on identifying beneficiaries
• Re Tuck [1978] Ch 49 (CA) - Allowed third-party arbitration to resolve uncertainty of objects

2. Purpose Trusts

Beneficiary Principle

• Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) 9 Ves 399 - Established the requirement of having identifiable beneficiaries
• Re Astor [1952] Ch 534 - Emphasized the need for a valid trust purpose or identifiable beneficiaries
• R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 - Confirmed the strictness of the beneficiary principle

Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts

Anomalous Purpose Trusts

• Re Dean [1889] 41 Ch D 552 - Exceptionally upheld a trust for the care of animals
• Re Hooper [1932] 1 Ch 38 - Approved trusts for the maintenance of graves
• Re Thompson [1934] Ch 342 - A trust for fox hunting recognized as valid in limited circumstances
• Re Astor [1952] Ch 534 - Invalidated a purpose trust lacking a clear beneficiary
• R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 - Reinforced narrow exceptions for purpose trusts

Denley Trust

• Re Denley [1969] 1 Ch 373 - Recognized a purpose trust enforceable by beneficiaries with a tangible interest
• Carreras Rothmans Ltd v Freeman Mathews Treasure Ltd [1985] 1 Ch 207 - Applied the Denley principle to commercial arrangements
• Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164 - Referenced the Denley approach in discussing Quistclose-type trusts

Interpretation as Trust for Persons

• Re Bowes [1896] 1 Ch 507 - Reinterpreted a purpose trust as one for persons
• Re Abbott Fund [1900] 2 Ch 326 - Allowed funds for specific individuals’ needs
• Re Andrew [1905] 2 Ch 48 - Permitted a flexible reading that allowed funds to be used for general benefit
• Re Osoba [1979] 1 WLR 247 - Upheld a trust construed as a gift for individuals rather than a purpose

3. Formality

Disposition of Equitable Interest in Land

• Grey v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1960] AC 1 (HL) - Clarified formalities in transferring equitable interests
• Oughtred v IRC [1960] AC 206 - Examined oral declarations and contracts for shares
• Neville v Wilson [1997] Ch 144 - Considered informal agreements and disposition of interests
• Nelson v Greening & Sykes [2007] EWCA Civ 1358 - Addressed sub-trusts and equitable assignments
• Vandervell v IRC [1967] 2 AC 291 - Showed how reservations of interest affect valid transfers
• Re Vandervell (No 2) [1974] EWCA Civ 7 - Discussed automatic resulting trusts arising from incomplete dispositions
• La Micro Group Inc v La Micro Group (UK) Ltd [2024] UKSC 42 - Modern application of formalities in equitable interests

Creation of Trust over Land

• Rochefoucauld v Boustead [1897] 1 Ch 196 - Equity will not allow a statute to be used as an engine of fraud
• Bannister v Bannister [1948] 2 All ER 133 - Supported implied/constructive trusts to prevent fraud
• Hodgson v Marks [1971] 1 Ch 933 - Showed that an unsuccessful gift can give rise to a resulting trust
• Ong v Ping [2017] EWCA Civ 2069 - Recent case on declarations of trust over land

Secret Trusts

• s9 Wills Act - Statutory framework governing formalities in testamentary dispositions
• McCormick v Grogan [1869] LR 4 HL 82 - Earliest authority recognizing secret trusts
• Blackwell v Blackwell [1929] AC 318 (HL) - Validated half-secret trusts if clearly communicated
• Re Keen [1937] 1 Ch 236 (CA) - Affirmed timing requirements for communication
• Re Gardner (No 2) [1923] 2 Ch 230 - Debated what happens if a beneficiary predeceases the testator
• Re Young [1951] 1 Ch 344 - Discussed secret trusts and beneficiary witnessing issues
• Ottaway v Norman [1972] Ch 698 - Recognized fully secret trusts of land

4. Imperfect Gifts

• Equity Does Not Assist a Volunteer - Basic equitable principle preventing enforcement of voluntary promises

• Equity Will Not Perfect an Imperfect Gift - Reinforces that equity requires proper formality for a gift

• Milroy v Lord (1862) 2 Giff 582, 65 ER 528 - Established that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift

• Dillwyn v Llewellyn (1862) 2 Giff 517 - Recognized proprietary estoppel where donor’s actions created reliance

• Strong v Bird (1874) LR 18 Eq 315 - Allowed incomplete gifts to be perfected if donor later becomes executor

• Re Rose [1969] 2 Ch 365 - Demonstrated the principle that “equity looks to the intent rather than the form”

• Pennington v Waine [2002] 1 WLR 2075 - Relaxed requirements for gift completion in certain situations

• Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159 - Clarified “equitable assignment” in share transfers

• Curtis v Pulbrook [2011] EWHC 167 (Ch) - Further examined the Pennington v Waine approach

• King v Dubrey [2015] EWCA Civ 581 - Reevaluated donatio mortis causa conditions

5. Covenant to Settle

• Paul v Paul [1882] 20 Ch D 742 - Addressed enforceability of covenants to settle after marriage
• Pullan v Koe [1913] 1 Ch 9 - Highlighted the significance of the marriage consideration
• Cannon v Hartley [1949] Ch 213 - Examined whether equitable remedies arise against settlor’s estate
• Davenport v Bishopp [1843] 2 Y & C CC 451 - Discussed incomplete covenants and third-party enforcement
• Fletcher v Fletcher [1844] 4 Hare 67 - Differentiated between voluntary covenants and trusts
• Lloyds v Harper (1880) 16 Ch D 290 - Allowed direct action on a covenant under certain conditions
• Re Cavendish Browne [1916] WN 34 - Confirmed trust enforcement options for covenants
• Re Pryce [1917] 1 Ch 234 - Limited the enforceability of incomplete covenants at equity
• Re Kay's Settlement [1939] 1 Ch 329 - Explored the rights of volunteer beneficiaries to enforce covenants
• Re Cook's Settlement Trusts [1965] Ch 902 - Considered further limitations on covenants
• Re Brooks [1939] 1 Ch 993 - Addressed disposition of future property
• Re Ralli's Will Trusts [1964] Ch 288 - Examined fortuitous vesting and covenant fulfillment

6. Charitable Purpose Trusts

Leading Case

• Independent Schools Council v Charity Commission [2021] Ch 214 - Addressed public benefit requirements and charitable status

Charitable Purposes

Relief of Poverty

• IRC v Baddeley [1955] AC 572 (HL) - Drew lines between charitable and non-charitable purpose trusts

Advancement of Education

• Re Shaw [1957] 1 WLR 729 - Considered unconventional educational purposes
• Re Hopkins’ Will Trust [1965] Ch 669 - Upheld research-based charitable gifts
• Re Besterman's WT [1982] Ch 321 - Discussed value of research in defining charitable status
• IRC v McMullen [1981] AC 1 - Expanded “education” to include physical education

Public Benefit

Meaning of Benefit

• National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC [1948] AC 31 - Tested negative impact vs. benefit in charitable status
• Gilmour v Coats [1949] AC 426 - Demonstrated purely spiritual benefits might not suffice
• Neville Estates Ltd v Madden [1962] Ch 832 - Looked at public benefit within religious contexts
• Re Hetherington [1990] Ch 1 - Public worship and its charitable dimension
• Re Resch's Will Trusts [1969] 1 AC 514 - Considered private hospital as a charitable trust
• McGovern v Attorney General [1982] Ch 321 - Addressed political purposes within charitable trusts

Meaning of Public

• Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities [1951] AC 297 - Discussed the “personal nexus” test
• IRC v Baddeley [1955] AC 572 - Looked at restricted classes within charitable objects
• Dingle v Turner [1972] AC 601 (HL) - Relaxed the personal nexus test in relief of poverty trusts
• Re Cohen [1973] 1 WLR 415 - Considered broad classes vs. private gifts

7. Resulting Trusts

Presumed Resulting Trust

• Lohia v Lohia [2001] EWCA Civ 1691 - Challenged presumption of resulting trust in voluntary transfers
• National Crime Agency v Dong [2017] EWHC 3116 (Ch) - Looked at money-laundering context for resulting trusts
• s199 Equality Act 2010 - Potentially affects the presumption in certain transfers
• Dyer v Dyer [1788] 2 Cox Eq Cas 92 - Classic statement on presumption of resulting trust
• Re The Venture [1908] P 218 - Addressed personal property and the presumption
• Re Vinogradoff [1935] WN 68 - Dealt with voluntary transfers between relatives
• Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669 (HL) - Provided modern authority on resulting trusts

Interaction with Common Intention Constructive Trust

• Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 (HL) - Emphasized the contributory approach to family assets
• Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 [2012] 1 AC 776 - Clarified the shift of beneficial shares over time
• Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17 - Extended principles to non-domestic contexts
• Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886 (HL) - Laid groundwork for constructive trusts in cohabitation

Rebutting the Presumed Resulting Trust

• Fowkes v Pascoe (1875) LR 10 Ch App 343 (CA) - Allowed evidence to rebut the presumption
• Shephard v Cartwright [1955] AC 431 - Restricted evidence to the donor’s intention
• Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 - Clarified illegality and the resulting trust presumption
• Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 467 (UKSC) - Modern approach to illegality in trusts
• Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Trust [2020] UKSC 43 - Extended Patel considerations in trust contexts

Automatic Resulting Trust

• Vandervell v IRC [1967] 2 AC 291 - Showed how beneficial interests revert if not effectively disposed
• Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892 - Incomplete or ineffective transfers revert on resulting trust
• Re Vandervell's Trust (No 2) [1974] Ch 269 - Examined an automatic resulting trust in detail
• Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton [1999] 1 WLR 1399 - Confirmed that surplus pension funds could result back to contributors

8. Quistclose Trusts

• Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567 (HL) - Laid down the principle of a segregated fund held for a specific purpose
• Re Kayford Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 279 - Applied Quistclose reasoning to a mail-order company’s customer funds
• Carreras Rothmans Ltd v Freeman Mathews Treasure Ltd [1985] 1 Ch 207 - Considered the nature of mutual intention in Quistclose arrangements
• Re Northern Developments Ltd (1978), unreported - Suggested wide application of Quistclose principles
• Re EVTR [1987] BCLC 646 (CA) - Confirmed funds returned when purpose failed
• Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164 - Provided modern analysis linking Quistclose trusts and Denley-type trusts
• First City Monument Bank Plc v Zumax Nigeria Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 294 - Recent appellate discussion of Quistclose trusts

9. Constructive Trusts

• Define Constructive Trust - Outlines the nature of a trust imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment
• Re Montagu's ST [1987] Ch 264 - Explains the concept of holding property on trust as a result of wrongdoing or equitable considerations

Acquisition by Fiduciaries

• Keech v Sandford (1726) Sel Cas King 61 - Prohibited fiduciaries from making personal profit
• Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 (HL) - Explored liabilities for profits made by those in fiduciary positions
• Murad v Al-Saraj [2005] EWCA Civ 959 [2005] WTLR 1573 - Extensively reviewed fiduciary profits and remedies
• FHR European Ventures LLP v Mankarious [2014] UKSC 45 - Ruled that profits gained by fiduciaries are held on constructive trust

Sale Contracts

• Lysaght v Edwards [1876] 2 Ch D 499 - Established that a vendor of land holds the estate on constructive trust for the purchaser
• Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9 - Recognized the doctrine of anticipation in equitable leases
• Englewood Properties Ltd v Patel [2005] 1 WLR 1961 - Elaborated on vendor/purchaser constructive trusts
• Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd [2014] UKSC 52 - Addressed equitable interests arising on property purchase

Cooperative Acquisitions

• Banner Homes Group plc v Luff Developments Ltd [2000] Ch 372 - Considered joint venture constructive trusts
• Farrar v Miller [2018] EWCA Civ 172 - Examined beneficial entitlements in commercial joint ventures
• Crossco No 4 Unlimited v Jolan Ltd [2012] 2 All ER 754 (CA) - Clarified the basis for common intention constructive trusts in commercial settings
• Generator Developments Ltd v Lidl UK GmbH [2018] EWCA Civ 396 - Further exploration of joint venture trust principles

Mistaken Payment

• Chase Manhattan Bank v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] Ch 105 - Recognized a constructive trust arises on mistaken payments
• Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669 (HL) - Set out the requirement for conscience in constructive trust claims

10. Unincorporated Associations

Transfer

• Leahy v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1959] AC 457 - Dealt with the validity of gifts to unincorporated associations
• Neville Estates Ltd v Madden [1962] Ch 832 - Addressed different ways of vesting property in associations
• Re Recher's Will Trusts [1972] Ch 526 - Identified the contract-holding theory for unincorporated associations
• Re Lipinski [1976] Ch 235 - Suggested that gifts to associations can be valid if for the members’ benefit
• Re Grant [1980] 1 WLR 360 - Established conditions under which property is freely disposable by members
• Conservative Central Office v Burrell [1982] 1 WLR 522 - Examined political associations and property rights

Dissolution

• Re William Denby Sick Fund [1971] 1 WLR 973 - Considered the distribution of funds on dissolution
• Re GKN Sports Club [1982] 1 WLR 774 - Clarified rules on winding up unincorporated associations
• Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General [2009] Ch 173 - Examined property disposition when membership falls to a single person

Distribution after Dissolution

• Re St Andrew's Allotment Association [1969] 1 WLR 299 - Addressed rules on surplus distribution
• Re Sick and Funeral Society of St John's Sunday School, Golcar [1973] Ch 51 - Applied a resulting trust approach to remaining funds
• Re West Sussex Constabulary's Widows, Children and Benevolent (1930) Fund Trusts [1971] Ch 1 - Addressed donors’ rights to reclaim contributions
• Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2) [1978] 1 WLR 641 - Considered how surpluses revert on trust
• Davis v Richards & Wallington Industries Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1511 - Affirmed the principles of surplus distribution
• Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton [1999] 1 WLR 1399 - Held that unallocated sums may result back to contributors

11. Duties and Powers of Trustees

Definition of ‘Fiduciary’ and ‘Fiduciary Duties’

• Re Shaw [1957] 1 WLR 729 (Ch) - Briefly referenced fiduciary oversight in testamentary contexts
• Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 - Seminal statement of the “irreducible core” of fiduciary duties

Other Duties

Acting in the Sole Interest of the Trust Objects and Purposes

• Re Brogden [1888] 38 Ch D 546 - Trustees must not allow personal interests to conflict with beneficiaries’ interests
• Buttle v Saunders [1950] 2 All ER 193 - Duty to act in good faith and secure the best price in transactions
• Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch 270 - Trustees must put aside personal ethical views if contrary to beneficiaries’ interests
• Harries v Church Commissioners [1992] 1 WLR 1241 - Allowed ethical considerations if they do not conflict with financial returns

Care and Skill

• Speight v Gaunt (1883) 9 App Cas 1 (HL) - Early authority on the standard of care required of trustees
• Learoyd v Whiteley (1886) 33 Ch D 347 (CA); [1887] 12 App Cas 727 (HL) - Classic formulation of the prudent man test in reserve investments

Investment

• Nestle v National Westminster Bank Plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260 (CA) - Explored the duty to maximize investment returns over time

Conflicts of Interest

Two Principals

• Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 (CA) - Clarified conflicts in acting for multiple beneficiaries or principals

Profiting from Position

• Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 (HL) - Fiduciary accountability for profits gained by reason of office
• FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 - Confirmed that bribes/secret commissions are held on constructive trust

Self-Dealing

• Keech v Sandford (1726) Sel Cas King 61 - Absolute rule preventing trustees from profiting from trust property
• Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 - Outlined the fair-dealing rule for trustees purchasing beneficiary interests
• Wright v Morgan [1926] AC 788 - Applied the self-dealing rule strictly

Relief

Disclosure

• Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709 (PC) - Affirmed beneficiaries’ right to trust documents, subject to court’s discretion
• Breakspear v Ackland [2009] Ch 32 - Addressed letters of wishes and confidentiality

Personal Remedies

• Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1995] UKHL 10 - Award of compensation for breach must reflect actual loss
• AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58 - Modern application of causation and losses in breach of trust
• Brudenell-Bruce v Moore [2014] EWHC 3679 (Ch) - Examined equitable compensation for mismanagement
• Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932 - Early principle on equitable compensation and trustee misfeasance
• Swindle v Harrison [1997] 4 All ER 705 - Considered causation and compensation under breach

Defences

• Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 521 (CA) - Recognized exculpatory clauses but maintained the irreducible core of duties

12. Proprietary Remedies

Tracing

‘First In, First Out’ Rule

• Devaynes v Noble (Clayton's Case) [1816] 1 Mer 572 - Common law rule for mixed bank accounts

Other Rules

• Re Hallett's Estate (1880) 13 Ch D 696 - Established beneficiary’s option to claim or lien on traced funds
• Re Oatway [1903] 2 Ch 356 - Beneficiaries can treat the first withdrawals as trust money
• Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294 - Principles of equitable tracing in mixed funds

Pari Passu

• Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Vaughan [1992] 4 All ER 22 (CA) - Allowed pro rata sharing in misappropriation cases
• Commerzbank AG v IMB Morgan plc [2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep 198 - Considered fairness in pari passu distribution
• Charity Commission v Framjee [2015] 1 WLR 15 - Modern approach to distributing mixed charitable funds

Lowest Intermediate Balance

• Roscoe v Winder [1915] 1 Ch 62 - Capped recovery to the lowest fund balance in the account

‘Cherry Picking’

• Shalson v Russo [2005] Ch 281 - Explored beneficiary election in tracing
• Turner v Jacob [2008] WTLR 307 - Limited freedom to pick which payments are trust property

Backwards Tracing

• Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan [1994] 3 WLR 1270 (CA) - Traditionally disallowed backwards tracing
• Federal Republic of Brazil v Durant International Corp [2016] AC 297 - Opened scope for backwards tracing where close transactional links exist
• Re D'Eye [2017] BPIR 1174 - Provided recent application of backwards tracing

Evidential Difficulties

• Relfo Ltd v Varsani [2015] 1 BCLC 14 - Recognized complex forensic approaches to trace misappropriated assets

Claiming

• Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding [2007] WTLR 835 - Detailed how a beneficiary may assert equitable ownership
• Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 (HL) - Confirmed the proprietary nature of tracing and following the asset
• Wright v Morgan [1926] AC 788 - Early authority applying proprietary remedies
• Re Montagu's Settlement Trusts [1987] Ch 264 - Examined limitations where an innocent volunteer dissipates trust property
• Paul Davies Pty Ltd v Davies [1983] NSWLR 440 - Comparative authority on tracing rules

Defences

• Independent Trustee Services Ltd v GP Noble Trustees Ltd [2013] Ch 91 - Recognized bona fide purchaser defence in restitution claims
• Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale [1991] 2 AC 548 - Reinforced the change of position defence
• Crédit Agricole Corporation and Investment Bank v Papadimitriou [2015] 1 WLR 4265 - Clarified the standard for constructive notice
• Akers v Samba Financial Group Ltd [2017] AC 424 - Examined cross-border aspects of proprietary claims

13. Beneficiary’s Interest

Rights of the Beneficiary

• Akers v Samba Financial Group Ltd [2017] AC 424 - Addressed disposition of trust assets in conflict of laws
• Gartside v IRC [1968] AC 553 - Looked at quantifying beneficiary interests in discretionary trusts
• Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709 (PC) - Granted beneficiary right to information, subject to the court’s discretion
• Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 521 (CA) - Maintained the irreducible core of trustee duties owed to beneficiaries
• Leigh & Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd (The Aliakmon) [1986] AC 785 (HL) - Addressed proprietary interests and privity
• Shell UK Ltd v Total UK Ltd [2011] QB 86 - Considered subrogated rights in trust contexts
• Webb v Webb [1991] 1 WLR 1410 (ChD) [1994] QB 696 (ECJ) - Discussed jurisdictional issues over trust assets
• Law vs Equity - Explores the historical distinction between common law and equitable jurisdictions
• Define Equity in Law - Outlines how equity supplements the common law to achieve fairness
• Define Equity Law - Provides context on the evolution and principles of equitable doctrines

Rule in Saunders v Vautier

• Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115 - Established the right of beneficiaries of full age and capacity to terminate a trust
• Stephenson v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 882 - Confirmed tax implications when beneficiaries collapse a trust
• Re Nelson [1928] Ch 920 - Extended the rule to partial termination
• Re Smith [1928] Ch 915 - Illustrated beneficiaries’ ability to override a settlor’s wishes
• HMRC v Thorpe [2009] EWHC 611 (Ch) - Modern discussion on the scope of beneficiary powers

14. Third Party Liability

Knowing Receipt

• Byers v Saudi National Bank [2022] EWCA Civ 43 - Addressed liability for recipients of trust property
• Byers v Saudi National Bank [2024] UKSC 42 - Supreme Court analysis on knowing receipt and remedies
• Re Montagu's Settlement Trusts [1987] Ch 264 - Highlighted the significance of the recipient’s state of knowledge

Dishonest Assistance

• Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378 - Landmark case defining the objective standard for dishonesty
• Novoship (UK) Ltd v Mikhaylyuk [2014] EWCA Civ 908 - Applied dishonest assistance in bribery contexts
• Group Seven Ltd v Notable Services LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 614 - Examined professional advisers’ liability for assisting a breach