is an

English trusts law English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trust law, Trusts were a creation of the English law of English property law, property and English contract law, obligations, a ...

case, concerning the circumstances under which a trust will be held to be uncertain. It followed on from '' McPhail v Doulton'', where the House of Lords affirmed that upholding the settlor's intentions was of paramount importance. It dealt with the same facts as ''McPhail v Doulton,'' since the Lords had remanded the case to the

Court of Appeal An appellate court, commonly called a court of appeal(s), appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to Hearing (law), hear a Legal case, case upon appeal from a trial court or other ...

to be decided using the legal principles set out in ''McPhail''.

Facts

Mr Bertram Baden settled a trust for the employees, relatives and dependants of his company, Matthew Hall & Co Ltd. It said the net income of the trust fund should be applied by the trustees ‘in their absolute discretion’ and as they thought fit for the employees, relatives and dependants in grants. The House of Lords in '' McPhail v Doulton'' held that the trust would in principle be valid if it could be said with certainty that a hypothetical claimant "is or is not" within the class of beneficiaries. The case returned to the lower courts to determine if the trust was in fact enforceable. Brightman J held the House of Lords decision had overruled previous '' IRC v Broadway Cottages'' so that the rule in '' Re Gulbenkian'' applied equally to trusts as to powers: a trust was valid if it could be said with certainty that any given individual was or was not a member of a class of beneficiaries, and accordingly the clause was valid as a trust. The executors appealed.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held, dismissing the appeal, that to apply the '' Re Gulbenkian'' 970AC 508 test for a discretionary trust, "conceptual" and "evidential" were distinct. If a claimant could not bring evidence he was a beneficiary, he would not be. But there was no inherent conceptual uncertainty in the words "dependants" or "relatives", and the clause was valid. The three judges gave different views on why the trust was valid. Stamp LJ held that the trust was valid because the court could always determine who was a dependant and a relative could be restricted to a workable definition of the next of kin. Sachs LJ held the test required only clarity in the concept. He put it as follows. Megaw LJ viewed the position to be as follows. He said that requiring complete conceptual certainty would amount to a return to the list certainty test.

Notes

References

* {{DEFAULTSORT:Re Baden's Deed Trusts (no 2) English trusts case law Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases 1972 in United Kingdom case law

Facts

Judgment

See also

Notes

References