563:
transaction, the trust-beneficiary cannot benefit personally and any meaning of fraud seems apparent because fraud requires an intention to act dishonestly. It appears to create an alternative route: the trustee may bring false oral testimony in favour of a third party who was not the intended beneficiary, a party that cannot benefit if the law did not uphold half-secret trusts in conclusion but it could operate without court's interference. Secondly, a half-secret trust ought to fail for uncertainty, being a trust with no terms, with a resulting trust to the residuary legatee. Under the rule of three uncertainties in private trust, half or fully secretly trust ought to fail because of lack of intentional element. Those in favour of its enforcement must therefore observe the imposition of resulting trust as required under three certainties rule, and the "fraud" theory seems insufficient to do so, since there is no sublet and significant impact for dishonest act and if otherwise fraud can be upheld; and therefore no conduct on the part of the trustee to warrant it. The deceased's intended disposition remains imperfectly constituted and the intended beneficiary's claim is thus weaker than the residuary legatee's. Whilst one response has been to suggest that whether a resulting trust or enforcement of the secret trust is most appropriate remedy is a question for the courts, subsequent cases have typically defined the automatic resulting trust, as in this case, as operating as a matter of law and not a question for the courts, and this should be settled by parliament legislation.
559:). To this it has been argued that, since the testator is dead, a resulting trust is often reversing the beneficiary's claims since the testator cannot make any attempt to revoke or undo the trust terms. Save in case of a will and except the plain reading of clauses within the will, having admitted external evidence as operating under the proper introduction of the doctrine of incorporation by reference, a conclusive claim that it is necessary to observe further the formality requirement cannot be disregarded, because Will Act clearly set out the requirements of property transfer in case of failure has to be based on result trust that a party ultimately intended. The enforcement of the secret trust as a response to perceived fraud also opens the door to a further form of deceit, whereby the trustee funnels the trust monies to the wrong beneficiary.
679:, have concerned secret trusts over land. In neither case the formality requirements are said to be neglected, but neither judgment expressly considered why 53(1)(a) and 53(1)(b) made an impact that a prima facie express trust could be set up. This has been used to be an argument that secret trusts are constructive but in light of both cases it appears not. However, an express trust may still be exempted from the requirements of 53(1)(a) and 53(1)(b) by a separate application of the equitable maxim "equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud" – the fraud would be for the trustee to deny the existence of the secret trust, but this time the statute concerned would be the Law of Property Act, a line of reasoning dependent upon the case of
445:
344:. For these to be valid, the person seeking to enforce the trust must prove that the testator intended to form a trust, that this intention was communicated to the trustee, and that the trustee accepted his office. There are two types of secret trust — fully secret and half-secret. A fully secret trust is one with no mention in the will whatsoever. In the case of a half-secret trust, the face of the will names the trustee as trustee, but does not give the trust's terms, including the beneficiary. The most important difference lies in communication of the trust: the terms of a half-secret trust must be communicated to the trustee before the
696:. To this it has been argued that, if the "outside the will" theory is the true basis for the secret trust, whether the mention of the existence of the trust on the face of the will should affect its nature. In Hudson's opinion, fully secret trusts are constructive trusts, because they exist to prevent fraud. But sometimes they are express trusts, if "au dehor" doctrine is concerned. Half-secret trusts are constructive trust, because their mention in wills makes fraud unlikely; they are instead in line with a constructive notice, e.g. the use of sealed document. The House of Lords in
427:, suggests the potential for a third class of secret trust. This is where the dying person is encouraged not to make a will so that his property passes to the next-of-kin, on the agreement that the next-of-kin give effect to his wishes via a secret trust. If this is the case, the next-of-kin would be obliged to hold the property on trust and fulfil the dying person's wishes.
544:. D. R. Hodge has argued that "acceptance of the narrower view would not only impose upon a person seeking to establish a secret trust the heavy onus of showing at what point of time the secret trustee decided to resile from his promise, but would also make the validity of the secret trust dependent upon what is in fact an irrelevant consideration".
600:, where he said "The whole basis of secret trusts... is that they operate outside the will, changing nothing that is written in it, and allowing it to operate according to its tenor, but then fastening a trust on to the property in the hands of the recipient". This suggests that secret trusts are not constructive trusts but rather express trusts.
389:, a matter of considerable debate. On one view, if the traditional theory is correct, secret trusts are created by the courts, and are thus constructive; if the more modern view is correct, the trusts exist without the court's permission, and are express trusts. However, a secret trust does not have to obey the separate formalities of the
782:
The necessary elements , on which the question turns, are intention, communication and acquiescence. The testator intends his absolute gift to be employed as he and not as the donee desires; he tells the proposed donee of this intention and, either by express promise or by the tacit promise, which is
735:
The second requirement is that both the secret trust and its terms are communicated to the trustee. This may be done after the writing of the will, as long as it is prior to death; without it, the secret trust is void. Exactly what must be communicated depends on the nature of the property and trust;
722:
It will be convenient to call the person on whom such a trust is imposed the 'primary donee', and the beneficiary under that trust the 'secondary donee'. The essential elements which must be proved to exist are: (i) the intention of the testator to subject the primary donee to an obligation in favour
666:
requires that "a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust or by his will". section 53(1)(a) said "no interest in land can be created or disposed of except by writing signed by
752:
Where a person, knowing that a testator is making a disposition in his favour intends it to be applied for purposes other than his own benefit, either expressly promises, or by silence implies, that he will carry on the testator's intention into effect, and the property is left to him upon the faith
867:
that such a trust might not fail: "the legatee might defeat the whole purpose by renouncing the legacy... I entertain no doubt that the Court, having once admitted the evidence of the trust, would interfere to prevent its defeat." Against this, it has been argued that the arrangement is the result
806:
said that
Viscount Sumner suggested that acceptance by the trustee (whether of a half-secret or fully secret trust) must take place within the testator's lifetime before the execution of the will. Mee hoped the High Court would make clarification on whether prior acceptance exists and therefore the
787:
The most important distinction between half-secret and fully secret trusts concerns the communication of the terms of the trust. Communication must be either at or before the execution of the will, in contrast to fully secret trusts, when it may postdate the will so long as it predates the death of
589:
in nature but falls within the ordinary equitable jurisdiction of the court. The trust was created by the donor and trustee during the donor's life, and simply not constituted until his death; it does not have to follow the Wills Act, because it was not created by a will. This view was expressed by
858:
by the beneficiary's death, but since he or she inherits as a result of a separate secret trust that rule does not apply. Where the trustee of a secret trust predeceases the testator, or renounces his trusteeship before the death of the testator, the position of the secret trust in unclear. In the
836:
The result of the emergence of the "outside the will" theory has been seen with respect to witnesses to the will. Section 15 of the Wills Act states that any person " the execution of any will to whom or to whose wife or husband any beneficial ... shall be thereby given or made, such ... shall, so
630:
or operating so as to, whether automatically, semi-automatically or no automatism at all, bind such property as and when it is received. No separate declaration of trust is required in the case of property acquired after the execution of a will for it to form part of a secret trust. Looking at the
500:
established that both types of secret trust shared a single justification. A half-secret trust appears closer to fulfilling the formality requirements as laid down in the Wills Act, so the conclusion that it is less likely to be enforced seems contradictory. Also, such a rule would encourage fully
363:
that "equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud". A more modern view is that secret trusts exist outside the will altogether, and thus do not have to comply with it. Accepting this theory would undermine the operation of the Wills Act, since the Wills Act is designed to cover
607:
theory is based on detective drafting of the Wills Act. In particular, whilst the term "will" is commonly used to refer to a specific document, the Wills Act is designed to cover almost all documents except rules on public trust and secret trust that are to take effect after the testator's death.
416:
The courts recognise two forms of secret trust. Fully secret trusts are trusts not referred to at all on the face of the will. Instead, an agreement made between the testator and trustees elsewhere. The trustee will instead be named only a beneficiary. In the case of a half-secret trust, the fact
773:
With a half-secret trust, the fact that the beneficiary of the will holds as trustee only is declared on the face of the will, but not the other terms of the trust. This must go further than the mere "hope" that the beneficiary (again I believe this should read "trustee" - the beneficiary is the
569:
has also argued that the fraud argument is significantly flawed. The theory suggests that liability for the property comes about from fraud; in fact, liability comes about as soon as the trustee accepts the property to hold on trust, and so the fraud theory is not necessary to bind the trustee's
528:
the court has, from a very early period, decided that even an Act of
Parliament shall not be used as an instrument as fraud; and that equity will fasten on the individual who gets a title under that Act, and impose upon him a personal obligation, because he applies the Act as an instrument for
501:
secret trusts, with a wider possibility for fraud. It would also spark considerable litigation on whether a particular clause resulted in a fully secret or half-secret trust. Thus it may be argued that despite the difficulties, a half-secret trust should be enforced if fully secret trusts are.
562:
Two further problems are apparent when considering the fraud theory in the context of half-secret trusts. Since the will mentions the trust, it is impossible for the trustee to deny the existence of the trust. Whether or not the intended beneficiaries can be ascertained, in case of inter vivo
833:, they are all bound by the trust if even one tenant accepts it before the execution of the will. Where they hold the property as joint tenants and some accept it, but only after the execution of the will, only those who accepted it are bound. This area has been called "rather illogical".
538:. The wider ground extends to attempting to renege on the promise made during the testator's lifetime, even when his intention at the time of making the promise may have been to fulfill the testator's wishes. The wider ground appears to have been adopted by the Court of Appeal in
742:, Kay J came to the conclusion that communication requires allowing the trustee the chance to refuse his office; as such, it cannot be done after death. Lastly, the office of trustee must be accepted by the trustee. The two ways this can be done were laid out by Wood VC in
807:
law regarding acceptance should be different between half-secret and fully secret trusts. Acceptance of the half-secret trust is not entirely different to fully secret trusts but there are subtle and decisive variations; it can be communicated either directly, or tacitly.
792:, Viscount Sumner said that: " testator cannot reserve to himself a power of making future unwitnessed dispositions by merely naming a trustee and leaving the purposes of the trust to be supplied afterwards", a passage given its traditional interpretation in cases such as
723:
of the secondary donee; (ii) communication of that intention to the primary donee; and (iii) the acceptance of that obligation by the primary donee either expressly or by acquiescence. It is immaterial whether these elements precede or succeed the will of the donor.
359:) the operation of the Wills Act. The first is considered the traditional approach – if the courts do not recognise secret trusts, the trustee given the property in the will would be able to keep it for himself, committing fraud. The fraud theory utilises the
533:
There have been two grounds on which this rule has been based. The narrower ground is that the trustee should be debarred from denying the existence of the trust because of his wrongful conduct at the time he made the undertaking, as identified by Lord
Westbury in
618:("between the living") rather than testamentary under exception. Although the testator is unlikely to consider the trust having come into existence at the time of the will upon his death, whether a disposition is arguably though less convincingly regarded as an
778:, where a testator gave five trustees pieces of property, instructing them (in the will) to hold on to this property as they had been asked. Prior to the testator's death, the trustees had all been told what to do with the property. Lord Sumner said that:
875:
states that where there is written evidence, oral testimony cannot be introduced to the court if it contradicts that evidence. Since secret trusts are oral and normally exist outside of the will (a written document) this causes problems. In
513:
that "equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud". The "fraud" referred to is the denial of the existence of the trust by the intended trustee of the will, thus allowing him to apply it for his own purposes. Thus in
886:
decided that the parol evidence rule extended to secret trusts, and such trusts could not be enforced if they contradicted written documents. More generally, the problem is proving that the testator intended to create a trust. As in
818:
There are a variety of practical rules in these trusts' use, which span both fully secret and half-secret trusts. If a testator alters the terms of the trust or the trust property, he must inform the intended trustee; if not, as in
355:. Despite this, the courts have chosen to uphold them as valid. Although various justifications have been given for this, they are generally categorised as either based on preventing fraud, or as regarding secret trusts as outside (
493:
In practical terms, there are several reasons why admitting the language of fraud to justify a fully secret trust, but not a half-secret trust, would be sub-optimal. This is considered one principal reason why the court in
340:, made to come into force after death, that aims to benefit a person without having been written in a formal will. The property is given to the trustee in the will, and he would then be expected to pass it on to the real
393:, even when it concerns land and one solution to this problem is to consider them constructive. Some commentators believe that half-secret trusts may fall into a different category to fully secret trusts in this regard.
760:
If a secret trust cannot be established, the beneficiary will hold outright. If a secret trust can be shown, but not its terms (or communication post-dated the testator's death), then the would-be trustee will hold on
825:, the trustee will be permitted to keep the newly added property. Where the trustees are co-owners of the property, informing them of the trust's terms or amendments becomes complicated. If they hold the property as
374:("between the living") but this creates other problems. There have also been attempts to conclude that half-secret trusts rest on a different basis to fully secret trusts, although this has been disapproved by the
727:
For a fully secret trust to be valid, therefore, it must be proved that there was intention, that this was communicated to the trustee, and that the trustee accepted his obligations. Intention is one of the
837:
far only as concerns such person attesting the execution of such will, or the wife or husband of such person, or any person claiming under such person or wife or husband, be utterly null and void". In
774:
passive party to a trust) of the will, will act in accordance with its terms. The requirements for a half-secret trust to be valid are similar to those for fully secret trusts, and were laid out in
685:. Also, the correct interpretation of secret trust in light of "au dehor" theory strongly affirms that the secret trust can operate outside the Law of Property Act and still be an express trust.
573:
Based on the fraud theory, secret trusts are sometimes classified as constructive trusts; the reason they do not have to follow the Wills Act 1837 is because they are created by the courts.
859:
case of a half-secret trust, the trust ought to be good on the basis that "equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee". Of a fully secret trust, it was indicated by
608:
Indeed, the formality requirements of the Wills Act created the need for a set of prima facie documents, like the one commonly referred to. Therefore, to refer to an arrangement as
841:, an attesting witness was the beneficiary of a secret trust. The court decided that "the Wills Act 1837 had nothing to do with it" and the secret trust valid. The effect of the
681:
409:
to benefit a person without having to specify that person in a will. The trustee is transferred property under the terms of the will which he or she then holds on
810:
The failure of a half-secret trust, such as where the beneficiaries of the trust cannot be shown, or communication is not at or before the execution of the will.
799:
757:
Acceptance, therefore, can be communicated in one of two ways; either by the trustee directly stating his acceptance, or by implying it through not declining.
655:
348:, whereas in the case of a fully secret trust the terms may be communicated after the execution of the will, as long as this is before the testator's death.
516:
453:
744:
649:
547:
Since allowing the trustee of the will to retain the property is at the heart of the "fraud", it is not clear why courts have considered the appropriate
529:
accomplishing a fraud. In this way, a court of equity has dealt with the
Statute of Frauds, and in this manner, also, it deals with the Statute of Wills.
173:
710:
675:
667:
the person creating or conveying the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing, or by will, or by operation of law". Two cases,
612:
the Wills Act because it is not a prima facie reference to the document is incorrect. The response has been to view the secret trust as a disposition
821:
842:
430:
A secret trust must be contrasted with merely placing a moral obligation upon the beneficiary to deal with the legacy in particular way (as in
48:
250:
850:
669:
596:
432:
307:
783:
satisfied by acquiescence, the proposed donee encourages him to bequeath the money on the faith that his intention will be carried out.
738:
878:
794:
53:
375:
848:
Where a beneficiary under a secret trust predeceases the testator, his or her personal representative will inherit instead, as in
585:
A more modern argument is that secret trusts are independent and operate outside the will. This would mean that the trust is not
473:(c) the signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time; and
143:
138:
481:(ii) acknowledges his signature, in the presence of the testator (but not necessarily in the presence of any other witnesses).
1741:
1706:
1675:
1606:
1476:
1283:
1264:
1219:
1188:
1169:
1145:
1048:
998:
883:
845:
has been to allow the trustee of a half-secret trust to attest the will and this may also apply to the fully secret trust.
486:
As such, such trusts are not enforceable because they are invalid. Equity has been willing to accept their validity in the
209:
521:
448:
871:
Evidential issues also exist. Because secret trusts are by definition secret, they are difficult to prove in court. The
891:, the standard is high; the person trying to enforce the trust must show "most clearly and distinctly" that it exists.
644:
382:
43:
1490:
P., J.A. (1928). "Wills. Trust. Expressed in Will. Re
Blackwell; Blackwell v. Blackwell. W. N. 12. 97 L. J. Ch. 92".
631:
definition of a "testamentary disposition" and "inter vivo trust" as applied in other sorts of cases is inconclusive.
417:
that the beneficiary holds as trustee only is declared on the face of the will, but not the other terms of the trust.
235:
469:(a) it is in writing, and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction; and
854:. If the gift had been made directly as part of testator's will it would have lapsed and formed part of his or her
424:
63:
38:
509:
The secret trust was originally conceived to prevent fraud enabled by statute or the common law, in line with the
490:
to prevent the trustee committing fraud and keeping the property; justifications for this acceptance are debated.
762:
715:
552:
300:
71:
153:
640:
386:
58:
829:, only those tenants who were informed of the trust are bound to follow it. Where they hold the property as
708:
Fully secret trusts are awkward because of the lack of evidence pertaining to their existence and terms. In
444:
245:
178:
1760:
293:
276:
240:
255:
1653:
Critchley, P. "Instruments of Fraud, Testamentary
Dispositions and the Doctrine of Secret Trusts".
663:
659:, although both opine that they are better classified as express trust with constructive elements.
390:
365:
204:
133:
123:
351:
Secret trusts do not comply with the formality requirements (such as witnessing) laid down in the
627:
148:
107:
868:
of a personal obligation as thus fails if renounced or if the trustee predeceases the testator.
826:
281:
219:
700:, however, considered the half-secret trust to have the same basis as the fully secret trust.
693:
540:
496:
830:
471:(b) it appears that the testator intended by his signature to give effect to the will; and
436:) and must impose a binding obligation, without discretion to act within its terms or not.
688:
Some authors place fully secret and half-secret trusts in different categories, including
8:
872:
732:, and applies to fully secret trusts in the same way as it does to other express trusts.
92:
1730:
736:
if there are multiple beneficiaries for example, this will need to be communicated. In
329:
199:
128:
1737:
1702:
1671:
1499:
729:
556:
260:
158:
97:
24:
855:
214:
168:
163:
1716:
1694:
860:
803:
689:
566:
510:
420:
368:. To avoid this problem, one approach has been to reclassify the secret trust as
360:
802:'. Although that interpretation has been confirmed as the law in further cases,
591:
462:
352:
183:
1754:
1503:
718:
set out the test for proving the existence of a fully secret trust. This is:
622:
is a question for the courts as well as parliament. However, other types of
586:
548:
614:
461:
The secret trust has proved difficult to reconcile with section 9 of the
410:
370:
341:
321:
487:
381:
This debate is also of importance when classifying the trust as either
345:
753:
of that promise or understanding, it is in effect a case of trust".
402:
333:
406:
337:
102:
1685:
Hodge, D. (1980). "Secret Trusts: The Fraud Theory
Revisited".
576:
451:, who gave the traditional justification for secret trusts in
1271:
798:, becoming a "cornerstone" of what has become known as the '
1466:
1464:
1462:
1460:
1254:
1252:
1250:
1038:
1036:
1631:
1346:
1159:
1157:
1155:
1055:
1457:
1303:
1301:
1299:
1297:
1295:
1293:
1247:
1176:
1133:
1121:
1076:
1074:
1072:
1070:
1033:
1005:
653:
includes them in its section on express trusts, as does
551:
to recognise a trust on behalf of others, rather than a
1313:
986:
976:
974:
928:
926:
924:
922:
920:
907:
905:
903:
1665:
1594:
1207:
1152:
1719:(1992). "Half-secret trusts in England and Ireland".
1573:
1551:
1549:
1510:
1445:
1433:
1412:
1379:
1367:
1290:
1235:
1195:
1100:
1067:
971:
950:
938:
917:
900:
174:
1729:
1561:
1546:
1522:
1391:
465:, which provides that a will is only valid when:
1752:
1475:sfnp error: no target: CITEREFCritchley1999 (
1282:sfnp error: no target: CITEREFCritchley1999 (
1263:sfnp error: no target: CITEREFCritchley1999 (
1187:sfnp error: no target: CITEREFCritchley1999 (
1144:sfnp error: no target: CITEREFCritchley1999 (
1047:sfnp error: no target: CITEREFCritchley1999 (
997:sfnp error: no target: CITEREFCritchley1999 (
301:
1093:
1091:
1089:
1605:sfnp error: no target: CITEREFEdwards2007 (
1218:sfnp error: no target: CITEREFEdwards2007 (
1168:sfnp error: no target: CITEREFEdwards2007 (
1026:
1024:
1022:
1020:
401:A secret trust is an arrangement between a
1666:Edwards, Richard; Nigel Stockwell (2007).
1339:
1337:
308:
294:
1539:
1537:
1470:
1277:
1258:
1182:
1139:
1086:
1042:
992:
1017:
443:
1600:
1334:
1213:
1163:
144:Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009
139:Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964
16:Trust that comes into force after death
1753:
1727:
1693:
1637:
1579:
1534:
1516:
1451:
1439:
1418:
1385:
1373:
1352:
1319:
1307:
1241:
1201:
1106:
1080:
1061:
1011:
980:
956:
944:
932:
911:
703:
1701:(6th ed.). Routledge-Cavendish.
1684:
1652:
1127:
768:
332:defined as an arrangement between a
1715:
1567:
1555:
1528:
1397:
479:(i) attests and signs the will; or
13:
1489:
378:, primarily on practical grounds.
14:
1772:
1670:(8th ed.). Pearson Longman.
1498:(2). Cambridge University Press.
634:
524:justified secret trusts, saying:
423:, Professor of Equity and Law at
439:
425:Queen Mary, University of London
1721:Conveyancer and Property Lawyer
1687:Conveyancer and Property Lawyer
1646:
1622:
1613:
1585:
1483:
1424:
1403:
1358:
1325:
1226:
1112:
626:trust are incapable of binding
603:It has been suggested that the
504:
962:
154:Recognition of Trusts Act 1987
1:
894:
882:, the issue came up, and the
555:in favour of the estate (the
396:
1732:Equity and the Law of Trusts
179:Variation of Trusts Act 1958
7:
1736:. Oxford University Press.
813:
765:for the testator's estate.
10:
1777:
639:Whether secret trusts are
475:(d) each witness either -
277:Conflict of laws of trusts
1492:The Cambridge Law Journal
366:testamentary dispositions
256:Rule against perpetuities
682:Rochefoucauld v Boustead
664:Law of Property Act 1925
391:Law of Property Act 1925
159:Statute of Frauds (1677)
134:Law of Property Act 1925
124:Charitable Uses Act 1601
1728:Pettit, Philip (2009).
628:after-acquired property
149:Public Trustee Act 1906
785:
755:
725:
531:
484:
483:
458:
282:Hague Trust Convention
865:Blackwell v Blackwell
800:prior acceptance rule
780:
776:Blackwell v Blackwell
750:
720:
698:Blackwell v Blackwell
694:Lionel Astor Sheridan
541:Bannister v Bannister
526:
497:Blackwell v Blackwell
477:
467:
447:
346:execution of the will
1655:Law Quarterly Review
656:Underhill and Hayton
1640:, pp. 285–286.
1430:(1855) 25 LJ Ch 241
1355:, pp. 129–130.
1280:, pp. 639–640.
1130:, pp. 341–351.
1064:, pp. 127–128.
1014:, pp. 289–291.
873:parol evidence rule
704:Fully secret trusts
647:trusts is unclear.
49:Discretionary trust
1761:English trusts law
1409:(1884) 26 Ch D 531
889:McCormick v Grogan
804:Professor John Mee
769:Half-secret trusts
581:) the will" theory
536:McCormick v Grogan
517:McCormick v Grogan
459:
454:McCormick v Grogan
200:Account of profits
129:Charities Act 2006
44:Constructive trust
1743:978-0-19-956102-5
1708:978-0-415-49771-8
1699:Equity and Trusts
1677:978-1-4058-4684-4
1668:Trusts and Equity
1322:, pp. 88–89.
1097:(1869) LR 4 HL 82
827:tenants-in-common
788:the testator. In
745:Wallgrave v Tebbs
730:three certainties
557:residuary legatee
318:
317:
261:Three certainties
251:Trustee liability
25:English trust law
1768:
1747:
1735:
1724:
1712:
1695:Hudson, Alastair
1690:
1681:
1662:
1641:
1635:
1629:
1626:
1620:
1617:
1611:
1610:
1598:
1592:
1589:
1583:
1577:
1571:
1565:
1559:
1553:
1544:
1541:
1532:
1526:
1520:
1514:
1508:
1507:
1487:
1481:
1480:
1471:Critchley (1999)
1468:
1455:
1449:
1443:
1437:
1431:
1428:
1422:
1416:
1410:
1407:
1401:
1395:
1389:
1383:
1377:
1371:
1365:
1362:
1356:
1350:
1344:
1341:
1332:
1331:(1886) 2 TLR 660
1329:
1323:
1317:
1311:
1305:
1288:
1287:
1278:Critchley (1999)
1275:
1269:
1268:
1259:Critchley (1999)
1256:
1245:
1239:
1233:
1230:
1224:
1223:
1211:
1205:
1199:
1193:
1192:
1183:Critchley (1999)
1180:
1174:
1173:
1161:
1150:
1149:
1140:Critchley (1999)
1137:
1131:
1125:
1119:
1116:
1110:
1104:
1098:
1095:
1084:
1078:
1065:
1059:
1053:
1052:
1043:Critchley (1999)
1040:
1031:
1028:
1015:
1009:
1003:
1002:
993:Critchley (1999)
990:
984:
978:
969:
966:
960:
954:
948:
942:
936:
930:
915:
909:
856:residuary estate
748:, when he said:
711:Ottaway v Norman
676:Ottaway v Norman
662:53(1)(b) of the
310:
303:
296:
215:Equitable remedy
169:Trustee Act 2000
164:Trustee Act 1925
39:Charitable trust
21:
20:
1776:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1751:
1750:
1744:
1709:
1678:
1649:
1644:
1636:
1632:
1627:
1623:
1618:
1614:
1604:
1599:
1595:
1590:
1586:
1578:
1574:
1566:
1562:
1554:
1547:
1542:
1535:
1527:
1523:
1515:
1511:
1488:
1484:
1474:
1469:
1458:
1450:
1446:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1417:
1413:
1408:
1404:
1396:
1392:
1384:
1380:
1372:
1368:
1363:
1359:
1351:
1347:
1342:
1335:
1330:
1326:
1318:
1314:
1306:
1291:
1281:
1276:
1272:
1262:
1257:
1248:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1227:
1217:
1212:
1208:
1200:
1196:
1186:
1181:
1177:
1167:
1162:
1153:
1143:
1138:
1134:
1126:
1122:
1117:
1113:
1105:
1101:
1096:
1087:
1079:
1068:
1060:
1056:
1046:
1041:
1034:
1029:
1018:
1010:
1006:
996:
991:
987:
979:
972:
967:
963:
955:
951:
943:
939:
931:
918:
910:
901:
897:
884:Court of Appeal
861:Lord Buckmaster
822:Re Colin Cooper
816:
771:
763:resulting trust
706:
690:Alastair Hudson
637:
583:
567:Alastair Hudson
553:resulting trust
511:equitable maxim
507:
480:
474:
472:
470:
442:
421:Alastair Hudson
399:
361:equitable maxim
328:are a class of
314:
205:Breach of trust
72:Resulting trust
17:
12:
11:
5:
1774:
1764:
1763:
1749:
1748:
1742:
1725:
1713:
1707:
1691:
1682:
1676:
1663:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1642:
1630:
1621:
1612:
1603:, p. 120.
1601:Edwards (2007)
1593:
1584:
1582:, p. 281.
1572:
1570:, p. 205.
1560:
1558:, p. 204.
1545:
1533:
1531:, p. 203.
1521:
1519:, p. 280.
1509:
1482:
1473:, p. 633.
1456:
1454:, p. 279.
1444:
1442:, p. 278.
1432:
1423:
1421:, p. 277.
1411:
1402:
1400:, p. 202.
1390:
1388:, p. 275.
1378:
1376:, p. 291.
1366:
1357:
1345:
1333:
1324:
1312:
1310:, p. 129.
1289:
1270:
1261:, p. 634.
1246:
1244:, p. 290.
1234:
1225:
1216:, p. 122.
1214:Edwards (2007)
1206:
1204:, p. 289.
1194:
1185:, p. 650.
1175:
1166:, p. 121.
1164:Edwards (2007)
1151:
1142:, p. 649.
1132:
1120:
1111:
1109:, p. 273.
1099:
1085:
1083:, p. 128.
1066:
1054:
1045:, p. 652.
1032:
1016:
1004:
995:, p. 632.
985:
983:, p. 276.
970:
961:
959:, p. 271.
949:
947:, p. 270.
937:
935:, p. 127.
916:
914:, p. 269.
898:
896:
893:
843:Wills Act 1968
815:
812:
770:
767:
705:
702:
650:Snell's Equity
636:
635:Classification
633:
582:
575:
506:
503:
463:Wills Act 1837
441:
438:
398:
395:
376:House of Lords
353:Wills Act 1837
316:
315:
313:
312:
305:
298:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
279:
271:
270:
266:
265:
264:
263:
258:
253:
248:
243:
238:
230:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
217:
212:
207:
202:
194:
193:
189:
188:
187:
186:
184:Wills Act 1837
181:
176:
171:
166:
161:
156:
151:
146:
141:
136:
131:
126:
118:
117:
113:
112:
111:
110:
105:
100:
95:
87:
86:
82:
81:
80:
79:
74:
69:
61:
56:
51:
46:
41:
33:
32:
31:Types of trust
28:
27:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1773:
1762:
1759:
1758:
1756:
1745:
1739:
1734:
1733:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1683:
1679:
1673:
1669:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1651:
1650:
1639:
1638:Hudson (2009)
1634:
1625:
1616:
1608:
1602:
1597:
1588:
1581:
1580:Hudson (2009)
1576:
1569:
1564:
1557:
1552:
1550:
1540:
1538:
1530:
1525:
1518:
1517:Hudson (2009)
1513:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1486:
1478:
1472:
1467:
1465:
1463:
1461:
1453:
1452:Hudson (2009)
1448:
1441:
1440:Hudson (2009)
1436:
1427:
1420:
1419:Hudson (2009)
1415:
1406:
1399:
1394:
1387:
1386:Hudson (2009)
1382:
1375:
1374:Hudson (2009)
1370:
1364:1 Ch 196 (CA)
1361:
1354:
1353:Pettit (2009)
1349:
1340:
1338:
1328:
1321:
1320:Pettit (2009)
1316:
1309:
1308:Pettit (2009)
1304:
1302:
1300:
1298:
1296:
1294:
1285:
1279:
1274:
1266:
1260:
1255:
1253:
1251:
1243:
1242:Hudson (2009)
1238:
1229:
1221:
1215:
1210:
1203:
1202:Hudson (2009)
1198:
1190:
1184:
1179:
1171:
1165:
1160:
1158:
1156:
1147:
1141:
1136:
1129:
1124:
1115:
1108:
1107:Hudson (2009)
1103:
1094:
1092:
1090:
1082:
1081:Pettit (2009)
1077:
1075:
1073:
1071:
1063:
1062:Pettit (2009)
1058:
1050:
1044:
1039:
1037:
1027:
1025:
1023:
1021:
1013:
1012:Hudson (2009)
1008:
1000:
994:
989:
982:
981:Hudson (2009)
977:
975:
965:
958:
957:Hudson (2009)
953:
946:
945:Hudson (2009)
941:
934:
933:Pettit (2009)
929:
927:
925:
923:
921:
913:
912:Hudson (2009)
908:
906:
904:
899:
892:
890:
885:
881:
880:
874:
869:
866:
862:
857:
853:
852:
846:
844:
840:
834:
832:
831:joint tenants
828:
824:
823:
811:
808:
805:
801:
797:
796:
791:
784:
779:
777:
766:
764:
758:
754:
749:
747:
746:
741:
740:
733:
731:
724:
719:
717:
713:
712:
701:
699:
695:
691:
686:
684:
683:
678:
677:
672:
671:
665:
660:
658:
657:
652:
651:
646:
642:
632:
629:
625:
621:
617:
616:
611:
606:
601:
599:
598:
593:
588:
580:
574:
571:
568:
564:
560:
558:
554:
550:
545:
543:
542:
537:
530:
525:
523:
522:Lord Westbury
519:
518:
512:
502:
499:
498:
491:
489:
482:
476:
466:
464:
456:
455:
450:
449:Lord Westbury
446:
440:Justification
437:
435:
434:
428:
426:
422:
418:
414:
412:
408:
404:
394:
392:
388:
384:
379:
377:
373:
372:
367:
362:
358:
354:
349:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:secret trusts
323:
311:
306:
304:
299:
297:
292:
291:
289:
288:
283:
280:
278:
275:
274:
273:
272:
269:International
268:
267:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
226:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
206:
203:
201:
198:
197:
196:
195:
191:
190:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
172:
170:
167:
165:
162:
160:
157:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:
137:
135:
132:
130:
127:
125:
122:
121:
120:
119:
115:
114:
109:
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
90:
89:
88:
85:Functionaries
84:
83:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
66:
62:
60:
59:Purpose trust
57:
55:
54:Express trust
52:
50:
47:
45:
42:
40:
37:
36:
35:
34:
30:
29:
26:
23:
22:
19:
1731:
1720:
1698:
1686:
1667:
1658:
1654:
1647:Bibliography
1633:
1624:
1615:
1596:
1591:3 All ER 586
1587:
1575:
1563:
1524:
1512:
1495:
1491:
1485:
1447:
1435:
1426:
1414:
1405:
1393:
1381:
1369:
1360:
1348:
1327:
1315:
1273:
1237:
1228:
1209:
1197:
1178:
1135:
1128:Hodge (1980)
1123:
1118:2 All ER 133
1114:
1102:
1057:
1007:
988:
968:2 All ER 172
964:
952:
940:
888:
877:
870:
864:
849:
847:
838:
835:
820:
817:
809:
793:
789:
786:
781:
775:
772:
759:
756:
751:
743:
737:
734:
726:
721:
709:
707:
697:
687:
680:
674:
668:
661:
654:
648:
645:constructive
638:
623:
619:
613:
609:
604:
602:
595:
587:testamentary
584:
578:
572:
565:
561:
546:
539:
535:
532:
527:
515:
508:
505:Fraud theory
495:
492:
485:
478:
468:
460:
452:
431:
429:
419:
415:
413:for others.
400:
383:constructive
380:
369:
356:
350:
325:
319:
77:Secret trust
76:
64:
18:
716:Brightman J
624:inter vivos
620:inter vivos
615:inter vivos
371:inter vivos
342:beneficiary
322:English law
241:Formalities
93:Beneficiary
1723:: 202–206.
1689:: 341–351.
1568:Mee (1992)
1556:Mee (1992)
1529:Mee (1992)
1398:Mee (1992)
895:References
851:Re Gardner
670:Re Baillie
597:Re Snowden
592:Megarry VC
577:"Outside (
488:common law
433:Re Snowden
397:Definition
65:Quistclose
1717:Mee, John
1504:0008-1973
790:Blackwell
98:Protector
1755:Category
1697:(2009).
1628:2 Ch 230
1343:2 WLR 50
1232:1 Ch 700
839:Re Young
814:Practice
739:Re Boyes
403:testator
334:testator
192:Remedies
116:Statutes
879:Re Keen
795:Re Keen
641:express
570:hands.
407:trustee
387:express
338:trustee
246:History
236:Cy-près
220:Tracing
210:Damages
108:Trustee
103:Settlor
1740:
1705:
1674:
1619:Ch 344
1543:Ch 236
1502:
1030:AC 318
610:dehors
605:dehors
579:dehors
549:remedy
405:and a
357:dehors
336:and a
411:trust
330:trust
228:Other
67:trust
1738:ISBN
1703:ISBN
1672:ISBN
1607:help
1500:ISSN
1477:help
1284:help
1265:help
1220:help
1189:help
1170:help
1146:help
1049:help
999:help
692:and
673:and
364:all
1659:115
863:in
643:or
594:in
385:or
320:In
1757::
1657:.
1548:^
1536:^
1494:.
1459:^
1336:^
1292:^
1249:^
1154:^
1088:^
1069:^
1035:^
1019:^
973:^
919:^
902:^
714:,
520:,
324:,
1746:.
1711:.
1680:.
1661:.
1609:)
1506:.
1496:3
1479:)
1286:)
1267:)
1222:)
1191:)
1172:)
1148:)
1051:)
1001:)
457:.
309:e
302:t
295:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.