Discretionary Trusts in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Schmidt v Rosewood Trust
    • Privy Council
    • 27 Mar 2003

    Their Lordships consider that the more principled and correct approach is to regard the right to seek disclosure of trust documents as one aspect of the court's inherent jurisdiction to supervise, and if necessary to intervene in, the administration of trusts.

  • Novoship (UK) Ltd and Others v Vladimir Mikhaylyuk and Others
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 14 Dec 2012

    The payments (or other benefits) do not have to be made directly to the fiduciary. Bribes may be paid to third parties close to the agent, such as family members or discretionary trusts, or simply to those whom the agent wishes to benefit. The test is whether the payment (or other benefit) puts the fiduciary in a real (as opposed to a fanciful) position of potential conflict between interest and duty.

  • Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Eversden and Another
    • Chancery Division
    • 10 Jul 2002

    By the Settlement, the Settlor appointed herself and two others to be the trustees of the Settlement ("the Trustees").

  • Shalson and Others v Russo and Others; Mimran and Another (Part 20 Claimants)
    • Chancery Division
    • 11 Jul 2003

    When a settlor creates a settlement he purports to divest himself of assets in favour of the trustee, and the trustee accepts them on the basis of the trusts of the settlement. I cannot understand on what basis a third party could claim, merely by reference to the unilateral intentions -of the settlor, that the settlement was a -sham and that the assets in fact remained the settlor's property. To set that sort of case up the donee must also be shown to be a party to the alleged sham.

  • McPhail v Doulton, sub nom Re Baden's Deed Trusts (No 1)
    • House of Lords
    • 06 May 1970

    The conclusion which I would reach, implicit in the previous discussion, is that the wide distinction between the validity test for powers and that for trust powers, is unfortunate and wrong, that the rule recently fastened upon the courts by I.R.C. v. Broadway Cottages Trust ought to be discarded, and that the test for the validity of trust powers ought to be similar to that accepted by this House in Re Gulbenkian's Settlement for powers, namely that the trust is valid if it can be said with certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of the class.

    I would venture to amplify this by saying that the Court, if called upon to execute the trust power, will do so in the manner best calculated to give effect to the settlor's or testator's intentions. It may do so by appointing new trustees, or by authorising or directing representative persons of the classes of beneficiaries to prepare a scheme of distribution, or even, should the proper basis for distribution appear by itself directing the trustees so to distribute.

  • Pitt and Another v Holt and Another Futter and Another v Futter and Others
    • Supreme Court
    • 09 May 2013

    I would provisionally conclude that the true requirement is simply for there to be a causative mistake of sufficient gravity; and, as additional guidance to judges in finding and evaluating the facts of any particular case, that the test will normally be satisfied only when there is a mistake either as to the legal character or nature of a transaction, or as to some matter of fact or law which is basic to the transaction.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results