Variation Of Trusts Act, 1958
| Author | Leolin Price |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00511.x |
| Date | 01 January 1959 |
| Published date | 01 January 1959 |
56
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL
22
partly concerned? And
if
it is the object
of
the new section
to
enable the court to make
a
“
clean sweep,)’ why then should debts
between the spouses be excluded from the
ruling
of
the court
designed
once
and
for
all
to
put an end to property and money
disputes between them?
In
the
Camkin
case Wynn-Parry
J.
may
have drawn what was an inevitable conclusion from the
Tunstall
decision of the Court of Appeal (about which all that was required
had been said by
Mr.
Megarry in
a
note in
69
L.Q.R.
808),
but
it
is very much
to
be
feared that the conclusion may survive the
premiss
on
which
it
was based.
0.
KeF.
VAEIATION
OF
TEUSTS
ACT,
1958
THE
appeal
to
the House of Lords in
Chapman
v.
Chapman
l
was
dismissed
on
March
25,
1954.
In
January,
1957,
the Lord Chan-
cellor invited the Law Reform Committee “to consider whether
any alteration is desirable in the powers
of
the court to sanction
a variation in the trusts of
a
settlement in the interests of
beneficiaries under disability and unborn persons, with particular
reference to the decision in
Chapman
v.
Chapmqn.”B
In
Novem-
ber,
1957,
the Committee’s report
a
was presented to Parliament.
Shortly afterwards
Mr.
Petre Crowder,
M.P.,
presented his
Private Member’s Bill
for
the purpose of giving effect to the
recommendations made in the Committee’s report. The Bill, with
amendments, received the Royal Assent
on
July
28,
1958,
and
became law as the Variation
of
Trusts Act,
1958.’
This short history is an impressive example
of
the manner in
which Parliament
can
intervene with legislative reform when the
courts
have made an unsatisfactory decision. Another recent case
of speedy legislative intervention was the Recreational Charities
Act,
1958,6
arising out of the decision of the House
of
Lords
in
1.
R.
C.
v.
Baddeley‘;
and there have been other encouraging
recent examples.8 The English doctrine of precedent requires the
1
[1954]
A.C. 429;
[l954]
1
All E.R.
798.
2
Cmnd.
310.
8
Law Reform Co-ttee. Sixth Report (Court’s Power
to
Sanction Variation
of
Trusts).
Cmnd.
310.
4
The
Bill,
as
amended
by
Standing Committee, was
“Ordered,
by
The House
of Commons,
to
be Printed,
December
18.1967.”
6
6
&
7
Eliz.
2,
c.
53.
6
6
&
7
Eliz.
2,
c.
17;
noted
at
(1958) 21
M.L.R.
534.
7
[1955]
A.C.
572;
[1955] 1
All E.R.
525.
8
See,
e.g.,
the Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act,
1954 (2
&
3
Elk.
2,
c.
34),
implementing the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee’s
First
Report (Cmd.
8809:
March,
1953);
the Law Reform (Limitation of
Actions, etc.) Act,
1954
(2
&
3
Eliz.
2,
c.
36),
founded
on
the report of TJord
Tucker’s Committee
on
the Limitation
of
Actions (Cmd.
7740:
July,
1949);
8.
7
of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,
1954 (2
&
3
Eliz.
2,
c.
B),
overruling
Woodward
v.
Earl
of
Dudley
[1954]
1
W.L.R.
476;
the Hotel
Proprietors Act,
1956 (4
&
5
Elie. 2,
c.
62),
following the Law Reform Com-
mittee’s Second Report (Cmd.
9161:
May,
1954);
and the Occupiers’ Liability
Act,
1957 (5
&
6
Elk.
2.
c.
a),
following the Committee’s Third
Report
(Cmd.
9305:
November,
1954).
To continue reading
Request your trial