Vatcher v Paull

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1915
Date1915
CourtPrivy Council
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
101 cases
  • Roadchef (Employee Benefits Trustees) Ltd v Timothy Ingram Hill and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 29 January 2014
    ...to EBT2 was indeed effected for the improper purpose of benefiting Mr Ingram Hill it is a fraud on the power within the principle in Vatcher v. Paull [1915] AC 372 at 378, expressed by Lord Parker in the following terms: "[Fraud] in connection with frauds on a power does not necessarily de......
  • Dalriada Trustees Ltd v David Alexander Faulds and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 15 December 2011
    ...but (at least to the layman) misleading phrase does not connote dishonesty. It was explained by Lord Parker of Waddington in in Vatcher v Paull [1915] AC 372 at 378: "It merely means that the power has been exercised for a purpose, or with an intention, beyond the scope of or not justified ......
  • Re Greaves. Public Trustee v Ash
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 5 March 1954
    ...that extent defeating or departing from the intention of the donor of the power. The well-known language of Lord Parker of Waddington in Vatcher v. Paull 1915 A.C.372 at p.379 may once more be cited: - 16 "The real vice of an appointment on condition that the appointee shall benefit the app......
  • Andrew Popely v Ayton Ltd and Others
    • St Vincent
    • High Court (Saint Vincent)
    • 13 October 2008
    ...the appointment is said to be a fraud on the power and equity holds it bad." 39 In the decision of the Privy Council inVaucher v Powell [1915] A.C. p. 372 at p. 378 Lord Parker outlined the principle as follows: "The term fraud in connection with frauds on a power does not necessarily denot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • The Substratum Rule: Does It Matter?
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 16 August 2022
    ...Oil & Gas plc [2015] Bus LR (Eclairs Group). 11. Lord Parker of Waddington delivering the advice of the Privy Council in Vatcher v Paull [1915] AC 372. 12. See Lewin at '30-069. 13. [2001 CILR 481] 14. In modern terms, the proper purpose rule is "concerned with the abuse of power, by doing ......
  • The liability of a trustee who honors a fraudulent exercise of a power of appointment
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • 3 January 2015
    ...Tr. & Est. L. & Tax J. (Jan./Feb. 2005), No. 63, at 8 (citing to Aleyn v. Belcher (1758) 1 Eden 132 (England) and Vatcher v. Paull, [1915] AC 372 (England)). See also Kerry Ayers, Fraud on a power revisited, 16(10) STEP J. 54–55 (Nov. 2008). 541Wong & ors v. Burt & ors., [2004] NZCA 174 (Ne......
  • When Is A Fraud On A Power Actually A Fraud?
    • Jersey
    • Mondaq Jersey
    • 11 April 2016
    ...appointment of new trustees etc. So, when is the donee at risk of perpetrating fraud in exercising these powers? Vatcher v Paull [1915] AC 372, at page 378 "The term [fraud] in connection with frauds on a power does not necessarily denote any conduct on the part of the appointor amounting t......
3 books & journal articles
  • Trust Parties’ Uniquely Easy Access to Rescission: Analysis, Critique and Reform
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 82-5, September 2019
    • 1 September 2019
    ...court be satisfied that their ill-judgeddecision-making process amounted to a breach of one or more of their duties.3330 Vatcher vPa ull [1915] AC 372, 378.31 Top h a m vThe Duke of Por tland (1864) 11 HL Cas 32, 11 ER 1242; Cloutte vStorey [1911] 1 Ch18; Vatcher ibid;Hillsdown Holdings plc ......
  • Construction of a Jamaican building scheme in the privy council
    • Caribbean Community
    • Caribbean Law Review No. 3-2, December 1993
    • 1 December 1993
    ...by the Board that there was no evidence from which the fact of acceptance of a building scheme could be inferred. 36 Sec Watcher v Paull [1915] A.C. 372(P.C); St. Francis Hydro Electric Co. v. R. [1937] 2 All E.R. 541 (P.C.); Yachuk v. Oliver Btais Co. Ltd. [1949] 2 All E.R. 150 (P.C.). 37 ......
  • TRUST PROTECTOR
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2008, December 2008
    • 1 December 2008
    ...by fiduciaries. 101 Duke of Portland v Lady Topham (1864) 11 HL Cas 32 per Lord Westbury and Lord St Leonards. See also Vatcher v Paull[1915] AC 372 at 378 per Lord Parker. 102 Wong v Burt [2005] 1 NZLR 91 (CA) per Hammond J. 103 Wong v Burt [2005] 1 NZLR 91 (CA) at [27]—[28]. 104 Waters, “......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT