What happened in McPhail v Doulton?

October 8, 2019 Off By idswater

What happened in McPhail v Doulton?

McPhail v Doulton [1970] UKHL 1, also known as Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 1) is a leading English trusts law case by the House of Lords on the certainty of beneficiaries. It held that so long as any given claimant can clearly be determined to be a beneficiary, or not, a trust is valid.

What was the test put forward by Lord Wilberforce in McPhail v Doulton?

in McPhail the House of Lords restated the law, abandoning the “complete list” test in favour of an “is or is not” test. Lord Wilberforce phrased the new test of certainty for beneficiaries as: “Can it be said with certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of the class.”

Is or is not test re Baden?

Mr Bertram Baden settled a trust for the employees, relatives and dependants of his company, Matthew Hall & Co Ltd. 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.

What is the any given postulant test?

The leading test for mere powers is the “any given postulant” test, laid down in Re Gulbenkian. This states that the trustees must be able to say with certainty, when a potential beneficiary comes before them, that he either is or is not a beneficiary.

Does the rule in Saunders v Vautier have any significance today?

The rule is very much in force today and remains useful for trustees and beneficiaries in modern times. …

What is conceptual certainty?

Conceptual certainty relates to the certainty of the class; evidential certainty relates to the issue of whether an individual can be found or proven to be a member of the class or not. If a class is conceptually uncertain, the trust will be void, but evidential uncertainty will not defeat a trust.

Why are the three certainties needed?

For an express trust to be valid there has to be three certainties. These are certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter, and certainty of objects. Without these certainties, an express trust will not be valid. The purpose of these certainties is to ensure the trust is properly controlled and enforced.

How did the case of Pennington v Waine extend the principle in Re rose?

In Pennington v Waine, 1 the Court of Appeal reconsidered the extent of what has been termed “ the rule in Re Rose ” ,2 which mitigates the general rule that a gift which fails at common law for want of formalities will not take effect in equity.

How can we avoid Saunders v Vautier?

Avoiding The Rule Should a testator wish to avoid the operation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier, the most common method used is postponement of vesting by providing for a gift over in the event of the beneficiary death. This ensures that the beneficiary does not have an absolute interest in the trust property.

What happens if no certainty of objects?

If no certainty of objects can be ascertained, the trustee will hold the property on trust for the settlor – this is a resulting trust. This means the settlor can demand the legal title back from the trustee and then create another, this time valid, trust.