Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Valid Express Trusts (CONSTITUTION: Must meet the 3C's and be…

- - - - Consideration not required for a declaration of trust over realty: Robson v Robson
      - PLA s 11(1)(b): DOT must be 'manifested and proved by some writing'
      - PLA s 11(1)(a): Requires writing of a higher std than 'manifested and proved by some writing' by person or agent
      - DOT not covered by equivalents to PLA s11: Secretary, Dept of Social Security v James
    - - No req for writing or consideration
    - - Eg: equitable chose in action (right to display a number plate) req writing for trust to be properly constituted: Simonson Properties PL v Hardy
  - - - But could amount to fraud on part of T: Barnes v Alderton; Bloch v Bloch; Bannister v Bannister; Rochefoucauld v Boustead Eq will not allow statutory req for writing to be used as an instrument of fraud.... if does not meet writing reqs and trustees seek to rely on failure, may amount to fraud to rely on failure
      - Maxim: Eq will not permit a ste to be used as an instrument of fraud: Ciaglia v Ciaglia
    - - maybe Eq doctrines of part performance, estoppel, resulting trusts. See Khoury v Khouri; Faraday v Rappaport
        
        Need to meet reqs ie detriment, consideration, evidence of part performance etc.
- - - - Exceptions: Charitable trusts / trust for tombs and animals
    - - Criterion Certainty: Not 'administratively unworkable' / language must be certain
    - - Four Exceptions to the rule
        
        Special powers that satisfy list certainty; T can choose from a class
        
        Hybrid powers if there is a gift or interest in the trust in default of appointment; T can choose as long as they are not part of a class
        
        General powers of appointment: Tatham v Huxtable (Extinguished in QLD, refer to Succession Act s 64, repealed and replaced s 33R)
        
        if the trust is charitable