Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3002 ZA

LLB
DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Equity and Trusts (Level 6)

Tuesday 15 May 2018: 10.00 – 13.15

Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES in which to


answer the questions.

Candidates must answer THREE of the following SIX questions.

Candidates must answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.

Permitted materials
Students are permitted to bring into the examination room the following
specified document: one copy of Core Statutes on Property law (Palgrave
Macmillan).

© University of London 2018

UL18/0373
Page 1 of 3
1. Lisa was a single mother of two daughters: Nina and Priya. Lisa was the
registered owner of three houses in London: Green Gables, Maroon
Manor, and Violet Villa. She transferred all three houses to Nina, who
became the new registered owner. Lisa asked Nina to hold Green
Gables in trust for her (Lisa), to hold Maroon Manor in trust for Priya, and
to keep Violet Villa for herself (Nina) as a gift. Nina agreed.

Lisa died unexpectedly two months later. According to her will, her ex-
husband Sanjay is entitled to her entire estate. Sanjay claims that he is
entitled to all three houses because Nina is holding them in trust for
Lisa’s estate. Nina seeks your legal advice.

Advise Nina.

2. Emma died recently. According to her will, the residue of her estate is to
be held in trust for so long as the law allows:

(a) to support Ice Skating UK (ISUK),

(b) to construct and maintain a monument to the memory of


the great British figure skater Jennifer Nicks who died in
1980, and

(c) to improve the facilities of the Dibley Ice Skating Club


(DISC).

Dawn and James have been appointed as the executors of Emma’s


estate. They seek your advice concerning the validity of those trusts.

ISUK was a non-profit association that promoted ice skating in the UK,
but it closed down five years ago. DISC is a non-profit association with
250 members. It owns and operates a sports club with two ice skating
rinks, changing rooms, a dining lounge, a bar, and other facilities for use
by its members. Annual membership dues are £1,000 per adult and £500
per child.

Advise Dawn and James.

3. In McPhail v Doulton (1970), Lord Hodson (dissenting) said: “In my


opinion a mere power is a different animal from a trust and the test of
certainty in the case of trusts which stems from Morice v Bishop of
Durham is valid and should not readily yield to the test which is sufficient
in the case of mere powers.”

Discuss.

UL18/0373
Page 2 of 3
4. John was a security guard employed by Dooley Jewellers. Meg paid
£50,000 to John and, in exchange, he allowed her to steal diamonds
from Dooley Jewellers’ secure storeroom late one night. Meg tied John
up and knocked him out to help him hide his involvement in the theft.

Dooley Jewellers paid £25,000 to John as a reward for his bravery in


trying to stop the theft. He used that money, plus the £50,000 he
received from Meg, to open an investment account for his daughter
Noreen. Meg sold some of the stolen diamonds for £1 million, which she
used to buy a house in London for her father Eugene.

Meg vanished without a trace. John became ill and confessed his
involvement in the theft just before he died. Dooley Jewellers seeks your
legal advice. It wants to claim Noreen’s investment account and
Eugene’s house.

Advise Dooley Jewellers.

5. In Blackwell v Blackwell (1929), Viscount Sumner said: “A testator


cannot reserve to himself a power of making future unwitnessed
dispositions by merely naming a trustee and leaving the purposes of the
trust to be supplied afterwards, nor can a legatee give testamentary
validity to an unexecuted codicil by accepting an indefinite trust, never
communicated to him in the testator’s lifetime… To hold otherwise would
indeed be to enable the testator to ‘give the go-by’ to the requirements
of the Wills Act, because he did not choose to comply with them. It is
communication of the purpose to the legatee, coupled with
acquiescence or promise on his part, that removes the matter from the
provision of the Wills Act and brings it within the law of trusts, as applied
in this instance to trustees, who happen also to be legatees.”

Discuss.

6. In El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc (1993), Hoffmann LJ said: “This is


a claim to enforce a constructive trust on the basis of knowing receipt.
For this purpose the plaintiff must show, first, a disposal of his assets in
breach of fiduciary duty; secondly, the beneficial receipt by the defendant
of assets which are traceable as representing the assets of the plaintiff;
and thirdly, knowledge on the part of the defendant that the assets he
received are traceable to a breach of fiduciary duty.”

Discuss.

END OF PAPER

UL18/0373
Page 3 of 3

You might also like