Chapman v Chapman
The court has no inherent jurisdiction to approve a variation of a trust merely because it would benefit the beneficiaries, for example by saving tax.
Facts
The trustees of settlements for the benefit of the children of Sir Robert Chapman wanted to rearrange the trusts in order to avoid estate duty. Some of the beneficiaries were minors or unborn, so they could not consent. The trustees asked the court to approve the scheme on their behalf.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the court had no inherent jurisdiction to approve the scheme. Lord Simonds LC said that the court cannot rewrite a trust merely because it would be beneficial to the beneficiaries, and that its inherent jurisdiction to approve variations was limited to cases of emergency or salvage, the conversion of property, and compromises of genuine disputes. The decision led to the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, which gives the court power to approve arrangements on behalf of beneficiaries who cannot consent.
Related cases on trustees: duties, powers and variation of trusts
- Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd (No 1) [1980] Ch 515
- Butler-Sloss v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2022] EWHC 974 (Ch), [2022] Ch 371
- Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch 270
- Goulding v James [1997] 2 All ER 239
- Harries v Church Commissioners for England [1992] 1 WLR 1241
- Learoyd v Whiteley (1887) 12 App Cas 727
- Re Lucking's Will Trusts [1968] 1 WLR 866
- Nestle v National Westminster Bank plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260
Studying equity and trusts? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
