Goulding v James
The court can approve a variation of a trust that departs from the settlor's wishes, if it benefits the beneficiaries on whose behalf the court acts.
Facts
Mrs Froud left her estate on trust for her daughter, Mrs Goulding, for life, with the remainder to her grandson when he reached 40. She did not trust her daughter's husband or her grandson, who she thought was a free spirit. The daughter and grandson proposed a variation that would give them each part of the capital immediately, with part going into a trust for the testatrix's future great grandchildren. They applied to the court to approve the variation on behalf of the unborn great grandchildren.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal approved the variation. Mummery LJ said that the court's role under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 is to give approval on behalf of those beneficiaries who cannot give it themselves, and that the question is whether the arrangement benefits them. The settlor's intentions are not a decisive consideration, because the Act allows the beneficiaries to vary the trust as they could do if they were all adults of full capacity. The arrangement benefited the great grandchildren, so it should be approved.
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
- Chapman v Chapman [1954] AC 429
- Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch 270
- 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.
