Kasperbauer v Griffith
Statements by a testator of what he wished to happen after his death were not enough to create a secret trust, because they did not impose a binding obligation.
Facts
Mr Griffith made a will leaving his property to his wife. Before his death, at a family gathering, he told his wife and family what he wished to happen to his property after both his and his wife's deaths, and his wife did not object. After his death, members of the family claimed that the wife held the property on secret trust to give effect to those wishes.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that there was no secret trust. Peter Gibson LJ said that, for a secret trust, there must be an intention by the testator to impose an obligation on the legatee, which the legatee accepts. What the testator had said was a statement of his wishes, which left his wife free to deal with the property as she chose, rather than an obligation. The court would not infer a binding obligation from expressions of hope or wishes.
Related cases on secret trusts and mutual wills
- Blackwell v Blackwell [1929] AC 318
- Re Boyes (1884) 26 Ch D 531
- Re Cleaver [1981] 1 WLR 939
- Re Gardner (No 2) [1923] 2 Ch 230
- Re Goodchild [1997] 1 WLR 1216
- Healey v Brown [2002] EWHC 1405 (Ch), [2002] WTLR 849
- Re Keen [1937] Ch 236
- McCormick v Grogan (1869) LR 4 HL 82
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.
