Re Gulbenkian's Settlements
A power of appointment is valid if it can be said with certainty whether any given person is or is not a member of the class.
Facts
Calouste Gulbenkian, a wealthy oil magnate, made settlements giving the trustees a power to appoint income in favour of his son Nubar, any wife and children of Nubar, and any person in whose house or apartments or in whose company or under whose care and control or by or with whom Nubar might from time to time be employed or residing. The question was whether this power was void for uncertainty.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the power was valid. Lord Upjohn said that a mere power of appointment is valid if it can be said with certainty whether any given individual is or is not a member of the class, and that it is not necessary to be able to draw up a complete list of all the members of the class. He rejected a broader test, suggested by Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal, that a power would be valid if it could be said of any one person that he was clearly within the class. The words used were capable of being applied with certainty.
Related cases on certainty of objects and discretionary trusts
- Re Baden's Deed Trusts (No 2) [1973] Ch 9
- Re Barlow's Will Trusts [1979] 1 WLR 278
- Breakspear v Ackland [2008] EWHC 220 (Ch), [2009] Ch 32
- Re Hay's Settlement Trusts [1982] 1 WLR 202
- IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust [1955] Ch 20
- Re Londonderry's Settlement [1965] Ch 918
- Re Manisty's Settlement [1974] Ch 17
- McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424
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.
