Re Manisty's Settlement
A wide power to add beneficiaries to a class is not void merely because it may be exercised in favour of anyone in the world except a specified group.
Facts
A settlement gave the trustees a power to add to the class of beneficiaries anyone in the world, except the settlor, his wife and certain other excluded persons. It was argued that the power was void because it was so wide that it could not be exercised properly, and because it was capricious.
Legal principle
Templeman J held that the power was valid. He said that a power cannot be uncertain merely because it is wide in ambit, and that trustees with such a power must consider whether to exercise it, and act in good faith and not capriciously, but they cannot be required to consider every possible object. A power would be capricious, and void, only if it was framed so as to negative any sensible intention on the part of the settlor, such as a power in favour of the residents of Greater London, given for no apparent reason.
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 Gulbenkian's Settlements [1970] AC 508
- Re Hay's Settlement Trusts [1982] 1 WLR 202
- IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust [1955] Ch 20
- Re Londonderry's Settlement [1965] Ch 918
- 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.
