Re Pryce
Trustees should not sue to enforce a covenant to settle property for the benefit of volunteers.
Facts
Mrs Pryce covenanted in her marriage settlement to settle any property she later acquired. She later became entitled to some property, but did not transfer it to the trustees. After her husband's death, the trustees asked the court whether they should take steps to enforce the covenant for the benefit of the beneficiaries who were volunteers, because they were not within the marriage consideration.
Legal principle
Eve J held that the trustees should not take steps to enforce the covenant. The beneficiaries were volunteers, who could not enforce the covenant themselves, and the court would not direct the trustees to obtain for them by indirect means what they could not obtain directly. The trustees should not sue for damages for breach of the covenant either.
Related cases on formalities and constitution of trusts
- Re Brooks' Settlement Trusts [1939] Ch 993
- Cannon v Hartley [1949] Ch 213
- Choithram (T) International SA v Pagarani [2001] 1 WLR 1
- Fletcher v Fletcher (1844) 4 Hare 67
- Grey v IRC [1960] AC 1
- Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892
- King v Dubrey [2015] EWCA Civ 581, [2016] Ch 221
- Mascall v Mascall (1984) 50 P & CR 119
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.
