Saunders v Vautier
Adult beneficiaries of full capacity who are together absolutely entitled to the trust property can end the trust and call for the property to be transferred to them.
Facts
A testator left stock on trust to accumulate the dividends until a beneficiary, Daniel Wright, reached the age of 25, and then to transfer the stock and accumulations to him. When Daniel reached 21, which was then the age of majority, he asked the trustees to transfer the fund to him immediately.
Legal principle
Lord Langdale MR held that Daniel was entitled to the fund. He said that, where a legacy is directed to accumulate for a certain period, or where the payment is postponed, the legatee, if he has an absolute indefeasible interest in the legacy, is not bound to wait until the expiration of that period, but may require payment the moment he is competent to give a valid discharge. The principle has been extended so that all the beneficiaries of a trust, acting together, if they are of full age and capacity and together absolutely entitled, can end the trust.
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
- Goulding v James [1997] 2 All ER 239
- 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
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.
