Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'
Despite judicial statements to the contrary, there remains doubt as to whether bare sub-trustees 'drop out' so as to render a principal trustee to come under a 'direct' trustee-beneficiary relationship with the sub-beneficiary. Although such a result is contrary to principle, it...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research_smu/86 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Despite judicial statements to the contrary, there remains doubt as to whether bare sub-trustees 'drop out' so as to render a principal trustee to come under a 'direct' trustee-beneficiary relationship with the sub-beneficiary. Although such a result is contrary to principle, it has been said that authority dictates this result, namely, old authority in the form of cases such as Onslow v Wallis, Re Lashmar, Grainge v Wliberforce, and Head v Lord Teynham. By exploring the historical context surrounding these cases, in particular, the state of the law at the time they were decided, this paper will explode the myth that as a matter of authority, bare sub-trustees 'drop out'. |
|---|