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...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	THAM, Chee Ho
Format:	text
Language:	English
Published:	Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2017
Subjects:	trust sub-trust bare trust bare sub-trust Onslow v Wallis Re Lashmar Grainge v Wliberforce and Head v Lord Teynham. Commercial Law
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

id	sg-smu-ink.sol_research_smu-1085
record_format	dspace
spelling	sg-smu-ink.sol_research_smu-10852017-11-16T07:29:57Z Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out' THAM, Chee Ho 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'. 2017-10-01T07:00:00Z text https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research_smu/86 Research Collection School Of Law (SMU Access Only) eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University trust sub-trust bare trust bare sub-trust Onslow v Wallis Re Lashmar Grainge v Wliberforce and Head v Lord Teynham. Commercial Law
institution	Singapore Management University
building	SMU Libraries
country	Singapore
collection	InK@SMU
language	English
topic	trust sub-trust bare trust bare sub-trust Onslow v Wallis Re Lashmar Grainge v Wliberforce and Head v Lord Teynham. Commercial Law
spellingShingle	trust sub-trust bare trust bare sub-trust Onslow v Wallis Re Lashmar Grainge v Wliberforce and Head v Lord Teynham. Commercial Law THAM, Chee Ho Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'
description	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'.
format	text
author	THAM, Chee Ho
author_facet	THAM, Chee Ho
author_sort	THAM, Chee Ho
title	Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'
title_short	Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'
title_full	Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'
title_fullStr	Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'
title_full_unstemmed	Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'
title_sort	exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'
publisher	Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate	2017
url	https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research_smu/86
_version_	1681132606045814784

Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'

Similar Items