Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:39:44.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trust—Court's Jurisdiction to Modify Terms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

S. J. Bailey
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case and Comment
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , November 1954 , pp. 184 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See also the passage in Re Downshire S. E. [1953] Ch., at pp. 234–5, approved by the House of Lords in Chapman v. Chapman [1954] 2 W.L.E., at p. 746.

2 See, e.g., Re Downshire S. E. [1953] Ch. 238–9, per Everehed M.R.; Chapman v. Chapman [1954] 2 W.L.R. 738, per Lord Morton of Henryton. According to Kekewich J., in Re Tollemache [1903] 1 Ch. 459–60, the “most common” in his time was the sanctioning of advances out of capital for infant beneficiaries. This is not mentioned in Re Downshire or in Chapman v. Chapman—perhaps in consequence of s. 32 of the Trustee Act, 1925.

3 See the wide dictum of Turner L.J. in Brooke v. Mostyn (1864) 2 De G.J. & S. 373, 415, quoted (inter alia) in Re Wells [1903] 1 Ch. 848, 854, and in Chapman v. Chapman, supra, at p. 748.

4 Sub nom. Re Chapman's Settlement Trusts [1953] Ch. 218.Google Scholar

5 Including perhaps advancement: see footnote 2, ante.

6 A recent illustration of the latter is Re Lord Hylton's Settlement [1954] 1 W.L.E. 1055, C.A.: there, Harman J. having decided a disputed question on the construction of the settlement, the defendant appealed; and, before the appeal was heard, a compromise was proposed for saving estate duty. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and (on behalf of infants and others) approved the compromise.

7 [1953] Ch. 218.

8 It has no effect, for instance, upon s. 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950: see Thomson v. Thomson [1954] 3 W.L.E. 241.

9 [1953] Ch. 218.

10 Ibid., pp. 248 ct seq.

11 Ibid., pp. 252–60.