The term "cypres" in French denotes the concept of being in close

proximity or as close as possible. The utilization of the cypres doctrine,

as stated in paragraph 6 of the Charities Act 2011, is recommended
in instances where the realization of a charitable objective is impeded by
the impracticability or impossibility of the methods chosen by the
settlor/testator for its implementation.
Courts utilize the cypres doctrine to direct the utilization of trust property
in a manner that closely aligns with the settlor's intentions to the extent
that it is feasible. The utilization of Cypres has the potential to avert the
initial or subsequent failure of charitable trusts, in instances where the
execution of their mission becomes unviable or impracticable.
[Relate the paragraph(s) in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
The utilization of the cypres doctrine is not applicable in the conversion of
a non-charitable trust to a charitable trust. In other words, a trust that
fails to meet the necessary criteria for being classified as charitable
cannot be transformed into a charitable trust. The utilization of Cypres is
limited to the preservation of a charitable trust that has been duly
established in accordance with legal requirements.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
In cases where a charitable trust's objective is deemed unfeasible or
impracticable, the application of the Cypres doctrine may serve to
prevent the trust from encountering insurmountable obstacles and
ultimately failing. In order to redirect funds originally intended for a
charitable purpose that has failed under the cypres doctrine, it is
incumbent upon the court to determine that the donor evinced a broad or
predominant benevolent intent. In the event that the charitable
organization has ceased to exist, or the intended purpose of the donation
is unfeasible to execute, the donation would be deemed unsuccessful.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
Could you please provide me with more context or information about the
subject matter? As per the statement made by Buckley J in the case of
Re Lysaght, it can be inferred that a donor's primary objective to achieve
a charitable purpose is considered as the most significant intention. This
holds true even if the donor's directions cannot be implemented entirely,
provided that they do not form an integral part of the donor's primary
objective. In the realm of charitable giving, a specific charitable intention
is present when the donor intends for their charitable disposition to be
executed in a particular manner, such as in the establishment of a
specific school at a designated location, as demonstrated in the case of
Re Wilson, or through the creation of a residence in a specific dwelling,
as seen in the case of Re Packe.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
The application of the legal doctrine of cypres has been efficacious in
nullifying the stipulations of scholarship trusts by the courts. The case of
Re Lysaght pertains to a medical studentship endowment at the Royal
College of Surgeons, which was intended to benefit individuals belonging
to the Jewish or Roman Catholic faith. However, the college declined to
accept the endowment due to the discriminatory nature of the condition,
which was deemed incompatible with the college's ethos and objectives.
As a result, the endowment could not be implemented in its original form.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
Numerous instances exist wherein charitable contributions are exempted
from being deemed ineffective at the outset. Such instances comprise of
bequests made to charitable entities or organizations that were in
existence at the time of the testator's will execution but have since been
amalgamated with other entities or have ceased operations.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
Authentic instances of cy pres arise when a benevolent contribution is
intended but remains unfulfilled, as exemplified by the donation of Re
Fingers will Trust to the incorporated entity. In the case of Re Rymer,
the individual who made the will left funds to a seminary that had already
ceased to exist at the time of their passing. However, it is worth noting
that the students who were enrolled in the seminary were transferred to
another institution. The utilization of the cypres doctrine was the sole
means of rescuing the donation. However, the court's verdict established
that the donation was exclusively intended for the seminary's benefit,
lacking a comprehensive charitable objective, thereby precluding the
applicability of the cypres doctrine.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
A donation made to a charity that has ceased to exist is presumed to
have been intended solely for that organization, unless there is evidence
to the contrary. Conversely, identifying a general charitable intent is
relatively straightforward when a donation was designated for a charity
that never came into existence.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
In the event that the settlor's intention to distribute property to charity
becomes arduous or unfeasible to execute, the court reserves the right to
modify the objectives of a charitable trust. The scope of the concept is
expanded by Section 62(1)I(i) of the 2011 Act, which permits a cypres
amendment in situations where the original objectives have been
effectively fulfilled through alternative means, such as statutory services
in welfare states.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
[The conclusion of this question would be made according to the demand
of the question – thus no general conclusion has been drawn in this
particular answer.]
 Discuss. General remarks The question raises issues discussed fully in Chapter 16 of the
module guide. It raises very familiar issues and there is a great deal of academic
literature. There is also a wealth of case law and this should be used in the answer.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use BCCI v Akindele, Royal Brunei v Tan,
Group Seven Ltd v Notable Services LLP, Twinsectra v Yardly, Ivey v Genting, Barlow Clowes International Ltd v
Eurotrust International Ltd, Re Montague. Chambers, R. ‘The end of knowing receipt’ (2016) 2 Canadian Journal of
Comparative Contemporary Law 1; Gardner, S. ‘Knowing assistance and knowing receipt: taking stock’ (1996) 112
LQR 56; Gardner, S. ‘Moment of truth for knowing receipt?’ (2009) 125 LQR 20. Common errors On the whole, this
question was well answered, possibly because it is very conventional in its reach. Chapter 16 of the module guide
contains a direct discussion of these issues, although some students failed to utilise it. A good answer to this question
would… analyse why the principles for knowing receipt and dishonest assistance are different, even though many
commentators think they should not be. Candidates may also consider whether the liability for strangers should be
strict in all cases, founded in restitution and subject to a change of position defence. A good candidate will distinguish
between what the law is, from what some commentators would like it to be. Likewise, the meaning of ‘dishonest’
(Tan, Barlow) and ‘unconscionable/knowing’ should be considered

Breach of Trust
[It is important to understand that the way a question is introduced can
differ depending on numerous factors such as the type of question, the
context in which it is being asked, and the intention behind it – no general
introduction has been written.]
A trust is a legal arrangement whereby a person (the settlor) transfers
property to another person (the trustee) for the benefit of a third party.
The settlor relinquishes control over the property upon creating the trust,
and the trustee holds legal title to the property. The trustee is obligated to
act as a fiduciary and maintain the property for the beneficiary's
advantage, which must be executed to a reasonable degree. The
aforementioned rationale dictates that the trustee can only be held
accountable by the beneficiary through the solicitation of account
particulars. As evidenced in the legal case of Saunders v Vautier, a
beneficiary who possesses legal capacity and is of sound mind and
judgement may request that the trustee terminate the trust assets.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
The adherence to the formalities of the Law of Property Act 1925,
previously known as the Statute of Frauds 1677, is primarily motivated
by the desire to prevent any possible instances of trustee fraud. The
inquiry pertained to the fiduciary duties imposed on the trustee and the
resulting ramifications of any violations of said obligations. Additionally,
this essay will delve into the availability of suitable remedies options that
are at the disposal of the trust beneficiary in the event of a breach of the
trustee's stipulated responsibilities.
A breach of trust occurs when a trustee neglects to fulfil any of the
provisions outlined in a trust agreement or engages in unwarranted
transactions either in accordance with the trust instrument or through the
application of common law principles. The responsibilities of a trustee
encompass two distinct aspects, namely, the obligations imposed by
statute and the widely recognised fiduciary duty. The fundamental
principle is that the trustee must conduct their duties with honesty and
integrity, prioritising the welfare of the beneficiaries without any
undisclosed motives.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
In the majority of cases, in the presence of multiple trustees, unanimity is
mandated to prevent the occurrence of an impasse. In cases where
trustees encounter a deadlock, such as in the Luke v South Kensington
Hotel Co, judicial intervention becomes the sole viable recourse. The
fundamental proposition necessitating concordance is that in cases where
a settlor designates multiple trustees to administer trusts, it is assumed
that the settlor intended for the trust to derive advantage from the
collective "help and prudence" of all the trustees, as articulated in Swale
V Swale.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
Brightman J, in the matter of Re Butlin's Settlement Trusts, argued that
it would be inequitable to override the genuine opposition of a blameless
trustee to comply with the requests of the settlor or their advisors who,
by assumption, have committed a mistake.
An additional crucial aspect to take into account is that a trustee is
expected to meet specific criteria while carrying out their duties. The
appointment of a trustee who causes harm to the trust fund or its
beneficiaries, while asserting their utmost honesty but displaying
ineptitude, would not be deemed valuable. The trustee's liability arises
from a breach of trust resulting from a failure to exercise reasonable skill
and care in the administration of the trust. As per the legal precedent set
forth in Speight v Gaunt, it is imperative to evaluate the trustee's
performance of their obligations within the trust in light of a standard of
care that is deemed reasonable, prudent, and ordinary.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
The principle mentioned above was reasserted by Re Whiteley.
Dishonesty within this particular context is not constrained solely to acts
of deceit. In light of the Armitage v Nurse case, it has been established
that a trustee may be considered dishonest if they choose to pursue a
specific course of action, either with knowledge that it may be harmful to
the interests of the beneficiaries, or with a reckless disregard for the
potential consequences.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
According to ethical guidelines, a trustee is prohibited from deriving
personal financial gain from their position and is also required to avoid
any circumstances that may create a conflict of interest between their
personal interests and their obligations as a trustee. The interpretation of
this rule may be deemed as possessing a stringent level of applicability.
The ability of a professional trustee to levy charges is contingent upon
explicit authorization from the trust agreement, the beneficiaries'
consent, or a court order. Keech v Sandford is a significant case due to
the trustee's unsuccessful attempt to protect the leasehold for the trust,
despite lacking entitlement to retain the benefit for personal gain.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
The case of Protheroe v Protheroe pertains to a scenario where a
husband, who jointly owned a leasehold property with his wife, acquired
the freehold return. The court ruled that since the husband was a trustee,
the freehold reversion was subject to the trust, despite the fact that he
was permitted to recover the procurement outflow.
Trustees are authorised to exercise discretion in the management of
trusts, provided that they adhere to the trust provisions, their fiduciary
obligations, and, if relevant, the statutory duty of care. In addition, it is
important to note that the settlor, beneficiaries, or court lack the
authority to dictate the manner and format in which powers and
discretions are executed. However, a prudent trustee should follow a
predetermined course of action if the trust mechanism necessitates it, in
order to address the concerns of the beneficiaries. According to Re
Mainsty's ST, it is not advisable for trustees to act on details that are
irrational, persistent, or contrary to the practical expectations of the
settler. However, a trustee must exercise their independent judgement to
determine what is in the best interest of the trust instrument.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided questic v
v fv on]
An essential factor to contemplate is the extent of authority that a trustee
possesses when delegating responsibilities to a third party. This
evaluation must be conducted from two perspectives: the trustee's
personal capacity and the collective capacity of the group of trustees.
The case of Speight v Gaunt established a differentiation between the
principal obligation of a trustee, which cannot be delegated, and the
permissibility of enlisting the aid of third parties in the administration of a
trust fund. As per the guidelines presented in Re Lucking's Will Trusts,
it is incumbent upon a trustee to exercise due diligence in the selection
and management of an agent, akin to the level of care expected of a
prudent and conscientious businessperson. Any failure to meet this
reasonable standard of care may lead to personal liability. Section 23 of
the Trustee Act 1925 established a statutory authority for trustees to
appoint agents in cases of delegation as a collective entity. This power
has been replaced by the more comprehensive provisions outlined in the
Trustee Act 2000 (TA 2000) and Trusts Act 2001.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
The enactment of various legislations has conferred upon trustees a
broad power of investment, enabling them to invest trust funds in any
enterprise and alter such investments at their discretion, unless the trust
deed explicitly prohibits such actions. The application of the prudent
person rule is necessary in this context. This rule requires the
demonstration of equivalent levels of care, precision, and expertise in the
exercise of investment powers as a careful individual engaged in the
same profession, business, or employment would exhibit in the
management of other businesses.
The legislature has established a set of considerations that a trustee must
take into account. In the event of a breach of trust related to investments,
the court may evaluate whether the trustee took these considerations
into account, whether the investments were made in accordance with the
investment strategy, and whether the trustee acted independently. The
capacities to allocate and distribute resources are of equal importance in
the trustee's administration and investment of assets. The authority in
question may manifest implicitly, as exemplified in the instance of Re
Ruddock, or overtly articulated, as demonstrated in the scenario of Re
Nicholson's Will Trusts.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
Shifting the focus of the conversation on possible remedies. The purpose
of remedies is to offer safeguard against any violation of trust. The two
distinct categories of remedies available to address issues with trustees
are personal remedies against the trustee and proprietary remedies that
are accessible to the beneficiaries. The three types of personal remedies
are the measure of liability, investments, and interest measure of liability.
As per the Dimes v Scott case, it is imperative to note that the trustees
are not exempt from liability with regards to the trust property.
Additionally, they are accountable for maintaining accurate records of the
trust property's financial transactions.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
The approval of the plaintiff's petition is not contingent upon the
creditworthiness of the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to receive
compensation for any increase in the value of the property. The subject
matter pertains to assets that generate income, whereby the interest is
computed from the date on which the defendant assumed possession of
the property. The aforementioned remedy enables a claimant to assert
ownership over designated property, and it is applicable to both Common
Law and Equity tracing.
Paul S. Davies argues in his scholarly article that the methodology
employed by Lord Browne has been resolved by the Supreme Court's
ruling in AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co. In the case of
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns, the principle established by
Wilkinson's is that in instances where a trustee has mishandled trust
assets, the remedy available to a beneficiary is restricted to an equitable
claim for compensation, which seeks to redress the harm caused by the
trustee's violation of their fiduciary duty. The act of suing for an
"equitable debt" based on the beneficiary's ability to challenge the
trustee's unauthorised spending was a customary practise in equitable
law. However, this approach may be viewed as a deviation from the
conventional principles of equitable law.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
The primary recourse at the disposal of a Trustee is the Imperative, which
mandates that they discharge their duties in accordance with the Trust or
abstain from contravening those duties. Consequently, this bears
resemblance to the legal concept of an injunction or specific performance.
In this scenario, the court has the authority to issue a directive instructing
the trustee to rectify the financial deficit or to restore assets that have
been depleted, disposed of, or gone missing. It is imperative that
beneficiaries are not subjected to exclusion solely on the basis of a
trustee's failure to fulfil their obligations as a trustee. It is a legal
requirement to provide justification for any misplaced trust assets.
Regarding remedies, the fundamental concept and tenacity is to
guarantee the functionality of the Trust in alignment with the Trust's
stipulations as established and envisioned by the Settlor.
Equity has developed various remedies, including specific performance,
injunctive relief, rescission, rectification, and account, in addition to those
provided by common law. The availability of equitable remedies is
contingent upon the court's discretion, rather than being an inherent
entitlement. The case of Adderley v Dixon resulted in a court of equity
issuing an order for specific performance due to the inadequacy of legal
damages in providing a comprehensive remedy. The aforementioned
remedies are accessible in situations where common law remedies are
not feasible, and the principle of "clean hands" is applicable in such
instances.
[Relate the paragraph in 2-3 sentences with that of the provided
question]
[The conclusion of this question would be made according to the demand
of the question – thus no general conclusion has been drawn in this
particular answer.]