Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'

Publication Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

10-2017

Abstract

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'.

Keywords

trust, sub-trust, bare trust, bare sub-trust, Onslow v Wallis, Re Lashmar, Grainge v Wliberforce, and Head v Lord Teynham.

Discipline

Commercial Law

Research Areas

Commercial Law

Publication

Trust Law International

Volume

31

Issue

2

First Page

76

Last Page

92

ISSN

0962-2624

Publisher

Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS