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 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'.
trust, sub-trust, bare trust, bare sub-trust, Onslow v Wallis, Re Lashmar, Grainge v Wliberforce, and Head v Lord Teynham.
Trust Law International
Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd
THAM, Chee Ho.
Exploding the myth that sub-trustees 'drop out'. (2017). Trust Law International. 31, (2), 76-92. Research Collection School Of Law (SMU Access Only).
Available at: http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research_smu/86
This document is currently not available here.