Misplaced Pages

Re Lipinski's Will Trusts

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Redirected from Re Lipinski’s Will Trusts)

Re Lipinski’s Will Trusts
Citation Ch 235
Keywords
Certainty, express trusts

Re Lipinski's Will Trusts Ch 235 is an English trusts law case, concerning the policy of the "beneficiary principle" and unincorporated associations.

Facts

Mr Harry Lipinski, who was active in the Hull Jewish community, gave the residual part of his estate ‘as to one half thereof for the Hull Judeans (Maccabi) Association in memory of his late wife to be used solely in the work of constructing the new buildings for the association and/or improvements to the said buildings’. The other half was one quarter for the Hull Hebrew School (Talmud Torah), and one quarter for the Hull Hebrew Board of Guardians. The next of kin challenged these provisions, questioning whether the gift to the association would not be void.

Judgment

Oliver J held that the bequest was to the association absolutely, so in fact they did not need to use it for buildings (only constrained by the contract). The purpose was within the association's power to do, and it would be up to them to honour it.

If a valid gift may be made to an unincorporated body as a simple accretion to the funds which are the subject matter of the contract which the members have made inter se… I do not really see why such a gift, which specifies a purpose which is within the powers of the association and of which the members of the association are the beneficiaries, should fail… Where the donee association is itself the beneficiary of the prescribed purpose, there seems to me to be the strongest argument in common sense for saying that the gift should be construed as an absolute one within the second category…

Oliver J also remarked upon Re Denley as a Re Bowes type of case, where a purpose is disregarded, while saying it was ‘both with authority and with common sense’.

See also

Trust enforceability cases
Morice v Bishop of Durham EWHC Ch J80
Saunders v Vautier (1841) EWHC Ch J82
Re Astor's Settlement Trusts Ch 534
Re Andrew's Trusts 2 Ch 48
Re Shaw 1 WLR 729
Re Endacott EWCA Civ 5
Re Denley's Trust Deed 1 Ch 373
Re Osoba EWCA Civ 3
Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Sch 1, art 18
Bermuda Trusts (Special Provisions) Act 1989 ss 12A and 12B
Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley UKHL 12
Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 ss 1 and 3
Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 ss 5, 7-11
Beneficiary principle and English trusts law
Sources on associations
The Satanita AC 59
Leahy v Attorney‐General for New South Wales UKPC 1
Re Recher’s Will Trusts Ch 526
Re Lipinski’s Will Trusts Ch 235
Re Grant’s Will Trusts 3 All ER 359
Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell 1 WLR 522
Re West Sussex Constabulary Trusts Ch 1
Re Bucks Constabulary Society (no 2) 1 All ER 623
Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney-General Ch 173
Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 s 1
Friendly Societies Act 1974 s 54(1)
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ss 12-14
Companies Act 2006
Charities Act 2011
Beneficiary principle and English trusts law

Notes

References

Categories: