Expanding the ambit of Section 32 of the Trustee Act 1925? Womble Bond Dickinson (Trust Corporation) Limited v Glenn & Others [2021] EWHC 624; [2021] WTLR 737

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Weaver
Keyword(s):  
Trust Corporation

Abstract Where beneficiaries of a trust have a contingent or reversionary entitlement to capital, section 32 of the Trustee Act 1925 empowers trustees to accelerate their enjoyment of that interest by paying over part of their share to them, although only with the consent of beneficiaries with prior interests. Can that power be exercised where the trusts are in Hancock v Watson form, i.e. there is an apparently absolute gift to a beneficiary but trusts are then engrafted or imposed on the beneficiary’s interest giving them only a life interest? The article considers the judgment in Womble Bond Dickinson (Trust Corporation) Ltd v Glenn which is the first ever decision on this question.

STATE TRUST CORPORATION OF VICTORIA v TAYLOR

1993 ◽  
Vol [1993] 1 VR ◽  
pp. 282-289
Keyword(s):  
Trust Corporation

TO SELL OR NOT TO SELL: THAT IS THE QUESTION THE IRONY OF THE TRUSTS OF LAND AND APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES ACT 1996

2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 579-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Dixon
Keyword(s):  
Liquid Asset ◽  
Narrow View ◽  
The Family ◽  
Original Scheme ◽  
Family Home ◽  
The Law ◽  
Land Holdings ◽  
Trust Corporation ◽  
Trust Of Land ◽  
Capital Value

The 1925 property statutes, particularly the Settled Land Act 1925 and the original sections 30 to 36 Law of Property Act 1925, were premised on a fairly narrow view of the prevalence and purpose of co-owned land. Successive interests either fell within the awkward provisions of the Settled Land Act 1925 or were organised under a trust for sale within the ambit of the Law of Property Act 1925. Concurrent co-ownership could exist, also under a trust for sale, but the Law of Property Act 1925 was premised on the assumption that such trusts would be expressly created, with readily identifiable beneficiaries, holding in defined shares, often for investment purposes and primarily in respect of larger land holdings. That is why the original scheme was a trust for sale, why sections 34 and 36 Law of Property Act 1925 appear not to contemplate the implied trust of land at all,1 why interests behind trusts originally were not regarded as proprietary,2 why statutory overreaching is so powerful and why sections 2 and 27 Law of Property Act 1925 stipulate a requirement of at least two trustees or a trust corporation before overreaching can occur.3 Concurrent co-ownership was, essentially, a financial not a residential matter, and the ready conversion of land to liquid asset was regular and expected. The position today is virtually the reverse, with concurrent co-ownership being the normal way by which the family home4 is owned and with the expectation that it will be retained as that home. Realisation of its capital value is intended to be postponed until the family's needs have changed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document