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

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.

ADMINISTRATION OF A MUSLIM’S ESTATE UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE PUBLIC TRUST CORPORATION ACT 1995 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TRANSFER OF VEHICLES

As one of the administrative bodies, Amanah Raya Berhad (ARB) possesses jurisdiction in administering the deceased’s movable estate through the issuance of letters of declaration and direction respectively. Applying for such document requires the applicant to attach the fara’id certificate as part of the application. The problem, however, is the superfluity of the fara’id certificate in estate cases involving the transfer of ownership of the deceased’s vehicle. This is due to the rule set by the Road Transport Department (RTD) which allows for only a single name to be registered as the new owner, and thus renders the fara’id certificate inoperable. Since the ARB still requires the fara’id certificate in cases involving the administration of vehicles, this requirement is burdensome to the beneficiaries as they have to incur additional costs, as well as spend time and effort to obtain the certificate. This article addresses the problem in relation to estate administration by ARB involving vehicles under Section 17 of the Public Trust Corporation Act 1995 and analyses the implication of such rule towards estate administration. It is based primarily on the analysis of written sources, namely, textbooks, statutes, by laws and journals. The findings from this article show that there is a need to improve the policy of the ARB and the RTD in providing a more efficient means to the public in the administration of the estate of a Muslims.

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

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.