Question One (Problem)
Ignatius Xerxes Timothy Handle (or Iggy to his friends) is the 1st Earl of Dingle and a billionaire philanthropist. Iggy made his fortune creating and running a cleaning product company, Handle Family & Co PLC (the Company). The Company is now a multi-billion pound multi-national conglomerate that spans many jurisdictions and product markets. Iggy retains a large ownership interest through ordinary shares and preference shares that amounts to some 76% of the Company.
Iggy came to you in September 2016 for legal advice in relation to estate planning. He needs your advice in relation to a number of areas.
Issue One – Three Certainties (1,000 words)
First, Iggy wants to make a will in the following terms:
(1) “100,000 of my shares in the Company to my daughter, Dolores Handle.” Dolores has been on a four-year backpacking trip to Malaysia and has not kept in contact with her father or the rest of her family.
(2) “£50,000 to the employees of the Company, who in the opinion of my trustees, were underpaid by me during their employment.”
(3) “£25,000 to be divided equally between my relations.”
(4) “Three of my flats on the Wirral to Helen and Mukhtar, my eldest son, Helen to choose first.” Unfortunately, Helen died in January 2017.
(5) “Any of my art work in the Lady Dingle Gallery to my friends.”
(6) “The majority of my estate to my son Basil.”
Whilst discussing the above will provisions Iggy mentioned that very morning that he had conversed with his mistress and that he had told her that the money in their HSBC joint bank account was “as much yours as mine.” This amounted to a vast figure, well over £5 million pounds. However, Iggy was still married to Lady Iolanthe Dingle.
Issue Two – Charitable Trusts (1,000 words)
The residents of Dingle, and the wider Merseyside area, had been good to Iggy over his long and illustrious life. He was keen to repay this support and wanted to make further provisions in his will, this time of a charitable nature. To that end, he wrote out the following bequests which he wanted you to double check. The following charitable bequests were:
(a) “£10,000 to poor Professor Chung.”
(b) “A legacy of £20,000, the income thereof to be used to encourage draughts tournaments amongst girls resident in ITC.”
(c) “A gift of land to be used to build a temple for the worship of the gods of Ancient Greece.”
(d) “A legacy of £500,000 to educate the children of the employees of Handle Family & Co PLC.”
(e) “A legacy of £1 million to ensure the prosecution of war criminals and of former heads of state who are guilty of human rights abuses.”
(f) “A legacy of £500,000 to preserve British farming activity and to promote access to farms for the children of ITC for a fee of £200 a ticket.”
PART B (Compulsory)
Question Two (Essay) – Common Intention Constructive Trusts (1,000 words)
The Law Commission’s work on co-habitation has yet to be enacted in statute. Critically evaluate their proposals with particular reference to the current approach to cohabiting couples and the division of property on separation.
These solutions may offer step-by-step problem-solving explanations or good writing examples that include modern styles of formatting and construction of bibliographies out of text citations and references. Students may use these solutions for personal skill-building and practice. Unethical use is strictly forbidden.In Scenario 1, The question here is that in McPhail, the description of object which was conceptually certain then the discretionary trust is still valid even if there are difficulties in tracking the whereabouts or existence. In Re Jones and Boyle v. Collinspurports that a trustee must take reasonable and adequate steps in ascertaining the beneficiary. Therefore, the trust remains valid, unless the reasonable steps has been taken to deny the activation of the trust for Dolores. And, the trust will continue in whole even if one of the purported beneficiaries cannot be located.
Scenario 2 concerns the issue of certainty of interest and certainty of objects. The test of certainty of intention is by looking at the settlor’s intention as the courts will construe the words with their proper meaning. The words implied must demonstrate an intention to impose a mandatory obligation to the recipient of the property as opposed to a moral obligation such as “know what to do”. This is because the courts will look at the substance and not label by construing the language used in its context of the instrument in ascertaining the intention of the settlor....
By purchasing this solution you'll be able to access the following files:
Solution1.docx and Solution2.docx.