|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Re West Sussex Constabulary widows, children and benevolent fund trusts (1971)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
[1971] Ch 1 (CA). When the benevolent fund was dissolved, the question arose how to
distribute the surplus money, the purposes of the fund having been fulfilled.
Since the fund was not a CharitableTrust, the surplus
could not be applied CyPres, so the decision was between returning the surplus to
the original contributors, or deeming it to be BonaVacantia (ownerless). Neither
prospect was satisfactory because, although the contributors had most likely regarded
their contributions as gifts, they did have some lingering entitlement to the surplus.
However, to hold that the money raised by public subscription over a 40-year period
had to be reassigned to the subscribers (or, more often, their estates), was never
going to be workable (ReGillinghamBusDisasterFund1958 doubted). Consequently,
the Court held that where contributions had been made by specific, identifiable
legacies, the fund would hold the surplus of these contributions on ResultingTrust for the
donor's estates. The rest of the surplus was bona vacantia.
In the light of WestdeutscheVIslington1996, it is doubtful whether even the individual legacies
would have been refundable. In that case it was held very strongly that a trust relationship
(including what would previously have been called an AutomaticResultingTrust), can
only arise where the conscience of the `trustee' is affected. It was undesirable that
a person been imposed with a fiduciary relationship when he had no reason to think that
the donor intended this.
CaseLaw
TrustLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|