Re Andrew [1905]
Share
Re Andrew [1905] 2 Ch 48 is an English trusts law concerning the interpretation of a trust with. specified purpose. It established that a trust with a specified purpose is interpreted as a trust for persons benefiting.
A fund was subscribed by the friends of a deceased clergyman for the education of his children. The trust document specified that the money was not intended for the exclusive use of any particular child, nor for equal division among them, but solely for the purpose of education. After all the children had grown up, there remained an unapplied portion of the trust fund.
Kekewich J held that the money vested in the children, and the balance should be divided equally among them. The judge distinguished the case from Re Abbott Fund, emphasising that in Re Abbott Fund, the beneficiaries were deceased and never became absolute owners of the fund. Kekewich J referred to the guiding principle stated by Wood V-C in In re Sanderson, which suggests that when a gross sum is given for a special purpose, the court regards the gift as absolute, with the purpose serving as the motive for the gift.
In this case, Kekewich J interpreted the object of education broadly, stating that it should not be limited to the narrow sense that education is no longer necessary once children reach a certain age. Even if interpreted narrowly, education was considered the motive for the gift, and the intention was to provide for the children in the most useful manner. Despite the document stating that the money should not be distributed equally, the judge held that there was no room for discretion at this point, and the children were entitled to the money in equal shares.
The court emphasised the guiding principle that, when a special purpose is assigned for a gift, the court regards the gift as absolute. The interpretation of the purpose, in this case, was broad, focusing on providing for the children in the most useful manner. Despite the document's statement against equal distribution, the court ruled in favour of equal entitlement for the children, considering the lack of discretion at that stage.
A fund was subscribed by the friends of a deceased clergyman for the education of his children. The trust document specified that the money was not intended for the exclusive use of any particular child, nor for equal division among them, but solely for the purpose of education. After all the children had grown up, there remained an unapplied portion of the trust fund.
Kekewich J held that the money vested in the children, and the balance should be divided equally among them. The judge distinguished the case from Re Abbott Fund, emphasising that in Re Abbott Fund, the beneficiaries were deceased and never became absolute owners of the fund. Kekewich J referred to the guiding principle stated by Wood V-C in In re Sanderson, which suggests that when a gross sum is given for a special purpose, the court regards the gift as absolute, with the purpose serving as the motive for the gift.
In this case, Kekewich J interpreted the object of education broadly, stating that it should not be limited to the narrow sense that education is no longer necessary once children reach a certain age. Even if interpreted narrowly, education was considered the motive for the gift, and the intention was to provide for the children in the most useful manner. Despite the document stating that the money should not be distributed equally, the judge held that there was no room for discretion at this point, and the children were entitled to the money in equal shares.
The court emphasised the guiding principle that, when a special purpose is assigned for a gift, the court regards the gift as absolute. The interpretation of the purpose, in this case, was broad, focusing on providing for the children in the most useful manner. Despite the document's statement against equal distribution, the court ruled in favour of equal entitlement for the children, considering the lack of discretion at that stage.
