Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts [1952]
Share
Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts [1952] Ch 534 is a significant English trusts law case that revolves around the fundamental principle that non-charitable trusts must have identifiable beneficiaries rather than abstract purposes.
Waldorf Astor, the private secretary to David Lloyd George and husband of Lady Astor, the first woman in the House of Commons, passed away. In his will, he expressed the intention to establish a trust using shares from his newspaper, The Observer, for the "maintenance... of good understanding... between nations" and "the preservation of the independence and integrity of newspapers". The validity of the will was contested on the grounds that a trust for abstract purposes, without specific beneficiaries, could not be considered valid.
Justice Roxburgh held that the trust failed due to the absence of identifiable beneficiaries, rendering it uncertain. He expressed concerns about the theoretical and practical difficulties associated with trusts for non-charitable purposes. In theory, he highlighted the challenge of envisioning the development of equitable obligations that nobody could enforce, given the historical origins of equity. In practice, he emphasised the potential problems arising from creating substantial funds dedicated to non-charitable purposes that neither the court nor any government department could effectively control or reform in cases of maladministration.
Justice Roxburgh emphasised the court of equity's stance, noting that it does not recognise a trust as valid if it cannot be both enforced and controlled. The judgment of this case reinforces the principle that non-charitable trusts should serve identifiable beneficiaries, aligning with the historical roots and practical considerations of equity.
Waldorf Astor, the private secretary to David Lloyd George and husband of Lady Astor, the first woman in the House of Commons, passed away. In his will, he expressed the intention to establish a trust using shares from his newspaper, The Observer, for the "maintenance... of good understanding... between nations" and "the preservation of the independence and integrity of newspapers". The validity of the will was contested on the grounds that a trust for abstract purposes, without specific beneficiaries, could not be considered valid.
Justice Roxburgh held that the trust failed due to the absence of identifiable beneficiaries, rendering it uncertain. He expressed concerns about the theoretical and practical difficulties associated with trusts for non-charitable purposes. In theory, he highlighted the challenge of envisioning the development of equitable obligations that nobody could enforce, given the historical origins of equity. In practice, he emphasised the potential problems arising from creating substantial funds dedicated to non-charitable purposes that neither the court nor any government department could effectively control or reform in cases of maladministration.
Justice Roxburgh emphasised the court of equity's stance, noting that it does not recognise a trust as valid if it cannot be both enforced and controlled. The judgment of this case reinforces the principle that non-charitable trusts should serve identifiable beneficiaries, aligning with the historical roots and practical considerations of equity.
