Re Dean [1889]
Share
Re Dean [1889] 41 Ch D 552 is a significant case in trusts law, establishing the validity of a species of anomalous purpose trust for the maintenance of animals, even though animals themselves cannot enforce the trust, and the trust is not charitable.
A trust of £750 was established for the maintenance of the testator's horses and hounds for a period of fifty years, contingent on their survival for that duration. Any remaining part of the £750 not utilised for the upkeep of the animals was left to the discretion of the trustees.
Justice North held that the trust was valid, despite the fact that the beneficiaries were animals incapable of enforcing the trust, and the trust did not fall under charitable purposes. This ruling established a species of anomalous purpose trust, allowing for the maintenance of animals without the need for them to be legally capable of enforcing the trust.
Re Dean contributed to the development of trusts law by recognising a specific category of anomalous purpose trusts. While animals typically lack the legal capacity to enforce trusts, this case acknowledged that trusts created for their maintenance could still be deemed valid. It exemplifies a departure from the general rule that beneficiaries must be legally capable entities. This decision has had implications for future cases involving trusts with non-human beneficiaries.
A trust of £750 was established for the maintenance of the testator's horses and hounds for a period of fifty years, contingent on their survival for that duration. Any remaining part of the £750 not utilised for the upkeep of the animals was left to the discretion of the trustees.
Justice North held that the trust was valid, despite the fact that the beneficiaries were animals incapable of enforcing the trust, and the trust did not fall under charitable purposes. This ruling established a species of anomalous purpose trust, allowing for the maintenance of animals without the need for them to be legally capable of enforcing the trust.
Re Dean contributed to the development of trusts law by recognising a specific category of anomalous purpose trusts. While animals typically lack the legal capacity to enforce trusts, this case acknowledged that trusts created for their maintenance could still be deemed valid. It exemplifies a departure from the general rule that beneficiaries must be legally capable entities. This decision has had implications for future cases involving trusts with non-human beneficiaries.
