Thread: Random question about trusts

I read somewhere that the for trusts to become effective, certain formalities have to be done. i.e: evidence of writing.

Q: The absence of writing doesnt make a trust void but instead makes it unenforceable by a beneficiary. If this is right, who else can enforce this trust? i cant imagine anyone willing to enforce a trust where it does not benefit them personally. Therefore, basically the trust is just as good as void.

I think im going about this the wrong way and hope someone can point me in the right line of thought. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by SupaTofuMan

I read somewhere that the for trusts to become effective, certain formalities have to be done. i.e: evidence of writing.

Q: The absence of writing doesnt make a trust void but instead makes it unenforceable by a beneficiary. If this is right, who else can enforce this trust? i cant imagine anyone willing to enforce a trust where it does not benefit them personally. Therefore, basically the trust is just as good as void.

I think im going about this the wrong way and hope someone can point me in the right line of thought. Thanks in advance.

It depends what the property under the trust is as to what must be done in order for the trust to be effective (more suitably, constituted)
Thus for transfer of land to the trustee there are more stringent rules than person chattels
For land you need to look at the Law of Property Act 1925 section 52 - this says that for land to be properly constituted it must be through a deed
For chattels there must be a delivery (see cases such as the Times Book Co case)
For shares, there must be a transfer of the shares using a share form and registration of the shares on the company's register in the new name (I can't remember the name of this act but it's something simple like Share Act)


Also remember that in order for a trust to be valid there must be certainty of words, subject and objects under the trust (Knight v Knight)