DOCSLIB.ORG

Equity & Trusts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHIEF EXAMINER COMMENTS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS JUNE 2018 LEVEL 6 - UNIT - 5 EQUITY & TRUSTS Note to Candidates and Learning Centre Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide candidates and learning centre tutors with guidance as to the key points candidates should have included in their answers to the June 2018 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which candidates may have included in their responses to the questions. Candidates will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Candidates and learning centre tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ comments contained within this report which provide feedback on candidate performance in the examination. CHIEF EXAMINER COMMENTS As a general observation, candidates answered two or three questions well, but did not give four good answers. This may be due to lack of preparation for the examination. Candidates are advised not to rely on the bare minimum of revision. CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE FOR EACH QUESTION SECTION A Question 1 This was a popular question with candidates and there was mixture of marks across the board. Candidates who did badly on this question showed very little or no knowledge of the area of law being examined. However, there were some very good answers from candidates who exhibited depth and Page 1 of 20 understanding in their answers. Many candidates passed this question with a Pass grade. SECTION B The most popular question with candidates was question 2. This was a charities question and there were some very good marks. Candidates enjoy studying charity law and so this was not surprising. Less able students however did not answer this well, but being very general in their answers or not exhibiting any relevant knowledge of this area of law. SUGGESTED ANSWERS LEVEL 6 - UNIT - 5 EQUITY & TRUSTS SECTION A Question 1(a) The general rule is that, if an attempted transfer of property to trustees is imperfect, the trust is not completely constituted. A gift to a donee will be imperfect if the transfer has not been properly correctly completed. Where consideration has been provided, the transfer may be treated as perfect in the eyes of equity even though in law it is not. Where there has been no consideration, however, no effective trust is created, since equity will not assist a volunteer. A failed gift cannot then be saved by treating it instead as a self-declaration of trust: if a donor intends to use one method to confer a benefit on a person but fails to do so effectually, equity will not save the gift (Milroy v Lord (1862)). Over the years, the courts have found a number of ways to avoid the harshness of the rule that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. A gift is complete in equity as soon as the donor has done everything in his power to complete the transfer, despite the fact that formal requirements at law may still be outstanding. In Re Rose (1949) a transfer of shares was treated as complete in equity when the donor submitted the completed transfer form and share certificate to the company. The outstanding legal requirement of registration was not something in the donor’s power to do. A legitimate query may be raised, however, as to how the principle in Re Rose (1949) would apply if the directors of a private company were to refuse to register the transfer, as is their right, even though the donor had done all in his power. It had been thought that the Re Rose principle applied only where donor’s actions had been irrevocable. In Choithram v Pagarani (2000) and Pennington v Waine (2002), however, the crucial question was said to be simply whether it would be unconscionable for the donor to refuse to complete the transfer. These cases suggest the development of a new approach to the constitution of trusts, although this introduction of the inherently uncertain Page 2 of 20 concept of unconscionability has attracted criticism. 1(b) When a donor makes an imperfect gift during his lifetime, and the donee is subsequently appointed as the donor's executor or becomes the donor's administrator on intestacy, the gift is perfected because the donee obtains legal title to the donor's property, including the subject matter of the intended gift, in the donee's capacity as executor or administrator. There are four conditions for the rule in Strong v Bird (1874): The donor must have intended to make an inter vivos gift. Such donative intention must have persisted until the donor's death. The donee is appointed the donor's executor (or administrator, Re James (1935)) The subject matter of the intended gift must have been capable of enduring the death of the donor. In Re James (1935), Farwell J said, "The defendant by her appointment as one of the administrators has got the legal estate vested in her and she needs no assistance from equity to complete her title. Under these circumstances she cannot be compelled at the suit of persons claiming through the donor to surrender her property. It follows that in my judgment the plaintiff here must recognise the title of the defendant to the property and no steps should be taken to recover it from her." In criticism, the result may be contrary to the testator’s intentions/wishes. (c) A formally incomplete transfer may nevertheless be effective if it qualifies as a ‘donatio mortis causa’ (‘DMC’). The requirements are that (i) the gift is made in contemplation of death (Wilkes v Allington (1931)), (ii) the gift is conditional on death (Gardiner v Parker (1818)), and (iii) there is delivery of the property or of something representing ownership, (Cain v Moon (1896). This last requirement involves parting with dominion or control (Re Lillingston (1952) and Sen v Headley (1991).) So, in Birch v Treasury Solicitor (1951), a savings account was held to have been validly transferred under the DMC principle, by the handing over of the savings account book. Generally, all forms of personal property can form the subject-matter of a DMC. The principle was extended to incomplete transfers also of (unregistered) real property by the Court of Appeal in Sen v Headley (1991). To date there has been no case on registered land but it is presumed the rule would apply. DMCs are not without their critics given the fact that where there is a validly executed Will, the court is being asked to overturn the stated intentions of the testator. King v Chiltern Dog Rescue and Redwings Horse Sanctuary (2015) saw an appeal from the earlier decision that the deceased, when nearing the end of her life, had made a valid donatio mortis causa by delivering the title deeds of her house to her nephew, saying that he would need them after her death. She had made various failed attempts at wills giving him the house. The trial judge had found that those attempts indicated contemplation of death even though she was not suffering from any terminal illness. The Court Page 3 of 20 of Appeal reversed this decision and went out of its way to emphasise the need to strictly limit the concept, which can easily lead to fraudulent claims. On 14 July 2017, the Law Commission published its much-awaited consultation on the law of wills (Law Commission paper 231: ‘Making a Will’). One of the subjects under consultation is the future of the DMC. The consultation paper describes the DMC as an anomaly and asks contributors for their views on the abolition of the doctrine. Question 2 Tracing is a process that allows for the recovery of property (such as land or money) by the owner if it is taken involuntarily, and the owner has not consented to the transfer of title. This can be through theft, breach of trust, or mistake. Owners can recover their property and perhaps also any profits made from it, or in situations where the property cannot be recovered (as it has been mixed in with other property, or cannot be found), substitute property. The process has two steps, following and tracing. In Foskett v McKeown (2000), Lord Millett defined them by saying that "(Following and tracing) are both exercises in locating assets which may or may be taken to represent an asset belonging to the ([claimants) and to which they assert ownership. The process of following and tracing are, however, distinct.” Following is the process of following the same asset as it moves from hand to hand. Tracing is the process of identifying a new asset as the substitute for the old". There are a number of limitations to tracing at common law in the modern commercial world. Firstly, the Claimant must have legal title. A Beneficiary under a trust cannot trace property and then claim it at law. Secondly, the Property must be identifiable. Common Law tracing views property as physical asset and so it can only be used to trace the value of an asset in substitute provided it has not lost its identity. As a result it is more difficult where property has changed form (substituted/exchanged or mixed with money). Common Law tracing will be available in simple cases where property has been substituted, e.g. Taylor v Plumer (1815) (investments and bullion) or paid into separate bank account (Banque Belge pour L’Etranger v Hambrouck (1921)) and FC Jones & Sons v Jones (1996) where money had not been mixed.
Recommended publications
  • Key Facts and Key Cases

    Key Facts and Key Cases

    KEY FACTS KEY CASES Equity & Trusts 25726.indb i 18/11/2013 10:40 KEY FACTS KEY CASES The Key Facts Key Cases revision series is designed to give you a clear understanding and concise overview of the fundamental principles of your law course. The books’ chapters refl ect the most commonly taught topics, breaking the law down into bite- size sections with descriptive headings. Diagrams, tables and bullet points are used throughout to make the law easy to understand and memorise, and comprehensive case checklists are provided that show the principles and application of case law for your subject. Titles in the series: Contract Law Criminal Law English Legal System Equity & Trusts EU Law Family Law Human Rights Land Law Tort Law For a full listing of the Routledge Revision range of titles, visit www.routledge.com/law 25726.indb ii 18/11/2013 10:40 KEY FACTS KEY CASES Equity & Trusts Chris Turner and Judith Bray Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK 25726.indb iii 18/11/2013 10:40 First edition published 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 Chris Turner and Judith Bray The right of Chris Turner and Judith Bray to be identifi ed as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
  • Text, Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts

    Text, Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts

    TEXT, CASES AND MATERIALS ON EQUITY AND TRUSTS Fourth Edition Text, Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts has been considerably revised to broaden the focus of the text in line with most LLB core courses to encompass equity, remedies and injunctions and to take account of recent major statutory and case law developments. The new edition features increased pedagogical support to outline key points and principles and improve navigation; ‘notes’ to encourage students to reflect on areas of complexity or controversy; and self-test questions to consolidate learning at the end of each chapter. New to this edition: • Detailed examination of The Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Charities Act 2006. • Important case law developments such as Stack v Dowden (constructive trusts and family assets), Oxley v Hiscock (quantification of family assets), Barlow Clowes v Eurotrust (review of the test for dishonesty), Abou-Ramah v Abacha (dishonest assistance and change of position defence), AG for Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (review of the test for dishonesty), Re Horley Town Football Club (gifts to unincorporated association), Re Loftus (defences of limitation, estoppel and laches), Templeton Insurance v Penningtons Solicitors (Quistclose trust and damages), Sempra Metals Ltd v HM Comm of Inland Revenue (compound interest on restitution claims) and many more. • New chapters on the equitable remedies of specific performance, injunctions, rectification, rescission and account. • Now incorporates extracts from the Law Commission’s Reports and consultation papers on ‘Sharing Homes’ and ‘Trustee Exemption Clauses’ as well as key academic literature and debates. The structure and style of previous editions have been retained, with an emphasis on introduc- tory text and case extracts of sufficient length to allow students to develop analytical and critical skills in reading legal judgments.
  • Proprietary Consequences in Defective Transfers of Ownership

    Proprietary Consequences in Defective Transfers of Ownership

    PROPRIETARY CONSEQUENCES IN DEFECTIVE TRANSFERS OF OWNERSHIP PROPRIETARY CONSEQUENCES IN DEFECTIVE TRANSFERS OF OWNERSHIP S a m u e l Z o g g Cambridge – Antwerp – Chicago Intersentia Ltd 8 Wellington Mews Wellington Street | Cambridge CB1 1HW | United Kingdom Tel: +44 1223 736 170 Email: [email protected] www.intersentia.com | www.intersentia.co.uk Distribution for the UK and Rest of the World (incl. Eastern Europe) NBN International 1 Deltic Avenue, Rooksley Milton Keynes MK13 8LD United Kingdom Tel: +44 1752 202 301 | Fax: +44 1752 202 331 Email: [email protected] Distribution for Europe Intersentia Publishing nv Groenstraat 31 2640 Mortsel Belgium Tel: +32 3 680 15 50 Email: [email protected] Distribution for the USA and Canada Independent Publishers Group Order Department 814 North Franklin Street Chicago, IL 60610 USA Tel: +1 800 888 4741 (toll free) | Fax: +1 312 337 5985 Email: [email protected] Proprietary Consequences in Defective Transfers of Ownership © Samuel Zogg 2020 Th e author has asserted the right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, to be identifi ed as author of this work. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, without prior written permission from Intersentia, or as expressly permitted by law or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographic rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction which may not be covered by the above should be addressed to Intersentia at the address above. Artwork on cover: El Lissitzky, Proun 30 t © bpk / Sprengel Museum Hannover / Michael Herling / Benedikt Werner ISBN 978-1-78068-824-4 D/2020/7849/44 NUR 822 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.
  • Equity & Trusts

    Equity & Trusts

    Equity & Trusts Family Property There is no concept of community of family property in English law. Husband and wife, and civil partners, do not automatically own half each of the family home and other assets. In determining whether property has been transferred or a trust created, we firstly consider whether an express trust has been created, failing that we look at a resulting trust and a constructive trust. Resulting Trust Resulting trusts are implied where a person transfers property or money to another in circumstances where it is unclear who owns the beneficial interest. The transferee holds the property or money on a resulting trust for the transferor. Lord Browne-Wilkinson confirmed that resulting trusts will arise only in certain cases (Westdeutsche): a)! Voluntary transfer/purchase money resulting trusts b)! Incomplete disposal of trust’s equitable interest Presumptions Presumption of a resulting trust: a)! Voluntary Transfer of Property: Where a person transfers property to another without consideration and no evidence as to the transferor’s intention, there will be a presumption of a resulting trust created in favour of the transferor (Thavorn). This does not apply to land (S60(3) LPA 1925) b)! Voluntary Transfer of Purchase Money: Where a person has made direct contributions to the purchase price of a property (e.g. deposit), it will be presumed that the transferee holds it (or part of it) on resulting trust for the transferor. Only payments at the time of acquisition give rise to a resulting trust (Curley v Parkes) 1 Equity & Trusts →! Curley v Parkes – Contribution to purchase price cannot just be legal fees or stamp duty →! Abrahams – Also applies to lottery syndicates →! Parrott v Parkin – Can be over chattels e.g.
  • Front Matter

    Front Matter

    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-47308-8 — A Student's Guide to Equity and Trusts Judith Bray Frontmatter More Information A Student’s Guide to EQUITY AND TRUSTS This engaging introduction explores the key principles of equity and trusts law and offers students effective learning features. By covering the essentials of each topic, it ensures students have the foundations for successful fur- ther study. The law is made relevant to current practice through chapters that dei ne and explain key legal principles. Examples set the law in context and make the subject interesting and dynamic by showing how these rules apply in real life. Key points sections and summaries help students remember the cru- cial points of each topic, and practical exercises offer students the opportunity to apply the law. Exploring clearly and concisely the subject’s key principles, this should be every equity student’s i rst port of call. Judith Bray is Professor of Law at the University of Buckingham. She has taught property law and family law for many years, having previously quali- i ed as a barrister. She is the author of several student texts on land law and also a short casebook on equity and trusts. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-47308-8 — A Student's Guide to Equity and Trusts Judith Bray Frontmatter More Information © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-47308-8 — A Student's Guide to Equity and Trusts Judith Bray Frontmatter
  • Level 6 - Unit 5 – Equity & Trusts Suggested Answers – June 2010

    Level 6 - Unit 5 – Equity & Trusts Suggested Answers – June 2010

    LEVEL 6 - UNIT 5 – EQUITY & TRUSTS SUGGESTED ANSWERS – JUNE 2010 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should have included in their answers to the June 2010 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which students may have included in their responses to the questions. Students will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Students and tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ reports which provide feedback on student performance in the examination. SECTION A Question 1 This essay will consider the guidelines for establishing the liability of a defendant accused of dishonest assistance in a breach of trust or knowing receipt of trust property. It will argue that the guidelines for liability are clearer for assistance than they are for receipt. Actions against third parties (or “strangers to a trust”) are popular where the trustees are insolvent. Beneficiaries of a trust may also choose to pursue a third party if the third party is in possession of trust property or the proceeds of trust property and the value of that trust property or its proceeds has increased. Although a stranger is said to be liable as a constructive trustee, it is not necessary in cases of dishonest assistance to show that the stranger received trust property.
  • Chapter 2 Presumed Resulting Trusts

    Chapter 2 Presumed Resulting Trusts

    Durham E-Theses The basis of the resulting trust: Academic theory and the courts Ife, Mark A. How to cite: Ife, Mark A. (2000) The basis of the resulting trust: Academic theory and the courts, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4253/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk THE BASIS OF THE RESULTING TRUST: ACADEMIC THEORY AND THE COURTS MARK A. IFE LL B. Tlic copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should he published in any form, including Electronic and the Internet, without the author's prior written consent. All information derived from this thesis must he acknowledged appropriately. MASTER OF JURISPRUDENCE UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM DEPARTMENT OF LAW 2000 I 7 JAN im) Contents Abstract I Title Page a Contents Hi Acknowledgements iv Table of cases V Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Presumed Resulting Trusts 6 Chapter 3: Possible Development of the Presumed Resulting Trust 28 Chapter 4: The Decision in Westdeutsche 44 Chapter 5: Automatic Resulting Trusts 66 Chapter 6: The True Basis of the Automatic Resulting Trust 74 Chapter 7: The Quistclose Resulting Trust 93 Chapters: Conclusions 105 Bibliography 111 The copyright in this thesis rests with the author.
  • Equity and Trusts Lawcards 2012-2013

    Equity and Trusts Lawcards 2012-2013

    ROUTLEDGE REVISION Lawcards 2012–2013 Equity and Trusts Equity and Trusts 2012–2013 223653.indb3653.indb i 110/20/110/20/11 5:285:28 PMPM Eighth edition published 2012 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2012 Routledge All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Cavendish Publishing Limited 1997 Seventh edition published by Routledge 2010 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978–0–415–68336–4 (pbk) ISBN: 978–0–203–29999–9 (ebk) Typeset in Rotis by Refi neCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk 23653.indb ii 10/20/11 5:28 PM Contents Table of Cases v Table of Statutes xxvii How to use this book xxxi 1 Equity and the nature and types of trust 1 2 Capacity and the three certainties 17 3 Statutory formalities 33 4 Constitution of a trust 51 5 Resulting trusts 69 6 Constructive trusts 87 7 Trusts of the family home 103 8 Charitable trusts 115 9 Non-charitable purpose trusts, trusts of imperfect obligation and unincorporated associations 141 10 Trustees and administration of the trusts 155 11 Breach of trust and remedies 189 12 Equitable remedies of injunction and specifi c performance 209 13 Putting it into practice .
  • Understanding the Nature of the Presumption of Resulting Trusts

    Understanding the Nature of the Presumption of Resulting Trusts

    Open Access Library Journal Understanding the Nature of the Presumption of Resulting Trusts Xueping Chen Law School of South Central University for Nationalities, Wuhan, China Email: [email protected] Received 3 June 2014; revised 10 July 2014; accepted 13 August 2014 Copyright © 2014 by author and OALib. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract The nature of the presumption of a resulting trust has generated a controversy, which has created two schools of thoughts. Both schools of thoughts claim that resulting trusts give effect to the pre- sumed intention, positive or negative. But in this paper, I take on a quite different view of point that whether a lack of intent to benefit or a positive intent to create a trust is not related with the presumption of the resulting trusts, which, I believe, will make it interesting to general readers. Further, this paper thinks the presumption of a resulting trust as circumstances or facts based on presumption, legal presumption and thinks that it can be rebutted by evidential circumstances, which are helpful to ascertain the grounds for imposing a resulting trust. In a word, exploring the nature of the presumption of resulting trusts will aid in the understanding the grounds upon which a resulting trust is imposed. This article proceeds under four parts: the role of intention in the presumption of the resulting trusts; the circumstances or facts based on presumption; a legal presumption; rebutting by evidential circumstances. Keywords Presumption, Resulting Trusts, Intention, Evidential Circumstances Subject Areas: Law, Philosophy 1.
  • THE ENIGMA of the QUISTCLOSE TRUST Brandon Dominic Chan

    THE ENIGMA of the QUISTCLOSE TRUST Brandon Dominic Chan

    THE ENIGMA OF THE QUISTCLOSE TRUST Brandon Dominic Chan Abstract - The Quistclose trust is an invaluable commercial device for lenders in view of its unique quasi-security element. It is the product of equity's flexibility in navigating the strict rigours of the common law. Unfortunately, since its inception and recent resurgence in Twinsectra v Yardley, it has been an eternally baffling subject. This mystery is largely caused by the unconventional principles upon which the Quistclose trust is founded and its strategic straddle between the realm of trusts and insolvency law. However, its increasing importance in commercial contracts and international finance transactions such as securitisations sparks renewed interest in the subject. Analysing the doctrinal difficulties which confounds both equity scholars and legal practitioners alike, this paper argues that this trust device is too useful in commercial practice to be abandoned and ultimately lends support to the restitution-inspired arguments of Lord Millett in rationalising the juridical conundrums that afflict the trust. A. INTRODUCTION The institution of the Quistclose trust is a peculiar creature. It arises when a sum of money, on loan or otherwise is advanced to a recipient with a specific purpose stated as to the use of such monies. When this purpose fails or if it is not complied with, the Quistclose trust fastens on the monies, crucially conferring proprietary interest upon the transferor instead of a mere personal right which is contractual in nature. It also represents a paradigm example of the conflicting tensions and inter-relationship between English trusts, security and insolvency law. This explains why the Quistclose trust has always attracted legal and academic analysis, not least because its enigmatic existence challenges the established principles of trusts law and seeks to extend its boundaries, which in turn has very practical commercial implications in the event of corporate insolvencies.
  • The Nature of Equity and the Trust • Express Trusts

    The Nature of Equity and the Trust • Express Trusts

    Queen Mary University of London School of Law LAW OF PROPERTY II EQUITY & TRUSTS Syllabus The nature of equity and the trust Express trusts o Certainty of intention, subject matter and objects o The beneficiary principle o The constitution of trusts o The duties of trustees and breach of trust Resulting trusts Quistclose trusts Constructive trusts Trusts of homes Personal liability to account Tracing Lecture - Course Documents 2009-10 1 Queen Mary University of London School of Law LAW OF PROPERTY II Aims of the module The aims of the module are to ensure that students understand and are able to assess critically: the principles associated with equity and with trusts, the application of those principles to factual circumstances, the manner in which these principles affect people in their everyday lives, how they are to be reconciled with the principles governing the creation of express trusts, the imposition of trusts by law, how equity and trusts adapt to changing social conditions, and how the principle of restitution of unjust enrichment challenges the traditional understanding of equity. Lay-out of materials These lecture materials cover the module for the entire year. You are expected to read all statutory material - this will be essential for an understanding of the subject. You are also expected to read all cases marked with an asterisk * at the very least in a casebook but you are advised to read them in full in the law reports. Cases marked ** are essential reading, being leading or very important cases, and so must be read in full in the law reports.
  • Equity & Trusts

    Equity & Trusts

    CHIEF EXAMINER COMMENTS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS LEVEL 6 - UNIT 5 - EQUITY AND TRUSTS JUNE 2019 Note to Candidates and Learning Centre Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide candidates and learning centre tutors with guidance as to the key points candidates should have included in their answers to the June 2019 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which candidates may have included in their responses to the questions. Candidates will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Candidates and learning centre tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ comments contained within this report which provide feedback on candidate performance in the examination. CHIEF EXAMINER COMMENTS There are a number of observations as to candidate performance with regards to this paper. General observations. The better performing candidates showed similar characteristics in that they used case law appropriately to underpin their analysis and had good knowledge and understanding of the law. Candidates who did less well did not have sufficient knowledge either of statute, or case law and in some cases their answers appeared to be “best guess” rather than founded in understanding. Candidates were all generally better at the Section B answers than the Section A. They also preferred questions that were split into parts. Page 1 of 27 CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE FOR EACH QUESTION SECTION A Question 1 A question that asked candidates to consider the relationship between equity and the law.