University Law Assignment: Milroy v Lord and Fiduciary Obligations

This law assignment provides an in-depth analysis of the Milroy v Lord rule, exploring its purported inflexibility within the context of English Trusts law. The assignment delves into the rule's application, referencing key cases such as Jones v Lock and Re Rose, to illustrate its principles. It examines the t...Read More

Answer (2)
‘The rule of Milroy v Lord [1862] EWHC J78 sets down an inflexible rule of Equity from which no
deviation is permitted. Subsequent case law supports this point.’
Do you agree with this statement? If not, why not?
The rule of Milroy v Lord [1862] EWHC J78 is an English Trusts law that in case of honouring
gifts, trust should not be taken into consideration. This rule sets purportedly in following the maxims
of Equity, that involves the rule of that Equity does not allow any volunteer. Therefore, the
statement is true in the majority of situations, that of “Milroy v Lord [1862] EWHC J78” is an
inflexible rule of Equity, and there is no deviation to that rule. In Jones v Lock,1 A dad put a cheque in
the hand of his baby of nine-month-old saying,” I give this cheque for my baby”, after that the father
died and the cheque was found among his assets. As there was a lack of proof and transfer of title as
well of assets, a signed self-declared trust must be present for approval of Milroy v Lord [1862]
EWHC J78 rule of Equity. Therefore, the court decides that cheque was not valid trust or gift. This
decision was made upon the general rule of Milroy case when Turner LJ stated ‘’which that settlor
must have done everything necessary to be transfer the property’’.
Indeed, Milroy rule declare that an absolute owner of property might benefit to another with her or
his property in three ways, firstly an outright gift, secondly declaring that the absolute owner now
holds that property on trust for another. Thirdly a transfer of legal title to a third party to hold on
trust for the benefit of another.2 These ways became after three certainties present under the rule
of Knight v Knight3, for which Milroy case called Constitution and are applied in different legal to
different types of property cases, according to the nature of the property which can be intangible or
tangible.4 Therefore, the father in the case of Jones did not comply with the rule of Milroy, because
the chosen action for cheque transferring has to be compliance with s.136 Law of Property Act 19255
which requires authorization.6
In the other hand if the answer is disagreement about the inflexibility of Milroy rule, will be
the right answer too. Why? Because Milroy rule according to a particular law, and the type of
situation in which it is applicable. For example, in land law after 125 years, there is a statute base
according to the Milroy rule adhering to s.1 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 19897,
which specifies that transfer must be done by the process of a deed. In s.27 Land Registration Act
20028, that is about the transfer is completed by registration through a land registry. Compressing
with the rule of Milroy, generally, the base of these land law comes from Milroy rule.
Valid constitute for the physical asset merely requires delivery, and that is still in Milroy rule, but a
transfer of an equitable interest need to be under s.53(c) Law of Property Act 1925. Also the
principles of this law arise from Milroy rule.
1 Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25
2 Lain McDonald & Anne Street, concentrate Equity &Trusts (6th ed 2018 Oxford University Press 44
3 Knight v Knight (1840) 49 ER 58
4 Ibid 46
5 s.136 Law of Property Act 1925
6 Ibid 47
7 s.1 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
8 s.27 Land Registration Act 2002

The development of the Constitution let Milroy rule relax in the case of Re Rose rule.9 For
example in the case of transfer to trustees, to be more precise, the transferor must have done
everything’s ‘’with his power’’.10 The principle of Re Rose, if that the transferor has done everything’s
in his or her power to do the Constitution, and the only fault which that third party inaction, over
which the transferor has no control, Equity will perfect the transfer11. Here is the key why Milroy still
exist, because the principles of Milroy are same in Re Rose, but Re Rose rule extent more ‘’with his
power’’ for the transferor. The different here in Milroy rule equity will not assist a volunteer, but an
exception with famous cases like Re Rose, Mascall v Mascall12, Pennington v Waine13, Zeital v Kaye14,
Strong v Bird15. These cases take some freedom from Milroy rule because the maxim of ‘’equity looks
to substance rather than form’’ for example for inflexible behaviour in Pennington case.
9 Re Rose [1952] EWCA Civ 4
10 Gary Watt, Trusts & Equity, (7th ed 2016 Oxford University Press) 117
11 McDonald & Street (n3) 57
12 Mascall v Mascall [1984] EWCA Civ 10
13 Pennington v Waine [2002] EWCA Civ 227
14 Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159
15 Strong v Bird [1874] LR 18 Eq 315

Answer (1)
1) Chris died in October 2019. In his will he left three dispositions.
A- £100,000 to John Smith, my neighbour and best friend, in the hope he will use the money to look
after my children;
B- My niece, Alice, shall have the choice of either my holiday home in Northumberland or my pair of
Holland & Holland Royal shotguns. My nephew, Thomas, shall have whichever Alice does not
choose.
C- The bulk of what remains to my old Oxford college.
Note: Alice died in January 2020 without making a choice.
Advise his executors on the relevant law and whether the dispositions are valid.
In Knight v knight16, Lord Langdale declare that three certainties were mandatory to establish a
valid trust, that are, (1) certainty of words or intention, (2) subject matter and (3) objects, except
charitable trusts.17 So, Knight v Knight, requires for the three fowling dispositions.
A-The issue here is there a valid intention by the wording gave from Chris to his executors?
Intention to be established, the court examines all the situations of the case. ‘’Equity looks to the
substance rather than form’’, intention example for whom the language had been used in trust, like
precatory or imperative for an instant.18 In the case of Lambs v Eames,19 the wording had been used
in the trust that ‘’to be at her conductance in anyway shy might think greatest, for the advantage of
herself and her family’’ since that the court made difference between the imperative and precatory
words. The word imperative express order or command, that give the power for trustee or the
fiduciary to do something.20 While precatory words express a wish, a hope, or moral responsibility.21
Here to comprising with Chris the words had been used ‘’in the hope he will use the money to look
after my children’ ’sound a precatory and would propose a gift. Similarly, in the case of Re Adams
and Kensington vestry,22 the words had been used ‘’she will do what is right’’. Chris words in his trust
give the moral obligation to John Smith that a gift in intended for the children. Therefore, it is valid
intention.
The certainty of subject matter it is clearly present, why? because it is stated in the will as tangible
assets of £100,000 to John Smith his Chris neighbour. Therefore, it is valid subject matter.
Last certainty of abject, it might seem not very clear information about the children, because there is
no name and who many children they are. This requirement provided in the case of IRC v Broadway
16 Knight v Knight (1840) 3 Beav 148; 49 ER 56
17 McDonald & Street (n3) 27
18 Ibid
19 Lamb v Eames (1871) 6 Ch App 597
20 McDonald & Street (n3) 28
21 Ibid
22Re Adams v Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394

Cottages,23 so to compressing with Chris will, there is not express trust, because no full list of the
beneficiaries provided. but the court will take in account the circumstances of this case, for example
when Chris said about his friend John Smith, my neighbour and best friend, that means his friend
knows how many children and whom they are. Therefor the object valet to.
In conclusion for first possession might be discretionary trust, upon the case of McPhail v
Doulton,24test.
B-The issue in part (B) is the subject matter of the trust. The question here is of which home of two
holiday home Alice interest, but the problem Alice died before chose the home. This is like Palmer v
Simmonds,25 the settlor said ‘’the bulk of my estate’’ outcome was failed of uncertainty.
Furthermore, the interests of Alice and Thomas are uncertain till Alice has made her choice. Alice
death means that no choice can now be made. In Boyce v Boyce,26 a settlor left three houses in his
will, one to Maria, which she may choose, the others to Charlotte. Maria die before the settlor
death, and the trust for Charlotte, which was independent of Maria’s choice, outcome was held to
fail for certainty of subject matter. Alice died without choose, so it is impossible to decide which
holiday home would be held in trust for Thomas. Therefor both homes fall into residue. Therefore, In
the missing of residuary gift, the court will pass, as on intestacy, to Lucien’s.27 That means the court
could make the choice, however, there appears slight to favour such a constructive trust.
C- the issue in part (c) is subject matter plas object. Again, the word ‘’bulk’’ not specified certainty of
trust. moreover, the object issue was uncertainty, because the question here whom are the Oxford
college? In IRC v Broadway Cottages, in order to be satisfied of object requirement, a full list of the
beneficiaries must be able to be identified. To comprising with Chris will Oxford college was not
identified. Hence the trust probably void for uncertainty of object, and the rest of Chris’s property
bake to the stat.
In conclusion (A) and (B) valid trust but (C) not valid trust.
23 IRC v Broadway Cottages[1955]
24 McPhail v Doulton
25 Palmer v Simmonds (1854) 2 Drew 221
26 Boyce v Boyce (1849) 16 sim 476
27 Urban Dictionary <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lucien> accessed 03 April 2020

5) ‘Fiduciary relationships are characterized by trust and confidence.’
Critically analyze this statement in relation to the other major aspects of fiduciary duties.
Answer (5)
The term fiduciary is derived from Latin, and essentially means ‘‘appertaining to trust’’ or ‘’trust-
like’’.28 In other word the term fiduciary referred if somebody who is trusted by another to do
something, and this is responsibilities must be keep in faithfulness and loyalty. In general rule
trustees are not intituled to remuneration, but in some situation, trustees could be remunerated,
because they acting as a professional capacity upon the Trustee Act 2000.29 The principle of the case
of Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew,30 which that ‘’the core obligation of a fiduciary is
loyalty . fiduciary must act in good faith and avoid conflicts of interest’’ 31 that means the trustees
owe fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries. Fiduciary relationship it is exist between directors and their
company or solicitors and clients. In Reading v Attorney – General,32 Was the fiduciary obligation
breached because hi was use his position and uniform to help smugglers. So, fiduciary cannot hold
any unauthorized incomes created by their construction to the trust, therefor if that happened the
court will be classify as constructive trust as in the case Bray v Ford.33
Other rule would find it in the case of Keech v Sandford,34 which that a trustee is prevented from
retaining the benefit of a lease that is renewed in his own, therefor the court held that the lease was
held for the benefit of the trust. in the case of Boardman v Phipps,35 Boardman was used his position
for the benefit for himself. The House of Lords held that profit will be in constructive trust for the
trustees. However, Boardman was able to hold a percentage of the incomes on a “quantum meruit”
basis for his efforts.36
So, the fiduciary duty must be avoiding conflicts of interest, an example not purchase property from
the beneficiary. That called self-dealing rule. That means trustees who vend trust property have no
dominant duty to obtain the greatest price. The reason of morality when a higher offer had been
received this situation happened in the case of Buttle v Saunders,37 the court awarded injunction to
preventing a trustee from accepting an offer to purchase property for himself.38 In another hands
there is the fair dealing rule. In the case Coles v Trecothick,39 which that if the trustee acts fair and
28 Gary Watt, Trusts & Equity, (7th ed 2016 Oxford University Press) 325
29 Trustee Act 2000
30 Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1
31 McDonald & Street (n3) 182
32 Reading v Attorney – General [1951] AC 507
33 Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44
34 Keech v Sandford (1726) EWHC Ch J76
35 Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
36 McDonald & Street (n3) 168
37 Buttle v Saunders [1950] 2 All ER 193
38 McDonald & Street (n3) 170
39 Coles v Trecothick (1804) 9 Ves 234

honestly will be not voidable if purchase of a beneficiary’s equitable interest in property. That means
makes fully transparency to the beneficiaries and pay a reasonable price.40
40 McDonald & Street (n3) 171