Cambridge BA: Equity & Trusts Paper

Archibald, a wealthy retired banker, tells his three adult children at a family dinner in March 2023: 'I want each of you to have £50,000 from my savings account when I die, but only if you have been kind to me in my final years.' He writes nothing down but repeats the statement to his solicitor, Eleanor, the following week, adding: 'Put it in the will.' Eleanor, distracted, forgets to include the provision in Archibald's will, which is executed in April 2023. Archibald dies in January 2024, leaving his entire estate to his friend Gerald. His daughter Beatrice cared for him devotedly until his death. His son Charles rarely visited. His other daughter Diana predeceased him in December 2023, having told her husband Freddie about the promised inheritance and asking him to 'look after things.' Gerald claims the entire estate. Advise Beatrice, Charles's estate, and Freddie as to any equitable claims they may have, considering whether any secret trust, constructive trust, or proprietary estoppel doctrine may assist them. Consider also whether the failure of Eleanor to include the bequest gives rise to any liability in equity.

Helena is the trustee of a discretionary family trust established in 2015 for the benefit of 'such of my descendants as Helena shall in her absolute discretion determine.' The trust fund is worth £2 million. Helena is also the managing director of Obsidian Ltd, a property company. In 2022, Helena purchases a dilapidated warehouse adjacent to an Obsidian Ltd property for £300,000 using trust funds, without seeking the court's approval or the beneficiaries' consent. She honestly believes this is a good investment. In 2023, Helena discovers that Obsidian Ltd is planning to develop its adjacent land, which will dramatically increase the warehouse value. She sells the warehouse to her brother Marcus for £350,000—a price she believes is fair but which is below a proper market valuation of £600,000 at the date of sale, had the development plans been taken into account. Marcus later sells to a third party for £590,000. Helena has also, throughout the period of the trust, received a salary of £5,000 per year from Obsidian Ltd for agreeing to place trust contracts exclusively with that company. Advise the beneficiaries as to Helena's liability, the remedies available against her and against Marcus, and whether the salary payments constitute a breach of the self-dealing or no-profit rules.

Nathaniel executes a deed in 2019 declaring himself trustee of 1,000 shares in Quantum plc 'for my dear friends and colleagues as I shall nominate from time to time.' He tells his colleagues Petra, Quinn, and Rosa individually over the following months that they are each to benefit equally. He later tells Petra that 'if anything happens to me, you must use the shares to look after my cats and maintain my garden.' Nathaniel dies in 2022. His executor, Simon, refuses to recognise any trust. Petra tells Simon that she intends to keep the shares for herself. Quinn brings a claim arguing there is a valid express trust in her favour. Rosa died before Nathaniel but had told her daughter Imogen about the expected benefit. Meanwhile, the shares in Quantum plc have tripled in value since 2019. A separate clause in Nathaniel's will directs that '£20,000 shall be held on trust for the promotion of fox hunting in the county of Cambridgeshire, for the benefit of those who enjoy country sports.' Advise Quinn, Imogen, and Simon as to: (i) whether a valid express trust exists for the colleagues; (ii) whether the cats and garden purpose is valid; (iii) whether the fox hunting trust is charitable or otherwise valid; and (iv) whether Petra holds as constructive trustee.

'The maxim that equity will not assist a volunteer has been so substantially eroded by the doctrines of proprietary estoppel and constructive trust that it is no longer a reliable guide to equitable intervention.' Critically evaluate this statement with reference to case law and academic debate.

'The imposition of a constructive trust on receipt of property has been distorted by the unprincipled expansion of the unconscionability concept, such that knowing receipt and knowing assistance have become indistinguishable in all but name.' Critically assess this claim, with particular reference to the development of the law since Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture Ltd [1979] Ch 250.