Re Endacott [1959]

Key Notes

• Facts:

◦ The testator attempted to create a trust for "providing some useful memorial for myself" after his death.

◦ The court ruled that this was not a valid trust.

• Outcome:

◦ The trust failed because it was a purpose trust with no identifiable beneficiary.

◦ Purpose trusts generally fail unless they fall within specific exceptions (e.g., charitable trusts).

• Lord Evershed's Principle:

◦ Reinforced the beneficiary principle, stating:

▪ "No principle perhaps has greater sanction or authority" than the requirement for a trust to have an identifiable beneficiary.

◦ A valid trust must have someone who can enforce it.

• Analysis and Impact:

◦ The decision underscores the rigidity of the beneficiary principle in trust law.

◦ Purpose trusts will only be upheld if:

▪ They qualify as charitable trusts, or

▪ They fall within narrow exceptions, such as trusts for specific animals or graves (e.g., the Re Dean and Re Hooper cases).

◦ Courts prioritise enforceability to ensure that trust obligations are met, which requires identifiable beneficiaries.

• Practical Takeaway:

◦ Testators must ensure that trusts are structured to benefit identifiable individuals or recognised charitable purposes.

◦ Ambiguous or subjective purposes like "useful memorials" are unlikely to satisfy legal requirements.