Talk:McPhail v Doulton
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
"With respect to fixed trusts, the law is relatively easy to apply - the trust is void unless it is possible to ascertain each and every beneficiary of the trust.
However, with a discretionary trust the law is more complex."
This was removed as it does not accurately reflect the law. Whether fixed trusts require the 'complete list' test for evidential certainty is a controversial issue surrounded by much debate, to come down solidly on one side or another is premature. See for example: A Heresy and a Half in Certainty of Objects. Paul Matthews, The Conveyancer (1984) or Emery The Most Hallowed Principle-Certainty of Beneficiaries of trusts and Powers of Appointment Law Quarterly Review, Vol 98, (1982) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.254.116 (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
On discussing the changes made by McPhail, just a minor thing. The test is never called an 'in or out' test, it's probably better to stick to either the 'is or is not' or 'any given postulant' test, as these are the two names given to it in academic discussion. Just to avoid confusion. 78.105.31.63 (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)