Application of Saunders v Vautier PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Application of Saunders v Vautier PDF

Description

Application of Saunders v Vautier Rule 1. Determine if it clear on the facts whether the contingency (e.g. in relation to a specified age) refers to “vesting in possession” or “vesting in interest.” Usually it will not be clear what the contingency is in respect to. RECALL that the Saunders v Vautier rule only applies when the delay/contingency is in relation to “vesting in possession.” 2. Presumption against intestacy – even if there may be an issue of contingency, we consider it preferable to remove this in favour of earlier vesting. - If we have multiple people, we do not want an issue of someone dying, so the presumption in favour of early vesting will likely be supported. Duffield v Duffield in relation to the problems with defeating the interests of a deceased person who was subject to the contingency. 3. See if there is a residuary clause OR someone else who is entitled in case the contingency is not met. In this case, the contingency will be protected and vesting will be delayed. OTHERWISE, the Saunders v Vautier rule will apply as a result of presumption against intestacy. Conclusion in Austin v Wells at [32]-[33]: The meaning of the word “vest” in clause 4(c) is ambiguous. Prima facie it means vesting in interest and if there were a gift over (i.e. residuary clause) in the event of Ms Matthews’ not attaining the age of 30, I would so construe it. However, in the absence of a gift over (i.e. residuary clause), to avoid the possibility of an intestacy, the word should be construed as meaning “vest in possession”. That construction is reasonably open and is therefore to be preferred. It follows that the estate is presently vested in interest in Ms Mathews. She is therefore able to terminate the trust pursuant to the rule in Saunders v Vautier. Krstic v State Trustees – the rule has no operation unless all the persons who have present or contingent interest in the property are ascertained, sui juris and consent. – Lord McNaghten in Kingbury v Walter – When there is a gift to a number of persons who are united or connected by some common tie, and you can see that the testator was looking to the body as a whole rather than to the members constituting the body as individuals, and so you can see that he intended that if one or more of that body died in his lifetime, the survivors should take the gift between them, there is nothing to prevent your giving effect to the wishes of the testator. This was in relation to one class of “nephews and nieces” Certoma in The Law of Succession in NSW wrote: A true class gift must be distinguished from a series of independent gifts to the members of a class, the difference being that in the latter case the gift of each member of the class is quantified from the beginning as if each person had been given a separate gift and if any such gift fails it does not augment the shares of the remaining members of the class but passes as part of the residue or on intestacy as the case may be, for example, a gift equally to 'my nine grandchildren' or 'to the three children of A'. Gifts to several persons by name, number or reference are not usually true class gifts....