[suffocation1992]

This is the only area of my law degree so far that I feel clueless (yes, wait until you start jurisprudence I hear you cry!).

I never really understood the facts of cases like Grey or Vandervell, nor why they are important. Why are there three cases involving Vandervell and how are they different? It seems really confusing, are there any good books out there that can explain this topic well (other than Hayton & Mitchell, Penner or Oakley)? Is it possible to skip this topic entirely, just knowing the basics? It seems like this topic is more for essay questions, which I dread coming up in the exam, I'm stronger at other topics in trusts like fiduciaries, tracing, constructive and resulting trusts... For some reason, I just can't seem to understand the 'controversy' surrounding formalities in cases like Grey/Vandervell. Why are these cases important? I also don't understand what a 'subsisting equitable interest' is? I'm quite annoyed at myself that I can't understand it, but can understand other topics perfectly?

Advice appreciated!

[Festina lente]

I think you could skip it if you know enough to see where a problem question involves it so that you can avoid it, but it could well come up as part of a problem question. It depends what your uni usually does I suppose.

But I thought there were only two Vandervell cases not three! Perhaps you're thinking of Oughtred. Anyway, happy to give you some more detail on those if you do want to pursue the topic. I know of a couple of good articles that could help - and also I think I have some notes about the tax background and how that relates to the facts and arguments which I think really helps to get things straight, pm me if you'd like me to find this/the references for you.

[suffocation1992]

(Original post by Festina lente)
I think you could skip it if you know enough to see where a problem question involves it so that you can avoid it, but it could well come up as part of a problem question. It depends what your uni usually does I suppose.

But I thought there were only two Vandervell cases not three! Perhaps you're thinking of Oughtred. Anyway, happy to give you some more detail on those if you do want to pursue the topic. I know of a couple of good articles that could help - and also I think I have some notes about the tax background and how that relates to the facts and arguments which I think really helps to get things straight, pm me if you'd like me to find this/the references for you.

There is Vandervell v IRC, Re Vandervell's Trusts (both HL cases) and Re Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2) in the Court of Appeal. Is it normal to find this topic hard?!

I will gladly take up your offer, I'll inbox you now

[Festina lente]

(Original post by suffocation1992)
There is Vandervell v IRC, Re Vandervell's Trusts (both HL cases) and Re Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2) in the Court of Appeal. Is it normal to find this topic hard?!

I will gladly take up your offer, I'll inbox you now

Yes I think so, but it can definitely be beaten! I'll reply to your pm
PS You are right about there being three cases but you only really need to worry about the first and third so that cuts the workload!

[Qoph]

(Original post by suffocation1992)
This is the only area of my law degree so far that I feel clueless (yes, wait until you start jurisprudence I hear you cry!).

I never really understood the facts of cases like Grey or Vandervell, nor why they are important. Why are there three cases involving Vandervell and how are they different? It seems really confusing, are there any good books out there that can explain this topic well (other than Hayton & Mitchell, Penner or Oakley)? Is it possible to skip this topic entirely, just knowing the basics? It seems like this topic is more for essay questions, which I dread coming up in the exam, I'm stronger at other topics in trusts like fiduciaries, tracing, constructive and resulting trusts... For some reason, I just can't seem to understand the 'controversy' surrounding formalities in cases like Grey/Vandervell. Why are these cases important? I also don't understand what a 'subsisting equitable interest' is? I'm quite annoyed at myself that I can't understand it, but can understand other topics perfectly?

Advice appreciated!

McFarlane explains it better than I could do:
http://www.hartpub.co.uk/companion/p...slidesf3.2.ppt