![]() | Secret trusts in English law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 8, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that according to one theory,
English secret trusts are entirely constructed by the courts? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-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. |
Hey Ironholds - I wanted to say three things. Firstly, this is the best law page on wikipedia I have ever chanced upon. Great job.
Secondly, reading through the talk about the review, you mentioned two things that you lacked sources for - first, how often they're used in the real world; second, where the distinction arose from. I have come across sources on each: 1) use: See R Meager, 'Secret Trusts: Do they have a future?' (2003) 67 Conv. 203-14. This surveyed 100-odd solicitors about the use of secret and half-secret trusts, and found they are still extensively used. 2) origin of the distinction/why you would use one rather than the other: first, see the above article, which discusses this. Second, I recall reading somewhere that historically, STs developed first, before people chose to take advantage of the doctrine in a more reliable way through the HST - I think McFarlane, 'Structure of Property Law', around p560, may have been the source.
Finally, Gardner's 'Introduction to the Law of Trusts' 3rd edn. pp93-101 proposes a third explanation for secret trusts: a 'reliance' theory, based on his view of what a constructive trust is about. Might be interesting to add this to the 'Justification' section.
Thanks again for this article. NC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.172.241 ( talk) 16:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Curious indeed! Doesn't it result in double taxation to the ultimate beneficiary, double registration expense etc.? East of Borschov ( talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
In its current form, the article's later discussion is hard for a lay person to follow, because there is no explanation of what a "constructive trust" is, or what an "express trust" is. Can someone expand this for the non-lawyers amongst us? hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lord Roem ( talk) 23:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Initial Thoughts
This article is very interesting and very well researched. I feel that this can be on its way to GA-status if some issues are worked out within the next week.
Lead
Definition
Fully secret trusts
Half-secret trusts
Practice
Justification
End thoughts on article content This article is very intersting and certainly piqued my interest in an area of law that I don't get that much involved in. However, it has taught me something and in a compelling way. For that reason, I will be placing this article on hold for improvements as this can certainly be improved to GA-status. Larger questions that need to be answered in the article, as you think about the changes I discuss above: - "Why would anyone have a secret trust?" - "When were they used?"
-- "Are they still used today?" (as the article seems silent on the timeframe of these cases)
- "What implications did secret trusts have in the practical world?"
Good luck on improvements and feel free to message me on any questions. Cheers, Lord Roem ( talk) 06:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Final Steps
![]() | Secret trusts in English law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 8, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that according to one theory,
English secret trusts are entirely constructed by the courts? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-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. |
Hey Ironholds - I wanted to say three things. Firstly, this is the best law page on wikipedia I have ever chanced upon. Great job.
Secondly, reading through the talk about the review, you mentioned two things that you lacked sources for - first, how often they're used in the real world; second, where the distinction arose from. I have come across sources on each: 1) use: See R Meager, 'Secret Trusts: Do they have a future?' (2003) 67 Conv. 203-14. This surveyed 100-odd solicitors about the use of secret and half-secret trusts, and found they are still extensively used. 2) origin of the distinction/why you would use one rather than the other: first, see the above article, which discusses this. Second, I recall reading somewhere that historically, STs developed first, before people chose to take advantage of the doctrine in a more reliable way through the HST - I think McFarlane, 'Structure of Property Law', around p560, may have been the source.
Finally, Gardner's 'Introduction to the Law of Trusts' 3rd edn. pp93-101 proposes a third explanation for secret trusts: a 'reliance' theory, based on his view of what a constructive trust is about. Might be interesting to add this to the 'Justification' section.
Thanks again for this article. NC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.172.241 ( talk) 16:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Curious indeed! Doesn't it result in double taxation to the ultimate beneficiary, double registration expense etc.? East of Borschov ( talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
In its current form, the article's later discussion is hard for a lay person to follow, because there is no explanation of what a "constructive trust" is, or what an "express trust" is. Can someone expand this for the non-lawyers amongst us? hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lord Roem ( talk) 23:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Initial Thoughts
This article is very interesting and very well researched. I feel that this can be on its way to GA-status if some issues are worked out within the next week.
Lead
Definition
Fully secret trusts
Half-secret trusts
Practice
Justification
End thoughts on article content This article is very intersting and certainly piqued my interest in an area of law that I don't get that much involved in. However, it has taught me something and in a compelling way. For that reason, I will be placing this article on hold for improvements as this can certainly be improved to GA-status. Larger questions that need to be answered in the article, as you think about the changes I discuss above: - "Why would anyone have a secret trust?" - "When were they used?"
-- "Are they still used today?" (as the article seems silent on the timeframe of these cases)
- "What implications did secret trusts have in the practical world?"
Good luck on improvements and feel free to message me on any questions. Cheers, Lord Roem ( talk) 06:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Final Steps