Vans Dunlop's Trustees v. Fergusson Pollok and Others [1911] ScotLR 7 (19 October 1911)

Vans Dunlop's Trustees v. Fergusson Pollok and Others [1911] ScotLR 7 (19 October 1911)

The trustees were empowered, both expressly and by implication, to appropriate and sever investments for the benefit of the specified beneficiaries. The appreciation in value of those investments belonged to the beneficiaries for whom they were set aside, not to the residuary legatee.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 7
Parties
First Parties (trustees): Thomas Skene Esson and another (Vans Dunlop's Trustees); Second Parties (beneficiaries): Jane Dunlop Fergusson Pollok and others (children of William Fergusson Pollok); Third Party (residuary Legatee): University Court of the University of Edinburgh
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 October 1911
Procedural Posture
Special Case (trusts) / Court of Session Inner House, First Division, Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the second parties (beneficiaries); appreciation in value belongs to them, not the University.
Legal Topics
Appropriation of Investments, Right to Appreciation, Severance of Beneficiary Interests, Trustee Powers
Trusts and Estates Appropriation of Investments Right to Appreciation Severance of Beneficiary Interests Trustee Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Skene Esson and another (Vans Dunlop's Trustees)

First Parties (trustees)

Jane Dunlop Fergusson Pollok and others (children of William Fergusson Pollok)

Second Parties (beneficiaries)

University Court of the University of Edinburgh

Third Party (residuary Legatee)

Procedural Posture

Special Case (trusts) / Court of Session Inner House, First Division, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trustees were empowered to set aside and appropriate particular investments to satisfy legacies, severing them from the rest of the trust estate
  2. 2 Whether the trustee legally and competently set apart and appropriated the investments for the legacies
  3. 3 Whether the beneficiaries or the residuary legatee were entitled to the benefit of appreciation in the investments

Ratio Decidendi

The trustees were empowered, both expressly and by implication, to appropriate and sever investments for the benefit of the specified beneficiaries. The appreciation in value of those investments belonged to the beneficiaries for whom they were set aside, not to the residuary legatee.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the second parties (beneficiaries); appreciation in value belongs to them, not the University.

Orders

  • First two questions and first part of third question answered in the affirmative: trustees had power to appropriate and did so competently; appreciation belongs to the beneficiaries.