2019-20 LAW5003 & LAW6056
Online Examination for Equity & Trusts Levels 5 and 6:
General Cohort Feedback
General Comments
The exam markers were impressed by the standard of many of the papers we read, given
the uncongenial circumstances created by the Covid-19 situation. This was especially the
case for LAW6056; level 6 students produced some excellent work, which demonstrated
real engagement with the material and careful reflection on the questions. Well done!
The examiners were impressed by the way all students structured their responses to both
PQs and essay questions in ways that suggested a plan had been made. The team
noted, however, that clarity of expression and presentation – both of which appear in the
marking criteria – was not always of the highest standard. Please revisit the materials
provided for the essay-writing workshop in Semester A to work on these important skills.
Always remember to proof-read your exam scripts – whether you do them online or in
person. Examiners specifically commented on the lack of proper paragraphing in many
answers: sentences should be organised into paragraphs and not separated out into bullet
points, and different sections of an answer should be split up into separate paragraphs.
Please refer back to the Writing Workshop tutorial for guidance.
Although, as the online exam guidance specified, “no footnoting, quotations, or case
citations are required”, students were reminded not to “cut and paste your responses from
internet sources”. We were therefore concerned to find that a small but significant number
of students had copied verbatim passages from internet sources. We remind you that
presenting work which is not your own is an assessment offence, and deeply unfair to
your fellow students.
© Queen Mary University of London, 2020
, QUESTION ONE
This question raises issues about the creation of express trusts and powers and engages
the law relating to both the three certainties and the beneficiary principle. In general,
responses to this question were less successful than responses to other questions.
The best responses correctly identified the issues raised in each of the provisions and
applied the law in an insightful way, making analogies and drawing distinctions with the
authorities. There were several sophisticated but concise discussions of Hunter v Moss,
some of which cleverly noticed that the testamentary context in Wendy’s case blunts the
force of Prof. Hayton’s critique. Provision (b) also offered an opportunity for critical but
focused reflection on Re Denley’s WT, but few responses went beyond identifying its
relevance, and the majority omitted Goff J’s reasoning entirely. Markers were impressed
by the students who used Re Barlow’s WT to analyse provision (c) in a way that clearly
understood Browne-Wilkinson J’s distinction between a discretionary trust and a series of
gifts.
A great many responses did very well on some provisions and very badly on others. We
were pleased to see that almost everyone spotted the Re Tuck’s point in (d). Less
impressive responses often mis-identified the issue in (b), assuming that only the law
relating to the three certainties was relevant. Some otherwise very good answers
overlooked the possibility that (c) could be read as a fiduciary power rather than a trust.
The examiners were also perplexed by the large number of students who suggested that
chefs might constitute a category so large as to be administratively unworkable, by
analogy with the residents of Greater London (McPhail) or West Yorkshire (R v District
Auditor No 3 Audit District of West Yorkshire MCC). Think carefully about whether a case
or example is really similar before drawing an analogy. A large proportion of otherwise
good answers missed the certainty of subject-matter point in (c). Always read the question
carefully several times over.
The least impressive answers were led by the law entirely, and we were disappointed to
read some answers which, instead of treating each of Wendy’s dispositions in turn, had a
section on certainty of intention, a section on certainty of subject-matter, and a section on
certainty of objects. Such responses rarely spotted all the issues raised by the question.
Less impressive responses frequently prefaced the discussion of the separate provisions
2
Online Examination for Equity & Trusts Levels 5 and 6:
General Cohort Feedback
General Comments
The exam markers were impressed by the standard of many of the papers we read, given
the uncongenial circumstances created by the Covid-19 situation. This was especially the
case for LAW6056; level 6 students produced some excellent work, which demonstrated
real engagement with the material and careful reflection on the questions. Well done!
The examiners were impressed by the way all students structured their responses to both
PQs and essay questions in ways that suggested a plan had been made. The team
noted, however, that clarity of expression and presentation – both of which appear in the
marking criteria – was not always of the highest standard. Please revisit the materials
provided for the essay-writing workshop in Semester A to work on these important skills.
Always remember to proof-read your exam scripts – whether you do them online or in
person. Examiners specifically commented on the lack of proper paragraphing in many
answers: sentences should be organised into paragraphs and not separated out into bullet
points, and different sections of an answer should be split up into separate paragraphs.
Please refer back to the Writing Workshop tutorial for guidance.
Although, as the online exam guidance specified, “no footnoting, quotations, or case
citations are required”, students were reminded not to “cut and paste your responses from
internet sources”. We were therefore concerned to find that a small but significant number
of students had copied verbatim passages from internet sources. We remind you that
presenting work which is not your own is an assessment offence, and deeply unfair to
your fellow students.
© Queen Mary University of London, 2020
, QUESTION ONE
This question raises issues about the creation of express trusts and powers and engages
the law relating to both the three certainties and the beneficiary principle. In general,
responses to this question were less successful than responses to other questions.
The best responses correctly identified the issues raised in each of the provisions and
applied the law in an insightful way, making analogies and drawing distinctions with the
authorities. There were several sophisticated but concise discussions of Hunter v Moss,
some of which cleverly noticed that the testamentary context in Wendy’s case blunts the
force of Prof. Hayton’s critique. Provision (b) also offered an opportunity for critical but
focused reflection on Re Denley’s WT, but few responses went beyond identifying its
relevance, and the majority omitted Goff J’s reasoning entirely. Markers were impressed
by the students who used Re Barlow’s WT to analyse provision (c) in a way that clearly
understood Browne-Wilkinson J’s distinction between a discretionary trust and a series of
gifts.
A great many responses did very well on some provisions and very badly on others. We
were pleased to see that almost everyone spotted the Re Tuck’s point in (d). Less
impressive responses often mis-identified the issue in (b), assuming that only the law
relating to the three certainties was relevant. Some otherwise very good answers
overlooked the possibility that (c) could be read as a fiduciary power rather than a trust.
The examiners were also perplexed by the large number of students who suggested that
chefs might constitute a category so large as to be administratively unworkable, by
analogy with the residents of Greater London (McPhail) or West Yorkshire (R v District
Auditor No 3 Audit District of West Yorkshire MCC). Think carefully about whether a case
or example is really similar before drawing an analogy. A large proportion of otherwise
good answers missed the certainty of subject-matter point in (c). Always read the question
carefully several times over.
The least impressive answers were led by the law entirely, and we were disappointed to
read some answers which, instead of treating each of Wendy’s dispositions in turn, had a
section on certainty of intention, a section on certainty of subject-matter, and a section on
certainty of objects. Such responses rarely spotted all the issues raised by the question.
Less impressive responses frequently prefaced the discussion of the separate provisions
2
