W7 Beneficiary Principle 解题思路
W7 受益人原则 解题思路

Core Objective: Determine the validity of dispositions in a will or trust instrument, primarily focusing on the Beneficiary Principle and its exceptions.
核心目标：确定遗嘱或信托文件中处分的有效性，主要关注受益人原则及其例外情况。

Step 1: Identify the Nature of the Disposition
步骤 1：确定财产处置的性质

• Question: Is the disposition for ascertainable beneficiaries or for a purpose?
  问题：该财产处置是针对可确定的受益人还是为了某种目的？

• Scenario A: For Ascertainable Beneficiaries (e.g., "to my children in equal shares")
  情形 A：针对可确定的受益人（例如，“平均分配给我的孩子们”）

• Approach: Primarily involves the Three Certainties (Intention, Subject Matter, Objects). While not the core focus of W7, certainty of objects is a relevant background.
  方法：主要涉及三个确定性（意图、标的物、对象）。虽然不是 W7 的核心，但对象的确定性是一个相关的背景。
• Template/Focus: "This disposition appears to be a trust for ascertainable beneficiaries, namely [identify beneficiaries]. Its validity primarily depends on the three certainties being met. Assuming certainty of intention and subject matter, the key issue is certainty of objects..." (Then apply relevant tests based on fixed/discretionary trust – beyond W7's main scope).
  模板/重点：“此项处分似乎是为了可确定的受益人设立的信托，即[确定受益人]。其有效性主要取决于是否满足三个确定性。假设意图和标的物是确定的，关键问题是对象的确定性……”（然后根据固定/酌处信托适用相关测试——超出 W7 的主要范围）。

• Scenario B: For a Purpose (e.g., "to promote peace," "to care for my dog," "to the XX Association")
  情景 B：为了某个目的（例如，“为了促进和平”、“为了照顾我的狗”、“为了 XX 协会”）

• Approach: This is the core of W7. Such purpose trusts are prima facie void unless an exception applies. Proceed to Step 2.
  方法：这是 W7 的核心。此类目的信托表面上是无效的，除非适用例外情况。进入第 2 步。

Step 2: Analyse the Validity of the Purpose Trust
第 2 步：分析目的信托的有效性

• 2.1 Is it for a Charitable Purpose?
  2.1 是否为慈善目的？
  

• Test: Does the purpose fall under recognised charitable heads (poverty relief, advancement of education, advancement of religion, other purposes beneficial to the community) and have sufficient public benefit?
  测试：该目的是否属于公认的慈善范畴（扶贫、促进教育、促进宗教、其他有益于社区的目的），并具有足够的公共利益？
• Branching:  分支：

• YES:  是：

• Conclusion/Template: "The stated purpose of [state purpose] appears to fall under the recognised head of charity, namely [state relevant head, e.g., advancement of education/religion]. Assuming it satisfies the public benefit requirement (to be discussed further in Week 8 materials), this disposition would likely be a valid charitable trust. Charitable trusts are exceptions to the beneficiary principle and perpetuity rules and are enforced by the Secretary for Justice."
  结论/模板：“[说明目的] 的既定目的似乎属于公认的慈善类别，即 [说明相关类别，例如，促进教育/宗教]。假设它符合公众利益要求（将在第 8 周的材料中进一步讨论），则该处置很可能是一个有效的慈善信托。慈善信托是受益人原则和永久规则的例外，并由律政司司长执行。”

• NO:  否：

• Approach: If not charitable, it's prima facie void. Check for non-charitable exceptions. Proceed to 2.2.
  方法：如果不是慈善性质，则初步无效。检查非慈善例外情况。继续到 2.2。
• Template: "The purpose of [state purpose] does not appear to fall under the recognised heads of charity [or lacks public benefit, e.g., if for private individuals or political purposes - cite: 506-508]. Therefore, it must be considered as a private purpose trust, which is prima facie void under the beneficiary principle (Morice v Bishop of Durham). We must examine if it falls within any recognised exceptions."
  模板：“[说明目的] 的目的似乎不属于公认的慈善类别[或缺乏公共利益，例如，如果是为私人或政治目的 - 引用：506-508]。因此，必须将其视为私人目的信托，根据受益人原则（莫里斯诉达勒姆主教案）初步无效。我们必须检查它是否属于任何公认的例外情况。”

• 2.2 Is it a Gift/Trust for an Unincorporated Association (UA)?
  2.2 它是为非法人协会（UA）设立的赠与/信托吗？
  

• Test: Is the property given to a group of members with a common purpose but no separate legal personality?
  测试：财产是否给予了一群有共同目的但没有独立法人资格的成员？
• Branching:  分支：

• YES:  是：

• Approach: Go to "Section B: Unincorporated Association (UA) Analysis Framework" below.
  方法：转至下方的“B 节：非法人团体 (UA) 分析框架”。

• NO:  否：

• Approach: Check for other exceptions. Proceed to 2.3.
  方法：检查是否有其他例外情况。继续至 2.3。

• 2.3 Is it a Trust of Imperfect Obligation (TIO)?
  2.3 这是否属于不完全履行义务信托 (TIO)？
  

• Test: Does the purpose fall into one of the three recognised, closed categories?
  测试：该目的是否属于三个公认的封闭类别之一？

• Erection/Maintenance of Tombs/Monuments/Graves
  建造/维护坟墓/纪念碑/墓地
• Saying of Private Masses/Prayers for the Dead
  为死者举行私人弥撒/祈祷
• Care of Specific Animals  照料特定动物

• Branching:  分支：

• YES (It is a TIO):
  是（这是一个 TIO）：

• Approach: It's a valid category but must satisfy further conditions: (i) Perpetuity and (ii) Capriciousness.
  方法：这是一个有效的类别，但必须满足进一步的条件：（i）永久性和（ii）反复无常性。
• (i) Perpetuity Check:  (i) 永久性检查：

• Rule: TIOs must comply with common law perpetuity rules (21-year period; no life in being applies; no 'wait and see'). Focus on the Rule Against Excessive Duration. Void ab initio if any possibility of exceeding 21 years.
  规则：TIO 必须遵守普通法永续规则（21 年期限；不适用在世者；不适用“观望”原则）。重点关注禁止过度期限规则。如果存在超过 21 年的任何可能性，则自始无效。
• Application/Template:  应用/模板：

• "This disposition for [state TIO purpose, e.g., maintaining the grave] falls within the recognised categories of trusts of imperfect obligation. However, its validity depends on compliance with the common law perpetuity rules, requiring the trust not to last beyond 21 years from the testator's death."
  “这项关于[说明 TIO 目的，例如，维护坟墓]的规定属于公认的不完全义务信托类别。但是，其有效性取决于是否符合普通法永续规则，要求信托存续期不得超过遗嘱人去世后 21 年。”
• (If likely to exceed): "The direction to maintain it '[quote wording, e.g., indefinitely/for 50 years/for the animal's life]' suggests a potential duration exceeding 21 years. Since 'wait and see' does not apply to TIOs, and assuming no valid saving clause exists, this trust is likely void ab initio for offending the rule against excessive duration (cf. failure of upkeep in Mussett v Bingle)."  
  （如果可能超过）：“维护它的指示‘[引用措辞，例如，无限期/50 年/动物的一生]’表明潜在的持续时间超过 21 年。由于‘观望’不适用于 TIO，并且假设不存在有效的保留条款，因此该信托很可能因违反禁止过度期限规则而自始无效（参见 Mussett v Bingle 中未维持）。"
• (If limited/saving clause): "However, the trust is limited to [e.g., 15 years / 'as long as the law allows']. This duration is within the 21-year perpetuity period / This acts as a saving clause ensuring compliance. Therefore, the trust is likely valid regarding perpetuity (cf. Pirbright v Salwey)."
  （如果有限制/保留条款）：“但是，该信托的期限被限制为[例如，15 年/'只要法律允许']。此期限在 21 年永续期内/这作为一个保留条款，确保合规性。因此，该信托在永续性方面很可能是有效的（参见 Pirbright v Salwey）。”
• (Mention case law nuance): "Note that while Re Dean showed some leniency, relying on this is risky as the strict rule requires compliance from the outset."
  （提及判例法的细微之处）：“请注意，虽然 Re Dean 表现出一些宽容，但依赖这一点是有风险的，因为严格的规则要求从一开始就合规。”

• (ii) Capriciousness Check:
  (ii) 反复无常性检查：

• Rule: The purpose or amount must not be absurd, wasteful, useless, or capricious.
  规则：目的或金额不得荒谬、浪费、无用或反复无常。
• Application/Template:  应用/模板：

• "Furthermore, the trust must not be capricious. The purpose of [describe purpose briefly, e.g., building a gold statue in a locked basement] might be considered absurd or useless (cf. M'Caig; Brown v Burdett) / involves pointless destruction (cf. Re Wishaw)."
  "此外，信托不得反复无常。[简要描述目的，例如，在锁定的地下室建造一座金像] 的目的可能被认为是荒谬或无用的（参见 M'Caig；Brown v Burdett）/涉及毫无意义的破坏（参见 Re Wishaw）。"
• "Alternatively, the sum of [amount] provided for [purpose, e.g., care of one cat] might be deemed grossly excessive and thus capricious (cf. Leona Helmsley, where $12m was reduced to $2m). This could lead to the amount being reduced or the entire trust failing."
  "或者，为[目的，例如，照顾一只猫]提供的[金额]总额可能被认为过高，因此反复无常（参见 Leona Helmsley，其中 1200 万美元减少到 200 万美元）。这可能导致金额减少或整个信托失败。"

• (iii) TIO Conclusion:  (iii) TIO 结论：

• Template (If passes checks): "Assuming the trust satisfies both the perpetuity and capriciousness requirements, it constitutes a valid trust of imperfect obligation. While valid, it is unenforceable; the trustee [Name] may carry out the purpose but cannot be compelled to do so."
  模板（如果通过检查）：“假设该信托满足永久性和反复无常性要求，则它构成一项有效的非完全义务信托。虽然有效，但它是不可强制执行的；受托人[姓名]可以执行该目的，但不能被强制执行。”
• Template (If fails checks): "As the trust fails the [perpetuity / capriciousness] requirement, it is void. The funds designated for this purpose will fall into the residue / result back to the testator's estate."
  模板（如果未通过检查）：“由于该信托不符合[永久性/反复无常性]要求，因此无效。为此目的指定的资金将归于剩余财产/返还给遗嘱人的遗产。”

• NO (Not a TIO category):
  否（非 TIO 类别）：

• Approach: Check the next exception. Proceed to 2.4.
  方法：检查下一个例外情况。继续到 2.4。

• 2.4 Does the Re Denley principle apply?
  2.4 Re Denley 原则是否适用？
  

• Test: Is it a trust expressed as a purpose, which directly/indirectly benefits ascertainable individuals, AND is it limited in perpetuity?
  测试：它是否是以目的表示的信托，直接/间接地使可确定身份的个人受益，并且是否在永续性方面受到限制？
• Branching:  分支：

• YES:  是：

• Application/Template: "Although this appears to be a purpose trust, it might be saved by the principle in Re Denley's Trust Deed. The purpose of [state purpose] provides a direct and tangible benefit to the ascertainable class of individuals, namely [identify class, e.g., employees of X Ltd]. Furthermore, the trust is explicitly limited to [duration, e.g., 20 years], complying with the perpetuity requirement essential for Re Denley trusts. Therefore, the beneficiaries likely have standing to enforce the trust, rendering it valid."  
  申请/模板：“虽然这似乎是一个目的信托，但它可能会因 Re Denley's Trust Deed 中的原则而得以挽救。[说明目的] 的目的为可确定的个人类别提供了直接和切实的利益，即 [确定类别，例如，X 有限公司的员工]。此外，该信托明确限于 [持续时间，例如，20 年]，符合 Re Denley 信托所必需的永续性要求。因此，受益人可能有权执行该信托，使其有效。”

• NO: (e.g., beneficiaries not ascertainable/benefit intangible, OR no perpetuity limit)
  否：（例如，受益人无法确定/利益无形，或者没有永续性限制）

• Approach: If no other exceptions apply. Proceed to 2.5.
  方法：如果没有其他例外情况适用，则进入 2.5。
• Template: "The Re Denley principle does not seem applicable here because [explain reason: e.g., the beneficiaries are not sufficiently ascertainable / the benefit is too intangible / the trust is not limited in time and could offend perpetuity rules]."
  模板：“Re Denley 原则似乎不适用于此处，因为[解释原因：例如，受益人不够明确/利益过于无形/信托在时间上不受限制，可能违反永久规则]。”

• 2.5 Is it a Pure Purpose Trust?
  2.5 这是一个纯粹的目的信托吗？
  

• Test: If a trust is for a purpose, but is not charitable, not a TIO, not for a UA (or cannot be validly construed as such), and not saved by Re Denley.
  测试：如果信托是为了某个目的，但不是慈善目的，不是 TIO，不是为了 UA（或不能被有效地解释为这样），并且没有被 Re Denley 原则所拯救。
• Conclusion: The trust is a pure purpose trust and is VOID under the beneficiary principle.
  结论：该信托是一个纯粹的目的信托，并且根据受益人原则是无效的。
• Template: "As this disposition is for a purpose ([state purpose]) that is not charitable, does not fall within the recognised exceptions for trusts of imperfect obligation, is not a gift to an unincorporated association (or cannot be validly construed as such), and is not saved by Re Denley, it must be classified as a pure purpose trust. Such trusts are void for lack of ascertainable beneficiaries who can enforce them (Morice v Bishop of Durham; Re Astor). The property will therefore result back to the settlor's estate / fall into residue."
  模板：“由于此项处置是为了一个非慈善目的（[说明目的]），不属于不完全义务信托的公认例外情况，不是对非法人团体的赠与（或不能被有效解释为这种赠与），并且不受《Re Denley》案的保护，因此必须将其归类为纯粹的目的信托。由于缺乏可以执行这些信托的可确定受益人，此类信托无效（Morice v Bishop of Durham; Re Astor）。因此，该财产将归还给委托人的遗产/归于剩余财产。”

Section B: Unincorporated Association (UA) Analysis Framework (Jump here from Step 2.2)
B 部分：非法人团体（UA）分析框架（从步骤 2.2 跳转到此处）

• B.1 Confirm it's a UA: Describe how the group meets the definition (members, common purpose, no legal personality, etc.).
  B.1 确认它是一个 UA：描述该团体如何符合定义（成员、共同目的、无法人人格等）。

• Template: "The [Name of Group] appears to be an unincorporated association, as it consists of members joined for a common, non-business purpose ([state purpose]) and lacks separate legal personality."
  模板：“[团体名称]似乎是一个非法人团体，因为它由为共同的非商业目的（[说明目的]）而加入的成员组成，并且缺乏独立的法人人格。”

• B.2 Default Position & Problem: Gift to a UA is typically a gift for its purposes. If non-charitable -> Prima facie VOID (beneficiary principle, potential perpetuity issues).
  B.2 默认立场与问题：给予非法人组织的礼物通常是为了其目的。如果是非慈善性质的 -> 表面上无效（受益人原则，潜在的永续存在问题）。

• Template: "A gift to an unincorporated association is typically construed as a gift for its purposes. Since the purpose of [state purpose] is likely non-charitable, the gift is prima facie void under the beneficiary principle and potentially perpetuity rules (Leahy v A-G NSW). However, the courts may construe the gift in several ways to potentially validate it (Neville Estates v Madden)."
  模板：“给予非法人组织的礼物通常被解释为是为了其目的。由于[说明目的]的目的可能是非慈善性的，因此根据受益人原则和潜在的永续规则，该礼物表面上是无效的（Leahy v A-G NSW）。但是，法院可以通过几种方式解释该礼物，以使其可能有效（Neville Estates v Madden）。”

• B.3 Attempt Valid Constructions (Neville Estates):
  B.3 尝试有效解释（Neville Estates）：

• Option 1: Gift to Present Members (Joint Tenants)?
  选项 1：赠与给现有成员（作为共同承租人）？

• Analysis: Satisfies BP & perpetuity? Yes. BUT likely fails donor intent? Yes, members can sever/take individually.
  分析：满足受益人原则和永久性规则吗？是的。但是可能不符合捐赠者的意愿？是的，成员可以分割/单独获取。
• Template: "Firstly, could this be construed as an absolute gift to the current members as joint tenants? While this avoids issues with the beneficiary principle and perpetuity, it is generally rejected because it contradicts the donor's likely intention to benefit the association's activities, not the individuals who could then sever their shares. This interpretation is unlikely to be adopted."
  模板：“首先，这是否可以被解释为对当前成员作为联合租户的绝对赠与？虽然这避免了受益人原则和永久性规则的问题，但通常会被拒绝，因为它与捐赠者可能希望惠及协会活动而非可以分割股份的个人的意愿相矛盾。这种解释不太可能被采纳。”

• Option 2: Gift subject to Contractual Rules (Contractual Approach)? (Preferred Method)
  方案 2：受合同规则约束的赠与（合同方法）？（首选方法）

• Test: Does the UA have rules (contract inter se) governing funds, spending, membership, dissolution? (Needs more than informal practices)
  测试：该非法人团体是否有规则（成员之间的合同）来管理资金、支出、会员资格、解散？（需要比非正式实践更多）
• Branching:  分支：

• YES (Rules exist):  是（存在规则）：

• Template: "The preferred construction is the contractual approach (Re Recher): the gift is treated as being to the current members, held subject to their contractual rights and obligations under the association's rules. This requires rules governing funds and membership (Conservative v Burrell). Here, [mention evidence of rules from facts]. The gift becomes an accretion to the association's funds, usable according to its rules. This interpretation satisfies the beneficiary principle and perpetuity rules. Therefore, the gift is likely VALID under this approach."  
  模板：“首选的解释是合同方法（Re Recher）：该赠与被视为给予现有成员，受限于其在协会规则下的合同权利和义务。这需要有管理资金和成员资格的规则（Conservative v Burrell）。在此，[提及事实中规则的证据]。该赠与成为协会资金的增补，可根据其规则使用。这种解释满足受益人原则和永久规则。因此，根据这种方法，该赠与很可能有效。”

• NO (Rules insufficient/absent):
  否（规则不足/缺失）：

• Template: "Alternatively, the contractual approach requires identifiable rules governing the members' mutual undertakings regarding funds (Conservative v Burrell). Based on the facts, [explain lack of rules, e.g., 'no formal rules exist regarding funds']. Without this contractual basis, this approach likely fails." -> Consider Option 3 / Re Denley, but likely leads to failure.
  模板：“或者，合同方法要求有可识别的规则来约束成员之间关于资金的相互承诺（Conservative v Burrell）。根据事实，[解释缺乏规则，例如，“不存在关于资金的正式规则”]。如果没有这种合同基础，这种方法可能失败。” -> 考虑选项 3 / Re Denley，但可能导致失败。

•  
• Option 3: Trust for Present & Future Members?
  选项 3：为现在和未来的成员设立信托？

• Analysis: Likely fails common law perpetuity rules.  
  分析：可能不符合普通法关于永久业权的规定。
• Template: "Thirdly, construing it as a trust for present and future members typically fails for offending the rule against perpetuities." Likely outcome: Fails.  
  模板：“第三，将其解释为为现在和未来的成员设立的信托通常会因违反禁止永久业权的规则而失败。” 可能的结果：失败。

• Option 4: Saved by Re Denley?
  选项 4：Re Denley 案可以挽救吗？

• Analysis: Apply Step 2.4 test above. Is the UA's purpose one that benefits ascertainable members tangibly AND is limited in perpetuity? Usually less applicable than contractual approach for standard UA gifts. Mention Re Lipinski confusion.
  分析：应用上述步骤 2.4 的测试。该非法人组织的目的是否能切实地使可确定的成员受益，并且在永久性方面是否受到限制？对于标准的非法人组织赠与而言，通常不如合同方法适用。提及 Re Lipinski 案的困惑。
• Template: "Finally, could Re Denley apply? This would require the purpose ([state UA purpose]) to provide a tangible benefit to ascertainable members and be perpetuity-limited. Applying Re Denley directly to UA gifts is less common and often problematic compared to the contractual approach, especially regarding perpetuity limits." (Mention Re Lipinski confusion if relevant). Likely outcome: Fails or less likely than contractual approach.
  模板：“最后，Re Denley 案是否适用？这将要求该目的（[说明非法人组织的目的]）为可确定的成员提供切实的利益，并且在永久性方面受到限制。与合同方法相比，直接将 Re Denley 案应用于非法人组织的赠与不太常见，并且通常存在问题，尤其是在永久性限制方面。”（如果相关，则提及 Re Lipinski 案的困惑）。可能的结果：失败或可能性低于合同方法。

• B.4 Overall UA Conclusion:
  B.4 总体 UA 结论：

• Template (If Contractual Approach applies): "Therefore, the most likely outcome is that the gift to the [UA Name] is valid based on the contractual approach."
  模板（如果适用合同方法）：“因此，最可能的结果是，根据合同方法，给予[UA 名称]的赠与是有效的。”
• Template (If all constructions fail): "Since none of the potential constructions appear applicable – primarily due to the lack of governing rules for the contractual approach, and the issues with the other interpretations – the gift likely fails and reverts to the default position. The gift is void (Leahy). The funds will [result back / fall into residue]."
  模板（如果所有结构都失败）：“由于所有可能的结构似乎都不适用——主要是由于缺乏合同方法的管理规则，以及其他解释的问题——该赠与可能失败并恢复到默认状态。该赠与无效（Leahy）。资金将[返回/落入剩余财产]。”

Final Recommendations:  最终建议：

• Apply this framework systematically to each disposition in the problem question.
  将此框架系统地应用于问题中的每个处置。
• Clearly state the rule or test being applied at each stage.
  在每个阶段清楚地说明所应用的规则或检验标准。
• Cite relevant cases to support your reasoning (e.g., "cf. Re Recher", "unlike the situation in Mussett v Bingle").
  引用相关案例来支持你的推理（例如，“参见 Re Recher”，“与 Mussett v Bingle 中的情况不同”）。
• Explicitly conclude on each point (e.g., "Therefore, the perpetuity rule is satisfied," or "Thus, the trust fails for capriciousness").
  明确地总结每个要点（例如，“因此，永续规则得到满足”或“因此，由于反复无常，信托失败”）。
• Provide an overall summary of the validity of each disposition and the consequence for any void gifts (resulting trust to the estate/residue).
  提供每个处分有效性的总体总结，以及任何无效赠与的后果（归于遗产/剩余财产的归复信托）。