Powered by Lexis+®
Related Content

Related Glossary Terms

CASE STUDY

“While we began looking at LexisNexis products primarily for cost saving, it quickly became more about customer service, ease of onboarding, ongoing training and breadth of resources available.”

Co-Op

Access all documents on Mere power of appointment

Mere power of appointment meaning

What does Mere power of appointment mean?
A mere power of appointment is a discretionary authority, conferred by a trust instrument or will, allowing the donee (commonly a trustee, but possibly another person) to appoint property among specified objects or beneficiaries; the donee may, but need not, exercise it. If left unexercised, the property devolves under any gift over or default trust in favour of default beneficiaries; failing that, it may result back to the settlor or estate. The expression is not defined by statute; it is a case law term used across trust practice. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland (and similarly in Ireland), Re Gulbenkian’s Settlements confirms the “is or is not” test for certainty of objects for such powers. Where the holder is a trustee or other fiduciary, they must consider from time to time whether to exercise the power, act for proper purposes, and not capriciously; there is no duty to appoint. A personal donee may exercise it for their own purposes, subject to the fraud on a power doctrine. Scots law recognises analogous discretionary powers in trust deeds; while terminology may differ, the practical distinction from a mandatory trust duty is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Mere power of appointment

NEWS
Indian Supreme Court: no review of s 11 appointments; court functus officio; severability preserves arbitration; s 4 conduct waiver distinct from s 12(5) written waiver; dilatory tactics rebuked

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd Through Its Authorised Signatory Yogesh Dalal Versus Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited And Others ( 2025 INSC 1365) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling delineates the limits of judicial involvement in s 11 proceedings: courts lack jurisdiction to revisit orders made under s 11 of the Act and are confined to a prima facie check of whether an arbitration agreement exists. The court underlined that, once an arbitrator is appointed, it becomes functus officio and cannot sit in judgement on the very point it has already resolved. This demarcation means s 11 orders are not amenable to review, the Act permitting only a threshold examination of the agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, parties are warned against deploying litigation as a delaying ploy—such as seeking review of s 11 appointment orders—with the prospect of imposition of costs and, notably, personal accountability for public officers, highlighting that they are guardians of public faith rather than mere administrators. The court also reaffirmed that...

Read More Right Arrow