"If this was right, it would mean that equitable rights could not form the subject-matter of a trust"

Question

I'm stymied on these quotations below by William Swadling†. I know that a sub-trust can hold Equitable Rights. But why would the proposition in italics "mean that equitable rights could not form the subject-matter of a trust" ?

But the more egregious error is to say that the beneficiary has ‘equitable’ title (or sometimes ‘beneficial’ title). The reason this is wrong is that it creates the impression that the beneficiary has an ‘equitable’ or ‘beneficial’ version of the rights held by the trustee. In other words, the beneficiary has the same rights as the trustee, albeit that they are recognised by equity and not law, as are the rights of the trustee. [emphasis mine]

If this was right, it would mean that equitable rights could not form the subject-matter of a trust, yet the example of the sub-trust demonstrates that proposition to be false – it is not only legal rights which can be held on trust.

†William Swadling is Professor of Law at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Brasenose College. He chairs the faculty’s teaching groups in Restitution, Trusts, and Personal Property. He is particularly interested in the intersection between trusts, property, and restitution, and a number of his articles on this topic have been cited in the English, Australian, and Singaporean courts.

Answer 1

If the beneficiary had an equitable title, the legal rights would be held by the trustee.

All or most legal claims regarding damages to the body of the trust, would have the trustee named as a party. Those with equitable title would not.

When there is a sub trust the beneficiary normally has the right to take legal action regarding the sub trust, but not the actual trust.

The right to make a legal claim differentiates it from holding an equitable title.