Certainty of Subject Matter

Question 1

what is the basic idea of certainty of subject matter?

Answer 1

• Property to be held on trust must be clear

E.g. –> Segregation of assets

• Problems arise where trust property still part of Settlor’s estate

*General rule = Must Identify with Clarity in Advance which parts of your property are being held on Trust + which aren’t

Question 2

Strange v Barnard [1789] –> vague

Answer 2

“the remaining part of what is left” = too vague

Question 3

Palmer v Simmonds [1854]

Answer 3

• “the bulk of my residuary estate” = too vague
• What’s the %? Which assets are included?

Question 4

Re Last [1958] –> resolving uncertainty

Answer 4

• Woman died
• Bequest to brother but at his death “anything that is left that came from me is to go to my late husband’s grandchildren”
• Bequest cut down to a life interest
• Sounds vague, like brother could spend as much or little of the money in his lifetime
• Would usually fail to create a Trust due to lack of certainty

*BUT Court held = taking her words into account, she must have meant to just give brother a life interest (enjoy during lifetime, can enjoy income but had to preserve capital for grandkids when he dies)

Question 5

Curtis v Rippon [1820] –> B’s shares must also be Certain

Answer 5

If B given all the equity, but subject to others’ rights, yet rights are ill-defined = B Takes ALL

Question 6

Doyley v A-G [1735] –> B’s shares must also be Certain

Answer 6

• Equity is Equality = Beneficiaries should Share Equally if there’s uncertainty about how they should share the asset
• But Not always possible –> (Boyce v Boyce)

Question 7

Re Golay’s WT [1965] –> aiming to resolve Uncertainty

Answer 7

• Executors were Unusually allowed to Resolve uncertainty
• Court said Executor could choose which flat to live in, and look at her previous standard of living to decide what a Reasonable Income would be

*Be Weary of relying on this in future cases though

Question 8

what is the idea regarding bulk assets?

Answer 8

Do something deliberate to show which part of bulk assets are held on trust

Question 9

London Wine Co [1986] –> bulk assets + clarity/segregation

Answer 9

• Attempt to declare trust on bottles of wine held on trust by merchant for customers who’d purchased them
• Merchant failed to separate/segregate customer bottles that were held on Trust for which people (could even be as simple as a post it note on them) = *No Trust

Question 10

MacJordan v Bookmount [1992] –> bulk assets + segregation

Answer 10

Contractual obligation to put money owed in separate account not complied with = NO Trust

Question 11

Hunter v Moss [1994] –> bulk assets + clarity + segregation

Answer 11

• Settlor had 950 shares in a company
• S declares Trust of 50 out of 950 shares for someone else, but NO Segregation

*CoA Held = Valid Trust

Dillon LJ: “just as a person can give by will a specified number of shares … so equally can he declare himself trustee of his shares … and that is effective to give a beneficial proprietary interest to the beneficiary under the trust”

Question 12

why was Hunter v Moss [1994] Problematic?

Answer 12

• False analogy between inter vivos and testamentary trusts
• Must be executor who carries out segregation of your assets for you –> basic Trust principle
• Here, the person was acting on this principle above, whilst being alive
• Executor segregates assets under a testamentary trust
• What if the 950 shares had later been exchanged for different assets?
• In new portfolio, we wouldn’t be able to know which shares are held on trust

Hunter v Moss just created strange rule for intangibles like shares where the items are identical + as good as e/o

Question 13

Re Goldcorp. Exchange [1994] –> re-affirms traditional position (post-Hunter v Moss case)

Answer 13

• Gold merchant does Not identify specific bullion for customers
• No Segregation = No Trust