Express trusts - 3 certainties

Question 1

where were the 3 certainties established

Answer 1

Knight v Knight 1840

Question 2

What is certainty of intention

Answer 2

where the settlor demonstartes a clear intention to create a trust

Question 3

cases for certainty of intention

4

Answer 3

1) paul v constance
2) Re Adams
3) Re Steels Wills Trust
4) Twinsectra v yardley

Question 4

Paul v Constance

Answer 4

• not the form of the words but the intention behind them
• husband repeatedly said the money is as much yours as mine
  -when he passed away the executors of his will looked and saw the money was meant to go to a different beneficiary not his wife
• q of which trust is valid
• decided as much yours as mine is intention to split legal and beneficial title (westdeuche)

certainty of intention

Question 5

vague

Re Adams

Answer 5

• words that are vague are generally insufficient
• ‘held on trust in full confidence’
• not clear intention to satisfy requirements

certainty of intention

Question 6

Context

Re Steels Wills Trust

Answer 6

• Courts interpret based on language and context
• if langauge is used to show intention to share trust property, but context is different there might not be a trust

certainty of intention

Question 7

evidence

Twinsectra v Yardley

Answer 7

• if intention is ambiguous, courts may rely on extrinsic evdience
• like family opinions, close friends of there relationship

certainty of intention

Question 8

What is certainty of subject matter?

Answer 8

• trust property must be clearly identified

Question 9

cases for certainty of subject matter

5

Answer 9

1) Palmer v Simmonds
2) Re London Wine Co
3) Boyce v Boyce
4) Hunter v Moss
5) White v Shortall

Question 10

Palmer v Simmonds

Answer 10

• ‘bulk of my estate’ - too vague

certainty of subject matter

Question 11

Re London Wine Co

Answer 11

• trust wasnt valid when wine bottles werent clearly segregated from bottles not held on trust
• hadnt separated there own stock and that wine

certainty of subject matter

Question 12

objective - 2 daughters

Boyce v Boyce

Answer 12

• courts prefer objective criteria, to determine subject matter
• group of properties had been left in the testators will to the 2 daughters
• wording was that some of the properties to daughter a, some to daughter b
• no clarification of which properties/addresses
• not objective enough
• no evidence in letters to help courts infer which properties intended to go where
  -> trust failed

certainty of subject matter

Question 13

Hunter v Moss

Answer 13

• indvidual held 100 shares in a company
  trust delceration was for 50/100 shares
• dont exist in phsyical world so impossible to segregate them
• so certainty of subject matter satisfied
• court said therefore dont have to apply the same standard as tangible property
• approch varys depending on the nature of the property

Certainty of subject matter

Question 14

White v Shortall

Answer 14

• identifiable proprotions of a homogenous bulk can still form a valid trust
• if proportions are identifiable, like certain types of wine you can clearly identify through labelling, so doesnt necessarily require segregation
• courts more lenient with segregation requirement in these cases

certainty of subject matter

Question 16

what is certainty of objects

Answer 16

who the trust is going to

Question 17

carl emery - 4 categories of certainty of objects

Answer 17

1) conceptual certainty
2) evidential certainty
3) ascertainability
4) administrative workability

certainty of subject matter

Question 18

conceptual certainty

Answer 18

• precision of langauge by the settlor to define the class of person they intend to benefit

Question 19

evidential certainty

Answer 19

• the extent to which evidence is available, which enables specific people to be a member of that class (beneficiarys)

Question 20

Ascertainability

Answer 20

the extent to which the ‘whereabouts’ or ‘continued existence’ of persons identified as beneficiarys or potential beneficiarys can be ascertained

Question 21

administrative workability

Answer 21

• ## extent its practical for the trustees to complete the dutys put on them by the settlor

Question 22

different tests apply for certainty of objects depending on what?

Answer 22

-what type of trust it is
- different fort foxed trusts and discretionary trusts

Question 23

certainty of objects and fixed trusts case

Answer 23

IRC v Broadway Cottages

Question 24

IRC V Broadway Cottages

Answer 24

• COA - no certainty of objects unless theres a complete list
  -have to ascertain the entire list of beneficarys, and then close the list
• fixed trusts need distributing in equal shares absolutely and there is no discretion to choose how much property goes to the beneficiarys
• logically, cant distribute equally unless you know who it is going too

Question 25

case for certainty of objects and discretionary trusts

Answer 25

Re Gulbenkian Settlements

Question 26

Re Gulbenkian Settlements

Answer 26

- COA concurred with court in IRC, said the same rules apply for discretionary -HOL said complete list rule doesnt work as not under the same requirement to distribute property evenly - instead developed the is or is not test, (early given postulant test) - could just ascertain conceptua certanty and evidential certainty - the prospective beneficary can come forward and prove whether they are a member of that class - this would be valid for getting certainty of objects

Question 28

McPhail v Dolton

Answer 28

- Developed gulbenkian test further as given postulant test - scope of trust was worded as current employees, ex officers, and ex employees, relatives of such persons can come forward and claim some of the property held on trust - wilberforce - said valid on new test as it is conceptually certain to demonstrate what was meant by ex employees etc - can come forward with evidence to prove it - HOL had to see if this test worked in Re Badens trust no2 | certainty of objects

Question 29

Re Badens trust no2

Answer 29

- examined relatives as an objective class - held it was valid but took 3 approachses | certainty of objects

Question 30

3 approachses in Re Badens Trust No 2

Answer 30

sachs - once concpetual certainty is ascertained, just need one person to come forward and prove theyre a part of the class and its valid (lenient) Megaw - conceptual certainty then a substantial number of people need to be able to come forward with evidence Stamp - every postulant must be provable as in or out of the class. need conceptual certainty and all beneficarys to pass the evidential standard

Question 31

Applying Re Bdens trust no2 cases | 2

Answer 31

1) Re Barlows Wills trust 2) R v District Auditor

Question 32

Re Barlows Wills trust

Answer 32

-look at wording of friends and family - can get conceptual certainty of whats meant by friends and family - evidential certainty yes - ascertainable - yed is it administratively unworkable - no? | applying badens no2

Question 33

R v District auditors

Answer 33

- Trust set up for the residents of west yorkshire - roughly 2.5 mill people - this was 'hopelessly wide' - invalid as administratively unworkable - too wide that trustees couldnt distribute it to a group | Applying badnes no2