The Three Certainties (Express Trusts)

Question 1

Cite 1 case that established 3 certainties

Answer 1

|— Chambers v Fahy -> Established 3 certainties must be present to clear (?) a valid express trust in Ireland

Question 2

Cite 7 cases for Certainty of Intention

Answer 2

|— Paul v Constance -> express declaration of trust when opened a bank account in his sole name but declared the money to be as much hers as his
|— Rule in Lapence v Tierney -> a gift to which certain words are attachd which fail to create a trust, takes effect as an absolute gift
|— Lambe v Eames -> “any way she thinks best”
|— Re Humprey’s Estake wife took absolute interest in property where testator (?) expressed wish what she transferred a house to his son and remainder to daughters
|— Re Caulson -> cousin took absolute interest where testatrix staked her wish that the farm should not be sold but retained for which (nao entendi) children she thought fit (expression of hope).
|— Re Sweeney -> wife took absolute interest where testator left all assets to her subject to his express wish that she make provision for payment of certain legacies after her death
|— Comiskey v Bowing-Hanbrery -> fill confidence that wife would leave property to whichever niece fit - construction of the will

Question 3

Cite 6 cases for Certainty of Subject Matters

Answer 3

|— Palmer v Simmonds -> “The bulk of my residuary state” failed to create a trust
|— Re Jones -> “such part of my estate as she shall not have had sold/disposed” also failed
|— Re Golay’s will Trusts -> enjoy one of estatoi’s flats+ receive reasonable income - upheld as sufficiently certain
|— Re Goldcorp Exchange -> purchasers of billion not specifically allocated to them failed to estabilsh proprietary rights on (?) it
|— Re London Wine - wine in a winehouse not segregated - no trust
|— Slunter v Mop - if property is intangible - rule may not apply (shares are indistinguishable)

Question 4

Cite 12 cases for Certainty of Subject Objects

Answer 4

|— Re Baden’s Deed Trusts n2 - CoA was satisfied a class comprising “relatives” was conceptually certain
|— Re Parker - no conceptual uncertainty in words ‘nece?? nieces and nephews’
|— Re Leek - trust upheld in favour of persons which the trustees considered to have a good moral claim (directors of the company)
|— Re Barlow’s Wills Trust - any family or friend that wished could purchase paintings at a reduced price - valid
|— IRC v Broadway Cottage Trust - Original test regarding discretionary trusts - trust is void for uncertainty unless you can draw up a “complete list” of beneficiaries
|— (???) by HOL in McPhail v Doulton -> a discretionary trust is valid if can be said with certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of the class
|— Re Gullbenkian’s Settlements -> test in relation to powers requires only conceptual certainty
|— Re Parker -> approved the complete list rule in Broadway - trust was valid
|— O’Byrne v Dorroren -> commented Parker was a precedent of Greater authority than McPhail
|— Mc Phail v Doulton -> example given trustsfor residents of greater London
|— R v District Suditor -> Discritionary trust in favour of the inhabitants of the county of west Yorkshire was found invalid
|— Re Manisty’s Settlement -> Where settlor seeks to benefit on accidental conglomeration of persons with no discernible link to him, it may be unrealistic to seek to give effect to his intentions