Three Certainties Flashcards

1
Q

Three Certainties

A

Knight v Knight:
Certainty of intention
Certainty of subject matter
Certainty of object

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Certainty of intention - word “trust” is not necessary; “equity looks to the intent rather than the form”

A

Re Kayford

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Modern approach is lean against finding a trust where precatory words are used

A

Lambe v Eames

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

“In full confidence that she will do what is right” - no trust; wife took property absolutely

A

Re Adams

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

“In full confidence that she will make use of it as I should have myself… I hereby direct that all be estate shall be divided.” - sufficiently clear intention to create a trust

A

Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Certainty of intention - must look at whole trust instrument, not just key phrases

A

Re Hamilton

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Man told cohabitant that his money was “as much hers as his” - discussions on numerous occasions constituted an express declaration of trust, though no specific moment of declaration could be pinpointed

A

Paul v Constance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Trust cannot arise if relevant langauge reveals that the payer intended a debtor-creditor relationship to arise

A

Azam v Iqbal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Company that pays customer’s money into separate bank account to protect the money shows sufficient intention = trust

A

Re Kayford

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Certainty of subject matter

A

Certainty of property and certainty of beneficial entitlement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

“£300 for his sole use and at his death the remaining part of what is left, that he does not want for his own want and use” - no certainty of subject matter

A

Sprange v Bernard - subject matter must be certain at the point of creation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

“anything that is left” - uncertain

A

In the Estate of Last

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Wording of letter showed intention to declare a trust

A

Shah v Shah

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

“The bulk of my estate” - uncertain

A

Palmer v Simmonds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Trust of an unidentified section of intangible property (e.g. shares) is valid

A

Hunter v Moss

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Testator left houses to trustees on trust for wife for life, and then after death on trust to Maria, whichever house she chose and all the other houses to his other daughter. Maria died in testator’s lifetime - void for uncertainty

A

Boyce v Boyce

17
Q

Direction to allow beneficiary “to enjoy one of my flats during her lifetime and to receive a reasonable income from the others” - trustees could select a flat (certainty arguable); a “reasonable income” was not uncertain - trust upheld

A

Re Golay’s Will Trusts

18
Q

Buyers of wine in a warehouse could not establish a trust as the bottles had not been segregated or identified in any way

A

Re London Wine Co - a trust of an unidentified section of chattels will fail

19
Q

Purchasers of bullion could not claim rights to it, save for one group whose bullion had been segregated

A

Re Goldcorp Exchange

20
Q

If purported trust granted onto a gift, donee takes gift absolutely

A

Sprange v Bernard; Palmer v Simmonds

21
Q

If beneficial interests are uncertain, there will be a resulting trust

A

Boyce v Boyce

22
Q

Certainty of objects - a trust must be for ascertainable beneficiaries

A

Morice v Bishop of Durham

23
Q

An invalid trust will not be construed as a power

A

Re Shaw

24
Q

Power of appointment is valid if it can be said with certainty whether any given individual is or is not a member of the class, and does not fail because it is impossible to ascertain every member of the class

A

Re Gulbenkian’s Settlement Trusts

25
Q

Power to appoint income among ‘deserving’ relatives void for uncertainty, though power to appoint income for scholarships for ‘promising’ relatives upheld

A

Public Trustee v Butler

26
Q

Fixed Interest trusts (each beneficiary has definable interest) - it must be possible to draw up a complete list of all the beneficiaries

A

IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust

27
Q

Discretionary trusts - test for certainty of objects is the is/is not test; equal division not often the most appropriate method. No need for complete list as beneficiaries are not guaranteed to receive anything. Only conception certainty required

A

McPhail v Doulton

28
Q

Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 2)

A

Megaw LJ - ‘substantial number’ of beneficiaries in class, even if not all identified

Sachs LJ - once established that class is conceptually certain, each claimant must prove he is within the class;

Stamp LJ - must know exactly who is in and who is out; narrowed meaning of ‘relatives’ to next of kin

29
Q

a trust for the inhabitants of West Yorkshire was administratively unworkable, without hte court deciding whether it was conceptually certain

A

R v District Auditor ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council

30
Q

A power cannot be uncertain merely because it is too wide in ambit

A

Re Manistry’s Settlement

31
Q

If part of the object is uncertain, courts may sever

A

Re Leek -but not always appropriate

32
Q

Gift subject to condition precedent is valid if it is possible to say of one or more persons that he/they qualify although it may be difficult to say whether others qualify or not

A

Re Allen

33
Q

Pictures on trust for sale subject to a direction that “all or any of my family and friends who wish to do so, may purchase any such pictures” - gift subject to condition precedent

A

Re Barlow’s WT: direction valid as anyone who could prove that he was a friend of the testatrix would be entitled to exercise that option; if it had been a discretionary trust, “friends” would have been too uncertain

(Only High Court)

34
Q

Discretionary trust or power for “friends” void for uncertainty as you cannot lay down precise requirements for friendship

A

Re Gulbenkian’s ST