Three Certainties Flashcards
Three Certainties
Knight v Knight:
Certainty of intention
Certainty of subject matter
Certainty of object
Certainty of intention - word “trust” is not necessary; “equity looks to the intent rather than the form”
Re Kayford
Modern approach is lean against finding a trust where precatory words are used
Lambe v Eames
“In full confidence that she will do what is right” - no trust; wife took property absolutely
Re Adams
“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
Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury
Certainty of intention - must look at whole trust instrument, not just key phrases
Re Hamilton
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
Paul v Constance
Trust cannot arise if relevant langauge reveals that the payer intended a debtor-creditor relationship to arise
Azam v Iqbal
Company that pays customer’s money into separate bank account to protect the money shows sufficient intention = trust
Re Kayford
Certainty of subject matter
Certainty of property and certainty of beneficial entitlement
“£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
Sprange v Bernard - subject matter must be certain at the point of creation
“anything that is left” - uncertain
In the Estate of Last
Wording of letter showed intention to declare a trust
Shah v Shah
“The bulk of my estate” - uncertain
Palmer v Simmonds
Trust of an unidentified section of intangible property (e.g. shares) is valid
Hunter v Moss
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
Boyce v Boyce
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
Re Golay’s Will Trusts
Buyers of wine in a warehouse could not establish a trust as the bottles had not been segregated or identified in any way
Re London Wine Co - a trust of an unidentified section of chattels will fail
Purchasers of bullion could not claim rights to it, save for one group whose bullion had been segregated
Re Goldcorp Exchange
If purported trust granted onto a gift, donee takes gift absolutely
Sprange v Bernard; Palmer v Simmonds
If beneficial interests are uncertain, there will be a resulting trust
Boyce v Boyce
Certainty of objects - a trust must be for ascertainable beneficiaries
Morice v Bishop of Durham
An invalid trust will not be construed as a power
Re Shaw
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
Re Gulbenkian’s Settlement Trusts
Power to appoint income among ‘deserving’ relatives void for uncertainty, though power to appoint income for scholarships for ‘promising’ relatives upheld
Public Trustee v Butler
Fixed Interest trusts (each beneficiary has definable interest) - it must be possible to draw up a complete list of all the beneficiaries
IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust
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
McPhail v Doulton
Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 2)
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
a trust for the inhabitants of West Yorkshire was administratively unworkable, without hte court deciding whether it was conceptually certain
R v District Auditor ex p West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council
A power cannot be uncertain merely because it is too wide in ambit
Re Manistry’s Settlement
If part of the object is uncertain, courts may sever
Re Leek -but not always appropriate
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
Re Allen
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
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)
Discretionary trust or power for “friends” void for uncertainty as you cannot lay down precise requirements for friendship
Re Gulbenkian’s ST
