Three Certainties Main Cases

Knight v Knight

you need intention, subject matter and object

Sprange v Barnard

residue not specific (Distinguishes Re Last)

Re Kayford

using trust alone doesn’t equal trust it must be clear from the wording

Pleshakov v Sky Stream

words must demonstrate an intention to impose a binding legal obligation on the recipient as opposed to a purely moral obligation

Re Snowden

‘know what to do’ to a family member is a moral obligation `

Gold v Hill

‘look after wife and kids’ to an insurance policy does create a trust

McPhail v Doulton

shall = mandatory even if they had discretion

Shah v Shah

courts must consider the intention of the maker as manifested by the words he has used in the context of all the relevant facts

Don King Productions Inc v Warren

even if language used is inadequate, a trust may be created if it fulfills settlors overriding interest

Re Adams

Precatory words insufficient to create a trust

Comiskey

Direct = mandatory language = trust

Lambe v Eames

‘in any way she thinks best’ isnt mandatory = a gift not a trust

Shelly v Shelly and Re Steeles Will Trust

followed verbatim ‘I request that’ = a trust

Paul v Constance

Context of the trust is key

Miland Bank plc v Wyatt

courts can refuse a trust if the intention was a sham

Webb v Webb

also a sham - should be distinguished from an objective nullity

Moore v Williamson

for intention evidence is important

Re Bowden: fixed trust

where the beneficial interest is fixed and unchangeable

Wild v Wild: Discretionary Trust

shares you might get are discretionary, there is a discretion on how much if anything you will get

Subject Matter

must be clear what the property is

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale

In order to establish a trust there must be identifiable trust property

Palmer v Simmonds

‘bulk’ uncertain and unclear part of her estate

Boyce v Boyce

no valid trust as one died so its impossible to ascertain which house intended

Re Golay

Valid trust as choose was living; ‘reasonable income’ is valid as it is capable of being quanitfied

Re London Wine Co Ltd

there was no segregation of wine bottles so B could not identifiy which was theirs - subject matter needs to be able to be segregated

Re Goldcorp Exchange

held in bulk = not segregated = no subject matter

Hunter v Moss

Intangible assets do not need to be segregated

Tulips Trading v Bitcoin; Property (Digital Assets) Act 2026 s.1

can have a trust over crypto

T Choithram International SA v Pagarani

‘all my wealth’ is certain as in case its clearly identified

Re Last

Anything left is certain and valid

Re Ellenborough

Future property = no valid trust you cannot set up a trust for property you don’t own yet

Future Property

a person can make a contract to make a trust but this is not the same as creating an immediate trust

Object

judge has to be certain who it is for

fixed trust

trusts for individuals and trusts divided in equal shared I

IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust

complete list test: can you list all the beneficiaries

OT Computers Ltd v First National Tricity Finance Ltd

Pumphrey J stated a complete list of B was necessary so the property could vest immediately under the trust (McPhail v Doulton cited for authority)

For Individuals

the person must be described in a way that makes them identifiable

if not by name, description must have sufficient clarity

requires conceptual and evidential certainty (Re Gulbenkians Settlements)

For Equal Division

must be possible to draw up a list for all beneficiaries ‘class ascertainability test’

requires conceptual and evidential certainty

do not need to be named individually but it needs to be possible to identify each and every person who matches the description

Unequal Shares

It is possible, each B would be entitled to that share of the account which represents their individual investment E

Evidential Certainty: Re Sayer

Failed as it was impossible to list all ex-employees, exhaustive evidential certainty needed to pass the test

Discretionary Trusts

leading case McPhail v Doulton (Conceptual) and Baden No2 (Evidential) A

Any Discretionary trust requires conceptual certainty

McPhail v Doulton: Is/Is Not test

Is/Is not test Stamp LJ (Re Baden No2)

every member of the class must be potentially identifiable (NOT USED)

Is/Is not test Megaw (Re Baden No2)

A substantial number of the class must be identifiable (NOT USED)

Is/Is Not test Sachs (Re Baden No2)

One member of the class must be potentially identifiable (USE THIS ONE)

If a person cannot prove they are a member of the class they are deemed not to be a member

McPhail v Doulton

1- the courts will seek to facilitate the intentions of the settlor rather than trying to shoehorn dispositions into rigid categories

2- emphasis is on how trustees should act and how the courts should control them

Re Barlow

Fact Specific Succeeded in the case

Anyone who can prove that by any reasonable test that they must have been a friend

Was a women who died and said if they were her friends they could buy the painting at a cheaper rate

Re Tuck

Delegation can cure conceptual uncertainty ‘as long as they do not misconduct themselves or come to a decision which is wholly unreasonable’ was Jewish Rabbi

Ex P West Yorkshire

a trust with a class that is so hopelessly wide as to be administratively unworkable is void

Power

They are discretionary and not mandatory

Power: Intention

Will normally use the word power/if they wish

Subject Matter: Power

Same as for trusts

Object: Power

Is/Is Not Test Re Gulbenkian

If Power is deferred

You have to do the test for trusts to see if it is a valid trust