Unit 2 The Three Certainties

• The Three Certainties (Knight v Knight (1840))


  Intention (to create a trust)

  Subject Matter (the property in it)

  Objects (the beneficiaries)
• Is it a fixed or discretionary trust


  Explain and apply the correct test for certainty of objects (remember A U)
• Arbiter clause


  Re Tuck
• GSTCP


  Gift subject to condition precedent One person test
• Re Adam’s and Kensington Vestry (1884)


  A gift by will to a wife in full confidence that she will do what it right as to the disposal thereof between my children

  • No trust
• The use of the word “trust” won’t be conclusive if it’s a sham it’s an objective assessment

  Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967]
• Re Kayford [1975]


  Lots of customers didn’t get their orders but the money was effectively held on trust (money had been paid into a trust account not a business account)

  That was enough certainty of intention to create a trust
• CoS “The remaining part of what is left” - Sprange v Barnard (1789)


  No trust

  • would have been okay if they had said all of what is left
  • but part of what is left? What about the other part?
• CoS “the bulk of my residuary estate” - Palmer v Simmonds (1854)


  No trust

  • bulk is not a precise enough word
• CoS “a handsome gratuity“ - Jubber v Jubber (1839)


  No trust

  • what does handsome mean?
• “My four houses to my trustees to allow my daughter Maria to choose whichever one she wants and then to give all the other houses to my other daughter Charlotte“ - Boyce v Boyce (1849)


  • Maria had died before her dad
  • Dad had died with this clause still in his will
  • remaining daughter wanted her three houses
  • which three houses?
  • can’t have certainty for which houses should go to Charlotte because Maria couldn’t choose hers
  • no trust