Unit 2 cases

• Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd (1995)

  Even amount homogenous chattels, segregation is required for there to be certainty of subject matter (no certainty in this case)
• Knight v Knight (1841)

  The three elements which have to be expressed with certainty

  1. Intention (to create a trust)
  2. Subject matter (the property in it)
  3. Objects (the beneficiaries)
• Palmer v Simmonds (1854)


  “The bulk of my residuary estate“

  • too uncertain as to the definition of ‘bulk’
  • no trust
• Hunter v Moss (1994)


  One does not have to specify or segregate intangible assets, such as a proportion of shares, from others for a trust to be validly created

  • controversial (more on card)
• McPhail v Doulton (1971)


  The test for certainty of objects for discretionary trustz is the ‘is or is not’ test

  • as long as any given claimant can clearly be determined to be a beneficiary, or not, a trust is valid
• R v District Auditor Ex P West Yorkshire Metropolitan CC (1986)

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

  • there is no conceptual uncertainty.
  • however, a trust with 2.5 million beneficiaries is unworkable as the class is too large
  • side note - technically could be done though
• Re Baden’s Deed Trust (no.2) [1973]


  Held McPhail v Doulton was valid

  • trust was conceptually certain ‘relatives’ - anyone who can trace legal descent from a common ancestor (certain enough)
  • Three different tests laid down for dealing with evidential uncertainty of objects in discretionary trusts
• Re Last [1958]

  ‘Anything that is left’ of the testators estate was held to be sufficiently clear.

  • residue has certainty of subject matter
• Re Hays S T [1982]

  The power was valid, the delegation was invalid

  • trustees couldn’t delegate his powers as he wasn’t authorised
  • Affirmed in Re Manisty
• IRC v Broadway Cottages [1955]

  Complete list test

  • discretionary trusts are valid only if it is possible to ascertain the identity of every single member of the class or potential beneficiaries
  • overruled in McPhail
  • Still the test for fixed trusts
• Re Tuck [1978]

  Delegation can cure conceptual uncertainty - Lord Denning

  • hereditary baron wanted to make sure his male line remained Jewish
  • said criteria for Jewish blood was to be determined by Chief Rabbi - he was qualified to decide
  • Held trust was valid - controversial
• Re Adams and Kensington Vestry (1884)

  There must be clear imperative language to evidence intention to create a trust

  • “in full confidence that she would do what was right as to the disposal there of between his children”
  • is wife trustee? Children the beneficiaries?
• Re Manisty’s settlement [1974]

  Powers cannot be invalid for administrative unworkability, but capricious powers are invalid

  • Templeman J: “the mere width of a power cannot make it impossible for trustees to perform their duty…”
• Re Golay W T [1965]


  “I direct m’y executors to let toast… receive a reasonable income…”

  • what is a ”reasonable” income? is there certainty of subject matter?
  • there was enough info available to know what a reasonable income would be, they knew her age, her living standards, the income of the other properties
  • trust. there was certainty of subject matter
• Re Gulbenkian [1970]


  The ‘is or is not’ test is applicable to the certainty of objects of powers the complete list test remained the appropriate test for discretionary trusts

  • the compete list of beneficiaries must be known
• Re Barlow’s W T [1979]

  Laid down the single person test for the certainty of objects applicable to individual gift on condition precedent

  • the trust was certain enough to ce valid. A gift does not require one to establish all members of a class, as long as some people would qualify in any test