



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The concept of certainties in trust law, specifically focusing on the certainty of intention, subject-matter, and object. It discusses various cases that illustrate the importance of each certainty and how they inform one another. Understanding these certainties is crucial for creating a valid express trust.
What you will learn
Typology: Study notes
1 / 6
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Exam Note: o Answer the Q as to its own terms. If you think one of the certainties fails → ack → but then say ‘the certainty could by valid if…’ ▪ Say how the trust can be fixed/chaned. o 3 certainties inform each other – If certainty of subject matter is uncertain → then In order to create a valid express trust, three certainties must be satisfied:
Settlor must have certainty of intention to create a trust. o Not concerned about what settlor wanted to do (i.e. what was in their mind), but what they actually did. Does the settlor’s language or conduct (what they said, wrote down) evinces a sufficiently clear intention to create a trust? o Imperative words to demonstrate certainty of intention. ▪ Expressing a wish/hope/desire/request/recommendation that a person hold property on benefit for another are words of precation. o Words used must impose a legal obligation not a moral obligation. o Can be inferred from conduct. Re Adams & Kensington Vestry (1884) – No Trust – ‘in full confidence that she would do what was right as to the disposal thereof b/w my children’. o Held – ‘expectation, confidence, hope, etc’ are not imperative words → no certainty of intention. Lambe v Eames (1871) – No Trust – Testator gave estate to his widow ‘to be at her disposal in any way she think best, for the benefit of herself and her family’. o Held – Precatory words → no certainty of intention. Comiskey v Browning-Hanbury (1905) – Yes Trust – ‘Absolutely in full confidence that she will make such use of it as I should have made myself…and in default of any disposition by her, I direct that all my estate shall at her death be equally divided among the surviving nieces’. o Held – ‘in full confidence’ → not imperative words. o Objective Test – Court looks at whole doco rather than individual clauses on their own – interpret words in context. ▪ However, ‘shall’ is an imperative word that expresses an intention to create a trust. ▪ Gave explicit instructions on who to give property to if something doesn’t work (nieces) = trust. *Is the word ‘trust’ positively determinative? Byrnes v Kendle – Rejected CSD v Jofelle – Once ‘trust’ is stated, there is certainty of intention to create a trust. o Real/subjective intention is irrelevant, it is about what you did (objectively ).
Associated Alloys (2000) HCA – AA supplied steel on credit to M (M owed AA money for the steel). Clause in agreement that if M used that steel to make products and then sold them, the ‘proceeds’ of sale would be held on trust for AA up to the amount that M owed them. o M became insolvent and AA claimed amount owed to it on basis that clause created a ‘trust’ in its favour. o Issue 1– Did use of word ‘trust’ mean there really was a trust? ▪ Fact that proceeds weren’t kept separate suggest it wasn’t a trust? o Held 1- Where existence of a trust is explicit, one of the hallmarks is segregation of trust property.* ▪ But where the existence of a trust is explicit, the absence of an express obligation to keep trust moneys separate does not deny the trust. o Issue 2 – Was this a charge (AA is charge, M is charger) or is it a trust (M is trustee, AA is beneficiary)? o Held 2 – It was a trust expressed only to cover the amount owing in the original debt ▪ ‘Proceeds’ could be confined to actual monies paid by 3rd^ party = trust.
Tangible property subject to trust must be segregated. e.g. o Actual Separation – wine in Aisle A is on trust for X; houses 1 and 2 for X, house 3 for Y. o Abstract Separation – ask someone to choose the property – 3 houses held on trust for 3 daughters. ▪ However, if trustee has discretion as to selection of houses each daughter get – subject matter is certain. o 20% of grain in my barn - Invalid because beneficiary will want best grain whilst trustee will want to give 20% of worst grain. ▪ However, stating that trustee owns 80% of grain and beneficiary 20% is valid. Exam: o Explain why on its face value, the trust fails for (iii) certainty of subject matter because tangible property is not segregated. o However, maybe possible to construe the initial declaration as (use this language and show why!!)… ▪ 3 certainties in exam, easy to pass but hard to get high marks. Re London Wine – No trust – Seller sold wine to customers who were given CT, which descried them as ‘beneficial owner’ of the wine. But seller had not segregated the bulk of any wine to answer particular contracts – wine was unascertained. o Principle – To create a trust, must be able to ascertain with certainty not only what the beneficiaries’ interest is, but what property the interest is attached to. ▪ A farmer who declares himself trustee of 2 sheep (without identifying them) does not create a trust. ▪ Must declare himself trustee of a specified proportion of his whole flock. o Held – Wine was not segregated from the general stock → all individual trusts failed. Re Goldcorp Exchange (1995) UK – Approved Re London Wine – Company sold gold and offered to store it for customers. Told customers that sufficient and separate stock of bullion would be kept for each customer, but this was a lie → company went into receivership → did customers own their gold? o Claimant (i) – Specifically identifiable holdings of Gold which Goldcorp had acquired physically to match customer’s orders → Gold had been segregated and identifiable – certainty of subject matter = trust. o Claimant (ii) – Gold was not separated from bulk of bullion → unable to identify which gold belonged to who → no certainty of subject-matter. o Claimant (iii) – Rare gold coin – Claimant demonstrated that exchange would not have bought these coins for any other customer. ▪ However, since coins were not physically separated from other coins, they were unidentifiable → no certainty of subject matter.
Objects of trust must be identified with sufficient certainty (beneficiary principle). Requisite level of certainty depends on whether trustees are obliged to: o Distribute to a class of beneficiaries (fixed trust) o Or have a discretion to select beneficiaries within a class to whom distributions are to be made (discretionary trust).
Objects must be defined with sufficient precision to satisfy the ‘list certainty’ (complete list) rule. IRC v Broadway Cottage Trusts (1955) UK – Beneficiaries must be identifiable so court can make a list of all EIs.
*Trustee has discretion to choose beneficiaries. But Class of Objects of discretionary trust must be defined with sufficient certainty. Re Gulbenkian’s Settlement Trusts (1970) UK – Gulbenkian conferred on trustees power to appoint as beneficiaries ‘any person in whose house or in whose control Gulbenkian may from time to time be residing or employed’. o Issue – Is this class of potential beneficiaries is uncertain? o Principle – CRITERION CERTAINTY TEST – Does the discretionary trust say with sufficient certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of the class. ▪ If class of beneficiaries are not defined with sufficient particularity to enable Court to determine whether a particular person is within a chosen class of beneficiaries = uncertain object. ▪ Does not fail – just because it is difficult to determine the class of beneficiaries.