BPP GDL Study Notes: Chapter 3 - 3 Certainties Flashcards

1
Q

Who do the three certainties protect and how?

A
  • protect the trustee

- if there are any doubts about the 3 certainties the trustee risks breaching the trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What names the three certainties?

A

Knight v Knight (1840)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the three certainties?

A

certainty of:

  1. words or intention (to create a trust)
  2. subject matter (the property subject to the trust)
  3. objects (beneficiaries)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What does a court look for to determine the certainty of words or intention?

A
  • examine the words used in the document
  • use of the word ‘trust’ suggests a trust but is not necessary or conclusive
  • looks to see whether there was sufficient intention to create a trust manifested in the document.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What authority justifies what a court looks for to determine the certainty of words or intention?

A

Re Kayford

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are imperative words?

A

words that show an intention to create a legally binding trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are precaratory words?

A

words that express a hope or wish, rather than imposing an obligation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How have attitudes to precaratory words changed? In what case did they change?

A
  • older cases generally leant towards creating a trust from precaratory words; modern cases lean away from this.
  • change was from Lambe v Eames
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

how does ‘old words from old cases’ work? Give an authority.

A
  • words in each document are interpreted in their context, so the same words may not have the same effect.
  • Re Hamilton
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What happens when cases use words that had been held to create a trust in the past when precaratory words were seen more constructively? What case sets this out?

A
  • in such a situation, the earlier decisions should always be followed unless it is clearly wrong.
  • Re Steele’s Will Trust
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What happens if there is no ‘document’ to create a trust?

A

the court must look to the words and/or conduct of the parties to determine their intention.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Give a case where a trust was created through interpretation of the party’s intentions.

A
  • Re Vandervell’s trusts (1974)
  • the court found an intention to create a trust of shares from various acts of the trustees which were done with the full assent of the settlor.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does certainty of subject matter entail?

A

1) Property: it must be certain what property is subject to the trusts
2) Benefecial entitlements: it must be certain what part or share of the property each beneficiary is entitled to.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

How important is context to certainty of subject matter?

A

very - each case depends on the precise words in question and on its own facts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What happened in Sprange v Barnard? What was the result? What is the case called?

A
  • testatrix passed a sum of money to her husband and wanted what was left on his death passed to her brothers and sisters.
  • the subject matter (ie money to be disbursed by the trust to the beneficiaries) was uncertain at the point it was created - ie when the testatrix died. Therefore no trust and Sprange took absolutely.
  • Sprange v Barnard
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What rule developed relating to unidentified sections of property? In what case?

A
  • a trust of an unidentified section of chattels (tangible property) will fail, but a trust of an unidentified section of intangible property, like shares, is valid.
  • Palmer v Simmonds
17
Q

What happened with the case about a wine warehouse? What was the case called?

A
  • Re London Wine Co (Shippers)
  • buyers of wine stored in various warehouses couldn’t establish a trust of particular bottles in their favour when the wine supplier went into liquidation
  • because the bottles had not been identified or segregated in any way. No certainty of subject matter.
18
Q

What cas set out the rules for unclear division of intangible goods? What are they?

A
  • Hunter v Moss
  • a trust of 5% of the shares of a particular company was held to be valid because all shares are absolutely identical, whereas all tangible property has tiny differences between it.
19
Q

Where a trust fails for lack of certainty of subject matter, what happens if the property itself is uncertain?

A

no trust is created

20
Q

Where a trust fails for lack of certainty of subject matter, what happens if a purported ‘trust’ is attached to a gift? give an example

A

donee takes the gift absolutely

  • Sprange v Barnard
  • Palmer v Simmonds
21
Q

Where a trust fails for lack of certainty of subject matter, what happens if the beneficial interests are uncertain?

A

there will be a resulting trust.

22
Q

What happens if the only reason a trust fails is because the objects are uncertain?

A

trustees hold the property on trust for the settlor or his estate.

23
Q

For what is the test for the certainty of ojects more relaxed? Under what authority?

A
  • greater degree of certainty required for fixed interest trusts than for discretionary trusts
  • McPhail v Doulton HoL relaxed test for discretionary trusts.
24
Q

What is the test for certainty of objects for fixed interest trusts?

A
  • list test

- IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust: “it must be possible to draw up a list of all the beneficiaries”

25
Q

What is the test for certainty of objects of powers? Where was it set out?

A
  • Re Gulbenkian’s Settlement Trusts
  • in/out test
  • a power 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 know every member of the class.
26
Q

How are objects determined with certainty in a discretionary trust?

A

using the in/out test from McPhail v Doulton

27
Q

What is ‘conceptual certainty’?

A

the precision of language used by the settlor to define the class of persons whom he intends to benefit

28
Q

What is ‘evidential certainty’? Give an example

A
the extent to which evidence enables specific persons to be identified as members of the class. Can you come up with evidence to categorically prove that the particular individual comes within the class?
eg a birth certificate that proves X is Y's son and therefore in the class of Y's children.
29
Q

What is the test for certainty of members of a class in relation to gifts subject to a condition precedent? From where?

A
  • Re Barlow’s Will Trust
  • such a gift is valid if it is possible to say of one or more people that they qualify, even if it is difficult to say whether other people qualify or not.