Three Certainties Flashcards
Any declaration of trust must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and objects
Knight v Knights
The use of the term ‘trust’ is not necessary to create a trust
Re Kayford
What is required is
- imperative wording
- an intention to create a legally binding obligation
The intention is defined by looking at
both the words and the content of the settlors
An instrument of trust cannot be used to perpetrate a fraud e.g. a Sham Trust
Hitch v Stone
Percatory words do not always create a trust
The courts look to various aspects to determine the ‘true intention of the settlor’
Intention: the relationship between the potential trustee and the beneficiary
Re Adams and Kensington Vestry
Intention: How does the intention appear in the context of the entire will?
Re Hamilton
Intention: the mandatory nature of the instruction
Comiskey v Bowring
‘she knows what she has to do’ was too vague to demonstrate intention
Kasperbauer v Griffiths
‘Knowing his wishes’ and ‘giving what is appropriate’ were too vague.
Margulies v Margulies
‘to be at her disposal, in any way that she may think best for herself and her family’ was held to be a gift rather than a trust
Lambe v Eames
‘I direct that all my estate shall be divided equally’ was sufficiently certainty, as the language was imperative.
Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury
Conduct can be sufficient to demonstrate intention, in this case sharing lottery winnings.
Paul v Constance
If there is no intention to create a trust
It will usually be a gift to the donee
The main distinction between a trust and powers are
- Trusts are imperative and powers are discretionary
- Trusts are enforced while powers do not have to be exercised.
- Powers do not fail for administrative unworkability, while trusts may do.
Powers may be given to trustees:
- As either a fiduciary or non-fiduciary capacity
- Independently of a trust instrument or can be given as part of the trust
- If as part of the trust, typically this is a power of appointment.
The property subject to the trust and the size of the beneficiaries shares in it must be certain.
Sprange v Barnard
- Certainty of Subject
The property subject to the trust must be clearly defined
Palmer v Simmonds - ‘the bulk of my estate’ (Subjective and unclear)
Re Golay - ‘a reasonable income’ (objectively definable so certain
Sprange v Barnard - ‘whatever is left’
Where the trust property is selected from tangible property it must be possible to identify and segregate off that specific property intended
Re London Wine
If the property involved is intangible the subject matter will be sufficiently certain without the specific shares having to be segregated
Hunter v Moss
Lehman Brothers
The beneficial entitlement must be capable of determination within fixed trusts.
Boyce v Boyce
If the declaration of trust lack certainty of subject matter
The property will be treated as an absolute gift - if the property has not been properly defined
It will returned back to the estate by way of resulting trust - if the beneficial interest cannot be determined.
The Persons for whom the trust is intended must be certainly known
Morice v Bishop of Durham
Fixed Trusts
Where the proportions of property for each beneficiary are set