Three Certainty Cases

Question 1

Lambe v Eames

Answer 1

1871 - ‘to be at her disposal any way she wishes’
Not sufficient, absolute gift

Question 2

Re Diggles

Answer 2

1888 - ‘Desire’ failed intention

Question 3

Re Hamilton

Answer 3

1895 - ‘wish’ failed intention

Question 4

Adams v Kensington Vestry

Answer 4

1884 “in full confidence she will do what’s right with the disposal thereof”
Too vague intention for trust, absolute gift

Question 5

Comiskey v bowring hanbury

Answer 5

(1905) “in full confidence” but clear intention throughout whole document to set up trust.
Equity looks to intention rather than form

Question 6

Barclays Bank v Quistclose

Answer 6

(1970) - commercial context of intention,
Both parties intended on trust

Question 7

Anthony v Donges

Answer 7

(1998) “such minimal part of my estate as she may be entitled too for maintenance purposes”
FAILED, no certainty of subject matter

Question 8

Kolab

Answer 8

(1962) - blue chip securities , too ambiguous subject matter
Not sufficient

Question 9

Re Golay

Answer 9

(1965) “reasonable” word sufficient for subject matter [policy overtone for court]

Question 10

Palmer v simmonds

Answer 10

“Bulk” of estate to relatives on death
Not sufficient subject matter > too ambiguous

Question 11

Sprange v Barnard

Answer 11

(1789) - stock to h for sole use and remainder to be equally divided,
INVALID REMAINDER CLAUSE, subject matter too vague

Question 12

Re Last

Answer 12

1968 - estate to brother and “at his death anything that is left that came from me is to pass too ……”
Not valid, successive interest trust, brother died intestate > couldn’t pass onto anyone else

Question 13

Re London Wine Company

Answer 13

1986 - couldn’t specify bottles exactly, uncertain , unallocated, subject matter

Question 14

Re goldthorpe

Answer 14

Unacertained bullion, not specific so can’t be certain of subject matter

Question 15

Hunter v Moss

Answer 15

1994 - intangible items eg) Shares

Okay to say 50 unspecified shares out of 950 as long as all shares identified

Question 16

IRC v broadway cottages

Answer 16

1955 - fixed trust failed as couldn’t compile a list of all beneficiaries, no certainty of objects

Question 17

Re gulbenkians settlement

Answer 17

1970 - HOL confirmed list test for certainty of objects in Fixed Trusts

Question 18

Re Gulbekians (powers)

Answer 18

1970 - ‘is or is not test’ for powers

Question 19

Mettoy v evans

Answer 19

1991 - is or is not test for powers

Question 20

Mcphail v Doulton

Answer 20

1971 - discretionary trusts MUST exercise discretion, (new law)
Is it is not test for discretionary trust

Question 21

Re Ogden

Answer 21

1933 - OLD LAW, trustee had discretion to divide money to certain political organisations > list test

Overruled by Mcphail v Doulton 1971

Question 22

Conceptual uncertainty

Answer 22

Trust fails due to vague , unclear language
Re Sayer 1957
Re Baden 1973

Question 23

Evidential Uncertainty

Answer 23

Not clear proof is or is not in class, doesn’t necessarily fail
Re Baden 1973

Question 24

administrative workability

Answer 24

Trust musten be too wide that it is unworkable to complete trust
‘ all residents of greater london’ Mcphail v Doulton 1971

Question 25

Gifts for benefit of community ADMINISTRATIVE WORKABILITY

Answer 25

Re Harding 2007 - for black community = charitable trust Re smith 1932 - gift for England

Question 26

Re Barlow will trust

Answer 26

1979 ‘friends’ invalid for trust If gift then just need to show by any definition they satisfied ‘friend’ One person test for gifts