A more recent version of these Certainties, Formalities And Constitution notes – written by Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Equity and Trusts Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
E&T: Certainties, Formalities, Constitution Three Certainties
- 3 certainties (1. intention; 2. subject matter; 3. object) needed to enforce trust ([Langdale MR], Knight v Knight).
1. Certainty of Intention: imperative, not precatory wording needed. no technical language necessary ([Jessel MR], Richards v Delbridge; [Megarry J], Re Kayford). can be by conduct (Paul v Constance). NOT precatory language (Lambe v Eaves; e.g. Re Adams v Kensington Vestry: 'in full confidence she will do what is right'; Jones v Locke: cheque 'for baby' insufficient). imperative language (Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury: 'in full confidence she will leave it to such of my nieces etc') context: whole doc. considered (Re Adams; Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury: gift over in default ? certainty)
? if uncertain: absolute gift.
2. Certainty of subject matter a. property must be clearly defined: Palmer v Simmonds: 'bulk' ? no. Re Golay's WT: 'reasonable ? yes (as far as courts will go). b. segregation: tangible property: must be segregated - specif ically identif iable (Re London Wine; Re Goldcorp). intangible property: need not be segregated (Hunter v Moss, [Dillon LJ]). BUT CRITICISED: all proprietary rights need to be over specif ic property (Re Harvard Securities: [Neuberger J] criticised, followed Goldcorp for Australian shares; MacJordan Construction v Brookmount Erostin).
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Equity and Trusts Notes.