8/10/2019 Knight v Knight

1/2

Knight v Knight(1840) 3 Beav 148 is a landmark casein Englishequity law. It es!uses the test

that determines whether a trusthas "een validly c!nstituted. #his has the e$$ect !$ determining

whether assets can "e dis!sed !$ in wills% !r whether the w!rding !$ the will is t!! vague t!

all!w"ene$iciaries t! c!llect what aears !n the $ace !$ the will t! "e theirs. #he case has "een

$!ll!wed in m!st c!mm!n law&urisdicti!ns.

'!rd 'angdale$!rmulated the test% kn!wn as the *three certainties*. #his test seci$ied that%$!r a valid trust% there must "e certainty !$+

Intenti!n (there must "e intenti!n t! create a trust)

,u"&ect matter (the assets c!nstituting the trust $und must "e readily determina"le)

-"&ects (the e!le t! wh!m the trustees are t! !we a duty must "e readily determina"le)

#he quali$icati!ns t! these certainties are set !ut "el!w.

Intention

#here is n! $!rmula that seci$ies whether an intenti!n t! create a trust has "een dem!nstrated.

Equity l!!ks t!wards the intent% n!t the $!rm. #hus% the use !$ the w!rd *trust*% while hel$ul is

n!t essential. Even i$ the w!rd *#rust* is used% this al!ne may n!t necessarily imlicate theresence !$ !ne+Midland Bank v Wyatt1//.

#he use !$ recat!ry w!rds (w!rds indicating a h!e !r wish that the reciient will act in a

certain way)% such as *In $ull c!n$idence my wi$e will d! what is right in dis!sing !$ my assets*%

are n!t su$$icient t! create a trust% as the intenti!n is n!t su$$iciently certain $r!m the w!rds+ ReAdams and the Kensington Vestry(1884).

#! av!id a trust "eing v!id$!r want !$ intenti!n% imerative w!rds sh!uld "e used in the trust

deed !r will2s w!rding% e.g. *I direct my estate will "e equally divided "etween my children*.

Subject Matter

ny r!erty t! which the legal and equita"le titles are !wned may "e the su"&ect !$ a trust.!wever% this must "e seci$ically identi$ied% !r it may $all $!ul !$ the certainty !$ su"&ect matter

rule. #here are limited e5ceti!ns t! this.

InPalmer v Simmonds(184)% the *"ulk !$ my said residuary estate* was deemed insu$$icient t!

create a trust% as the w!rd "ulk was t!! am"igu!us as t! what su"&ect matter sh!uld $all within itsremit. *Bulk* has n! clear meaning. !wever% i$ a will was t! r!vide *the remainder !$ my

estate t! 6*% 6 w!uld "e a"le t! en&!y the "ene$its as the remainder is easily calcula"le !nce the

!ther "ene$iciaries have taken their share+Re Last1/8.

I$ the r!erty is intangi"le% n! segregati!n $r!m !ther r!erty is required. #hus a trust t! y!u$!r 0 shares $r!m my /0 in a c!many w!uld "e valid% as they are intangi"leand materially

similar+ Hunter v Moss1//4 !wever% a trust guaranteeing y!u 0 "!ttles !$ wine $r!m the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_casehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficiary_(trust)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Bickersteth,_1st_Baron_Langdalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Rollshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intangible_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_casehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficiary_(trust)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Bickersteth,_1st_Baron_Langdalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Rollshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intangible_property

8/10/2019 Knight v Knight

2/2

settl!r2s cellar w!uld n!t "e% as they are tangi"le and it is im!ssi"le t! tell which "!ttles the

settl!r was all!wing the "ene$iciary t! have.

#! av!id a trust $ailing $!r want !$ su"&ect matter% the settl!r must seci$y recisely whatr!erty is t! "e taken% and in what shares it is t! "e a!rti!ned. 7!r e5amle% *my h!use t!

"ene$it my children equally* w!uld "e valid% whereas *my h!use t! "ene$it my childrenunequally* w!uld n!t "e% as the settl!r did n!t seci$ied in what shares it sh!uld "e taken.

Objects

#here must "e a "ene$iciary (!"&ect) !$ the trust+ it must "e in $av!ur !$ certain ers!ns. #his isrimarily s! there is s!me!ne wh! can en$!rce the trust% alth!ugh requiring "ene$iciaries als!

hels t! revent $raud !n the art !$ the trustee.

here there is a $i5ed trust (the interests !$ the "ene$iciaries are a!rti!ned e5actly in the trust

settlement)% $!r e5amle+ *al$ my estate t! 6 and hal$ t! 9*% the c!urts take a strict ar!ach.

$i5ed trust is v!id unless every "ene$iciary is ascertaina"le+Morice v Bishop o !urham(1804).

here there is a discreti!nary trust (where a trustee has discreti!n t! select wh!% am!ngst a class

!$ "ene$iciaries will "ene$it $r!m the trust)% the test is the *any given !stulent test*. #his meansdetermining whether any !tential claimant can "e said t! "e art !$ the class !r n!t+ McPhail v!oulton1/:1. #hus% a trust t! "ene$it *all my eml!yees* a$ter my death w!uld "e en$!rcea"le.

!wever% a trust t! "ene$it *my !ld $riends* w!uld n!t "e% as this is n!t a su$$iciently certain

class+Re Barlo"1/:0.

#he case law regarding this area is e5ceedingly c!mle5% and classes that are t!! "r!ad may "e

invalid as they are *administratively unw!rka"le*% s! a trust t! "ene$it *all the e!le wh! edit

ikiedia* may "e technically valid% as this c!uld "e determined via I; tracing% "ut v!id as theclass !$ e!le is t!! large t! "e w!rka"le.

#! av!id $alling $!ul !$ the "ene$iciary rule% a settl!r sh!uld% wherever !ssi"le% identi$y

individuals wh! are t! receive a "ene$it "y name.

Exceptions

!n?charita"leur!se trustsmay% in certain an!mal!us cases% e5ist with!ut a seci$ied

"ene$iciary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_instrumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_instrumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretionary_trusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McPhail_v_Doultonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McPhail_v_Doultonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_trusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose_trusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_instrumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_instrumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretionary_trusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McPhail_v_Doultonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McPhail_v_Doultonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_trusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose_trust