100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Trusts Law - The Three Certainties Summary/Problem Question Structure $10.54
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Oxford University (OX)
  4.  
  5. Trusts Law

Summary

Trusts Law - The Three Certainties Summary/Problem Question Structure
 8 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Trusts Law
  • Institution
  • Oxford University (OX)

Comprehensive summary/exam notes on the topic of the three certainties in Trusts Law, specifically certainty of object and certainty of subject matter. This document sets out a structure that can be used to answer any problem question on the topic. It sets out the four different scenarios in a cert...

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 6  pages

Document information

  • October 7, 2024
  • 6
  • 2022/2023
  • Summary

Subjects

  • trusts
  • trusts law
  • the three certainties
  • certainty of object
  • fixed trust
  • discretionary trust
  • conditional gift
  • capriciousness
  • certainty of subject matter
  • administrative unworkability

Written for

  • Oxford University (OX)
  • Unknown
  • Trusts Law
All documents for this subject (10)

Seller

avatar-seller
bethjscott5713

Content preview

The Three Certainties
Certainty of Object:
1. Fixed Trust:
Fixed Trust = where the proportion is set by the settlor – e.g., equal shares.
IRC v Broadway Cottages –
“Complete list rule”
Sensible – need to know how many people, e.g., if equal shares, to split
between.
2. Discretionary Trust:
Discretionary Trust = where the trustee(s) have discretion to decide how much the
beneficiaries get from the trust.
McPhail v Doulton; Re Baden No.1 –
“is/is not test”.
Can we say of any given postulant whether they are or are
not part of the class.
Question = does the distinction between evidential and conceptual uncertainty have
any bearing on this test?
Re Baden No.2 –
3 different tests were laid down for dealing with uncertainty of objects in
discretionary trusts.
Run through all interpretations.
Megaw LJ – Substantial Numbers Test:
The “is/is not” test is satisfied if it can be said with certainty whether
a substantial number of objects fall within the trust.
Have to identify substantial number who undoubtedly belong
in class.
Doesn’t matter if conceptually uncertain.
BUT – don’t know what “substantial” means – courts will struggle to
adjudicate trusts- not void for conceptual uncertainty and therefore
courts won’t have answer.
Stamp LJ – Any Person Test:
Validity depends on whether you can say with certainty any (not just
some) individual is or is not a member of the class.
For any beneficiary, need to say yes or not – if don’t know,
trust is void.
If have evidential uncertainty, then void.
BUT – very difficult to prove a negative – will be defeated by
evidential uncertainty.
Seems to be introducing a “fixed list test” which is not what Lord
Wilberforce wanted in McPhail v Doulton – no point having
discretionary trusts.
Sachs LJ – Evidential Presumption Approach:
Introduced distinction between evidential and conceptual.
A discretionary trust is never void for evidential uncertainty.
A trust cannot be invalid only because it might be impossible
to prove of a given individual that he was not in the relevant
class.
If can’t prove, assume they’re not.
A discretionary trust can be void for conceptual uncertainty.
Once the class of persons to be benefitted is conceptually
certain, it then becomes a question of fact to be determined
on evidence.
There is an evidential presumption against them being in a trust.

, Seems to solve/lack the problems of the other two judgements.
This is the best judgement.
Conceptual uncertainty is important – have to be able to say of the
trustees that they are appointing within the class.
If not conceptually certain, court cannot do this very basic
thing – want court to be able to enforce trusts and monitor
the performance of these duties.
“As equally as they consider possible.”
Fixed trust or discretionary trust?
Fixed – seems to set proportions – divide equally.
Can read as opinion clause (curing).
Discretionary – there is some discretion in it.
Not necessarily each getting the same amount but rather to
put them on a level playing field.
e.g., if Person A is very ill and not working whereas Person
B has just won the lottery, would give Person A more than
Person B.
3. Fiduciary Powers:
Fiduciary Power = ability to change rights and duties of another – no obligation to
distribute trusts.
Look carefully at the wording:
“As they see fit” = discretionary trust.
“If they see fit” = fiduciary power.
No obligation – choice.
In re Gulbenkian’s Settlement Trusts –
Lord Upjohn held that the “is/is not” test is applicable to powers.
Apply the test set down by Sachs LJ in Re Baden No.2
4. Conditional Gift:
Conditional Gift = grant of right to people who fill certain conditions.
NOT a trust.
Will most likely fit facts of In re Barlow’s Will Trusts –
A testatrix died in 1975, owning a large collection of pictures. She gave some
of them to her executor upon trust for sale, directing him “to allow any
member of my family and any friends of mine who may wish to do so to
purchase any of such pictures” at a valuation made in 1970.
Gift = right to purchase.
Condition = “friend”.
Lord Browne Wilkinson:
The gift is valid if it is possible to say of one or more persons that
they undoubtedly qualify even though it may be difficult to say of
others whether or not they qualify.
Test = at least one person who falls within class.
Very generous test:
Only makes sense because in this case, LBW says this is not a gift to
a class where duty of T is to think about class as a whole but is rather
a series of individual gifts subject to a condition.
Sachs LJ is more relaxed – evidential:
Means you don’t have to identify anyone – with this test, have to
identify at least one.
Sachs LJ is more strict – conceptual:
Means will have trusts that are void even if we have lots of people
within class – e.g., “for tall people”.

The share of any beneficiary who can be identified but whose whereabouts cannot be ascertained
should be paid into court.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bethjscott5713. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $10.54. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

52355 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$10.54
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added