Certainty Of Subject Matter Law Equity Essay

In a trust arrangement, the beneficiary holds the benefit interest while the trustee holds the legal title [1]. A trust enables a legal owner to manage property for the benefit of others who are unable or unwilling to do so. A trust is created when the property's owner designates himself as its trustee or transfers ownership to another party to serve in that capacity for the benefit of one or more beneficiaries or a charitable cause [2]. "An express trust is one that is intentionally created and that the trustee intentionally accepts." [3], this may be either private, developed for the benefit of specific individuals or classes of individuals, or public, benefiting the general public. As I examine and contrast each, I will be concentrating on express trusts and the "three certainties" required to validate a trust. Each assurance will be demonstrated independently, using examples from relevant case law to support or refute the argument that its efficacy has been adversely harmed. Yes, some cases may be detrimental to the efficacy, but the majority of cases support, enrich, and clarify the three certainties. Because each situation is unique, it should be evaluated solely in light of the relevant circumstances.

To successfully establish a trust, duties must be "administratively practicable and capable of being "policed" by the court." A trust is required to have "three certainties" [4]. They were named by Lord Langdale MR in the case Knight v. Knight [5] as certainty of intention, certainty of topic, and certainty of object. The first is the issue of whether the actions or statements made by the putative settlor amounted to a declaration of a trust over his property. The second and third conditions demand that the assets intended to constitute the trust and the beneficiaries who are its "objects" may be identified [6].

certainty of purpose

Since "equity looks to intent rather than form," intention is determined by taking into account all of the relevant facts. Instead of merely utilising words like "trust," it is essential to be confident that the settlor truly wanted to establish a trust. This protects both transferors by ensuring that their property is only used in line with their expressed intentions and transferees by ensuring that they are only subject to trust obligations when it should have been obvious to them that they were taking property as trustees. There won't be an express trust, therefore, unless the original owner clearly intended to create one or if the desire to form one was communicated with insufficient clarity to bind the recipient's conscience [7]. Since Lambe v. Eames [8], when the language is in doubt, the courts distinguish between precatory and imperative words. Precatory phrases convey a wish or a moral duty, but urgent words convey a request or a duty to act. It can be argued that case law, which distinguishes between acceptable and unacceptable terminology and establishes what is and is not appropriate, has assisted the certainty of intention. It also enables consideration of the settlors' behaviour. Critics can counter that case law is actually hurting the effectiveness. What happens if the settlor's actions result in the creation of a trust without their understanding that is the result of their actions if intent is determined by the settlor's purpose to do so? This obviously refutes the argument about specific intentions. In the case of Paul v. Constance [9], Mr. Constance's behaviour clearly indicated that he intended to sell his property so that Mrs. Paul might have a beneficial interest. In this case, it may be argued that there was a lack of intention because, despite the fact that his acts led to the development of a trust, he did not intend to do so. It may be claimed that this defeats the goal of having a clear intention, comparable to Re Kayford. [10] These kinds of situations seem to introduce a component of luck, especially when the circumstances are similar: Regarding H B Haina & Associates Inc. The validity of the three certainties is also called into doubt in the case where a trust was intended but the courts failed to recognise it (Re B (Child: Property Transfer) [12]). The difficulty in determining intention in business and family trusts is another area of ambiguity. Although S.874 Company Act 2006 [13] permits the use of trusts as a measure of protection against insolvency, Clough Mill Ltd v. Martin demonstrates that determining a purpose is simply difficult. [14]