Home › Equity & Trusts › 4 · Certainties

Module 4 · Express trusts I: formalities, certainty of intention and subject matter

What this module covers and why it matters. This module is where you learn to test whether an express trust actually exists. It covers the formality rules that decide when a declaration must be in writing, the certainty of intention that separates a trust from a gift or a mere hope, and the certainty of subject matter that fixes what property and what shares the trust bites on. It sits at the front of the problem side of the subject. Almost every later problem, from the will clause audit in Module 5 to the family property dispute in Module 9, opens by asking whether a valid trust was created in the first place, so the tools here are the ones you use most often.

How to use this guide. The numbered scaffold below is the running order to carry into an answer, and the boxed worked examples show each rule taken to a conclusion. The three certainties table is the spine and every certainty section refers back to it. Read the guide once to learn the order and then revise from the scaffold and the table.

Cases at a glance

The analytical scaffold

Work a trust creation problem in this fixed order. Each step narrows the question and sets up the next.

1. Declaration or transfer. Ask how the trust was made. A declaration of trust means the settlor keeps the property and declares that they now hold it as trustee, so no transfer of title is needed. A transfer on trust means the property is moved to a separate trustee to hold. Getting this right decides what formalities and what evidence you look for.
2. Land or a subsisting equitable interest. Ask what the subject matter is. If the trust is of land, or is a dealing with an equitable interest that already exists, the s 53 writing requirements come into play and you check them before anything else. Personal property such as shares or a brooch needs no writing.
3. Certainty of intention. Ask whether the settlor objectively intended to impose a trust obligation. Intention is read from words and conduct and not from the settlor's private state of mind.
4. Certainty of subject matter. Ask whether the trust property is identified and whether the beneficial shares are certain.
5. Certainty of objects. Characterise the disposition on the Module 3 taxonomy and apply the matching test from Module 5. That step is developed in the next module and only flagged here.
6. Consequence of failure. Trace where the property goes. Failed intention means no trust, so the property stays with the transferor or takes effect as an outright gift. Failed subject matter or objects sends the property back on resulting trust or into residue.
7. The gift that survives. Remember that an unenforceable oral declaration of trust over land does not undo an otherwise valid gift. It simply fails, and the gift stands.

Having set out the order we take the three live battlegrounds in turn: formalities, then certainty of intention, then certainty of subject matter.

Formalities: s 53 PLA

This section covers when a trust must be evidenced in writing. It matters because the writing rules run against the grain of intuition. They do not destroy a non compliant trust outright, and they interact with gifts in a way that regularly catches confident students.

The twist is in the word unenforceable. A void declaration would be a nullity with no effect on anything around it. An unenforceable declaration is different. The trust cannot be enforced for want of writing, but the gift of the land to whoever takes it under the instrument is untouched and stands. So an oral trust of a house does not claw the house back. It fails, and the house stays where the gift put it.

Equity holds one card against a party who would abuse the writing rule.

A third rule governs dealings with interests that already exist behind a trust.

Two qualifications complete the picture. Section 53(2) preserves resulting, implied and constructive trusts from the writing requirements, so a trust that arises by operation of law needs no writing. And personal property such as shares or a brooch needs no writing for a declaration at all, because s 53(1)(b) is confined to land.

Certainty of intention

Having cleared the formalities we ask whether the settlor meant to create a trust at all. This is the certainty tested most often in the exam, and it turns on a single discipline: intention is objective.

Hold the two halves together. On one side, there are no magic words. A person who never uses the word trust can still declare one if their words and conduct, read objectively, impose a trust obligation. Paul v Constance is the anchor, where an assurance that the money was as much the claimant's as the speaker's was enough. On the other side, words that only express a hope or a wish do not bind. Precatory language of the kind in Re Williams, expressing a desire that the recipient will do something, leaves the recipient free and creates no trust. The task is to ask what the words objectively impose, an obligation or merely an aspiration.

Because intention is objective, evidence of a private and contrary state of mind is beside the point. A later protest that the settlor never really intended to give the property away is irrelevant, because the court reads the outward words and conduct rather than the inward reservation. This is the secret contrary intention device, and it is planted as a psychiatrist's letter or a private disclaimer that the settlor did not mean it. Identify that evidence, name it as irrelevant to objective intention, and move on.

Certainty of subject matter

The third requirement asks what the trust is actually over. A trust cannot operate on property that cannot be identified, or with shares that cannot be worked out, so this section tests both the thing and the portions.

The line runs between a description the court can pin down and one it cannot. "The bulk" of an estate gives the court no way to say what falls inside and what falls outside, so it fails. A "reasonable income", by contrast, looks vague but is a standard the court applies every day, so it holds. Ask whether the words give the court a workable measure or only an impression.

A distinct problem arises when someone declares a trust of a number of items out of a larger identical holding, most often shares.

Two analyses reach a similar result by different routes. Hunter v Moss treats the shares as fungible, so a trust of a stated number out of a larger identical parcel is certain without any need to segregate the particular shares. The Australian answer in White v Shortall is the mechanical solution, and you must be able to state it precisely and then justify it on the facts. Campbell J treats the trust as taken over the whole holding, with the trustee directed to hold the stated number for the beneficiary and the balance for the settlor. Do not merely name it. Explain that the trust attaches to all the shares in the parcel, identify the number held for the beneficiary and the number held back for the settlor, and then say why that reading fits the words used. One caution controls both analyses. If the shares are not all of the same class the subject matter is uncertain whichever route you take, because it is unclear which shares are meant.

The three certainties at a glance

This table is the spine of the module. Read across each row to see the test, the leading authority and what happens when the certainty is missing.

The consequence column is where marks are made or lost. Failed intention leaves the property with the transferor or lets a gift take effect, because there was never a trust to begin with. Failed subject matter means there is no trust of that property, so it results back to the settlor or falls into residue. Failed objects is developed in Module 5 but follows the same logic of the property returning or passing on. Always trace the property to its end taker rather than stopping at the word fails.

How the examiners test this

Read this as insider guidance. Certainty of intention and informal declarations run in every one of the last five years, and formalities run in four of five. They rarely stand alone. They open the big will clause audit in Module 5 and the family property dispute in Module 9, then feed maladministration into the Barnes v Addy and tracing modules, so treat this material as the doorway to the larger problems rather than a topic in itself.

The subject matter point is a fast two marks and an equally fast loss. Name the mechanical solution and justify it and you bank the marks. Assert that a parcel of shares is uncertain without running the White v Shortall analysis and you lose them. The examiner rewards the precise statement of what the mechanical solution does and the reason it fits the facts, not the label.

The s 53(1)(b) move is a trap set for the confident. The unenforceable oral declaration of trust over land does not undo the gift, so land that looks as though it should return to the estate is often validly in the hands of the person to whom it was given. Resist the instinct to claw it back.

The last recurring device is the secret contrary intention. A planted letter or private remark that the settlor never really meant to create the trust is there to be recognised and discarded, because intention is objective. Identify the evidence, state that it is irrelevant, and do not let it change the result.

Consolidation

An express trust of this kind stands or falls on four questions. Was it declared or transferred, does its subject matter trigger the s 53 writing rules, did the settlor objectively intend a trust obligation, and is the trust property and its shares certain. Keep the formality twist in view, that a failed oral trust of land leaves the gift intact, and keep the mechanical solution ready for the n of m shares problem. Characterise the disposition at the end so the certainty of objects analysis in Module 5 has something to work on. Master these and you have the opening move for most of the problems the subject will throw at you.

Take it to the practice bank

This module is drilled in the Equity and Trusts practice bank. Every problem there carries a realistic Pass answer, an H1 model answer, and an examiner's comment explaining the decisive fact and where the marks are lost.