In Conclusion The first scenario did not include certainty of objects therefore a trust cannot be created, The Second scenario did not include certainty of subject matter a trust cannot also be created ,However the last situation entailed all three elements given case law and the relevant situation it may be left up to the courts to decide . However, in McPhail v Dalton this was reconstituted by Lord Wilberforce. It is however left to the other two elements of certainty of objects and subject matter to create a trust . Camus enforces the correlation of uncertainty and tension in The Stranger when Meursault gains certainty and the tension that then flows from the book. This is just a sample. Lord Atkin said the condition subsequent here was void for uncertainty and therefore the daughter could benefit from the trust, Note that the provision that uncertainty could be resolved by reference to an external third party was included in the trust instrument; This case is not authority for a general or implied power to refer questions to any third party to resolve uncertainty of condition. This means that the ‘complete list’ test in fixed trusts is approached quite liberally. It is not however an absolute rule that a trust can never be created where precatory words are employed . At its heart is the proposition that a court should be able to identify the exact person or persons who will form the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the trust. If the requirement for trust is clearly defined for example Aunty Angela ,Uncle Mukesh then the requirement is clearly satisfied . The issue in the first scenario is; Whether all three of the certainties exists? (And nope, we don't source our examples from our editing service! Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. ⇒ A potential 4th certainty is certainty of conditions, ⇒ Sometimes there are conditions placed on the ability to benefit from a trust. Before 1830 proprietary words were construed by the courts of having the force to create a trust . ⇒ The situation that is caught by this form of uncertainty is where the meanings of the words used in the trust are unclear/vague (Re Sayer 1957), ⇒ So words will be conceptually uncertain if the exact meaning of the definition used contains any linguistic or semantic uncertainty, if in other words it is impossible to say what the words in question actually mean e.g. If not, a key part of A’s intended duty cannot be enforced; in that case, the intended. ⇒A fixed trust is a trust that requires property be held for a fixed number of beneficiaries ⇒ Where there is a fixed trust they must be able to say, with certainty, who the beneficiaries are. certainty as to the beneficiaries of the intended trust. On the one hand, this means that there must be a beneficiary in whose favour the trust can be exercised by the court. It appears that in recent decades the test laid out in McPhail v Dalton has functioned effectively, allowing the courts a measure of flexibility but still vitiating arrangements that are clearly conceptually uncertain. The question of certainty of objects may occur in the context of either a fixed or a discretionary trust. A fixed trust is where the property is identically divided, and a discretionary trust is where the trustee can divide the property as they see fit. It was held that if it was possible to say a person met the condition by any definition then the gift would not fail (if this was a trust it would have failed for uncertainty), ⇒ Re Barlow's Will Trusts [1979]: ‘friends’ could apply to the executor to buy one of the testator’s paintings at a good price. In both The Stranger and Heart of Darkness, the authors choose a, intent." In this essay, I have critically evaluated the tests for certainty of objects in the law of trusts and assessed whether developments in the last half century have had a … Within this argument, there has been a good deal of debate, as typified by the approach in Leahy v Attorney-General of NSW on the one hand and Re Denly on the other. In William Shakespeare's play, “Hamlet”, he communicates that people react to certainty and uncertainty in different ways. ⇒ The test to be applied to determine certainty of objects depends upon the nature of the trust: ⇒ A fixed trust is a trust that requires property be held for a fixed number of beneficiaries, ⇒ Where there is a fixed trust they must be able to say, with certainty, who the beneficiaries are. Lord Denning in Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No.2) [1] stated: “It is clear law that a trust (other than a charitable trust) must be for ascertainable beneficiaries.” What these hungry minds fail to realize is that “the world is not a fixed, keyboard and attempt to put a few words together, but these early musings rarely make the final cut. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. In each case the exact words must be scrutinised to work out whether the test is fulfilled. However, the next sections will show that the question of who the beneficiaries are (in other words, the certainty of objects pillar) has caused some controversy, especially with respect to discretionary trusts. OT Computers Ltd v First National Tricity Finance Ltd [2007] WTLR 165, Re Gulbenkian’s Settlement Trusts [1970] AC 508, Hardcastle, I. M. ‘Administrative unworkability – a reassessment of an abiding problem’ in Conveyancer and Property Lawyer (1990) Jan/Feb, 24-33, Hudson, A. Whereas the law on certainty of objects tells us whether or not there are beneficiaries who are ascertainable to a court, the overarching beneficiary principle states as an equitable principle that all trusts require ascertainable beneficiaries. - Jenna Kraig, student @ UCLA. Equity however look at intent rather than form of words used . This "no holds barred" approach to prediction seems to be the weakness of Berger's Uncertainty Reduction Theory.