Knight v Knight (1840) 3 Beav 148

The dispute concerned a long-running series of family settlements and wills governing valuable estates. A testator had expressed confidence or trust that his successors would continue property in the male line in accordance with the wishes of an earlier family member. The claimant argued that this language imposed a binding trust requiring the property to be preserved for specified successors. The defendant contended that the relevant owner had received the property absolutely and that the words conveyed a wish or moral expectation rather than a legal command. Lord Langdale MR examined the instruments and earlier authorities to determine whether the language, property and intended beneficiaries were sufficiently certain to impose enforceable trust obligations.

Did the testamentary language create a binding trust, and what elements must be certain before equity will recognise and enforce an express trust?

Lord Langdale MR held that no binding trust had been created. The words expressing trust in the justice of successors were precatory in their context: they indicated confidence or a wish, not an imperative intention to impose legal duties. The judgment drew together three requirements found in the authorities. The language must show a sufficiently certain intention to create a trust, the property subject to the trust must be sufficiently certain, and the persons or purposes intended to benefit must be sufficiently certain. The instruments did not express an obligation with the clarity required, so the recipient took the property beneficially rather than as trustee for the asserted male line.

An express private trust requires certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter and certainty of objects. The court construes the words and conduct objectively in context; no technical word such as trust is essential, while expressions of hope, confidence or moral request do not create a trust unless they communicate a binding obligation.

The three certainties organise much of express-trust analysis. Paul v Constance shows that intention may be inferred from informal words and conduct, while cases such as Re London Wine and Hunter v Moss explore certainty of subject matter. McPhail v Doulton supplies the principal certainty-of-objects test for discretionary trusts. Failure does not always have the same consequence: property may remain with the settlor, return under a resulting trust or pass as an outright gift, depending on which attempted disposition fails and how the instrument is construed.