Ong v Ping [2017] EWCA Civ 2069
Facts
Madam Lim had three children, and sought to create a trust for a property she owned for her children. She did so through expressing her intention in a letter to her solicitors and through a signed trust deed which did not state that the house was to be included within the trust Shortly thereafter, Madam Lim wished to revoke the trust, and she wrote a letter to the solicitors explaining this. In this letter, she expressly linked the trust deed to the property. The house was sold, and the claimants then sought to claim the money from the sale of the property.
Legal Issue
The issue in this case was whether there was a valid trust: the trust deed in question did not specify the house.
Held
The Court of Appeal upheld the existence of a trust of the house. The deed was read alongside correspondence showing the owner’s intention to subject that property to its terms. The absence of an express property description in the deed alone did not defeat the declaration when the transaction was assessed in context. The later signed letter seeking cancellation expressly linked the house and settlement, providing sufficient manifestation and proof for section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The letter did not need to be a fresh formal trust deed. The analysis distinguished the substantive creation of the trust from the signed evidence by which it could be enforced.
⭐ Legal Principle
A declaration of trust of land may be established from documents read in context, while section 53(1)(b) requires signed writing that manifests and proves it. A later acknowledgement, even in an attempted revocation letter, may provide the necessary evidence without itself being the original declaration.
Significance
Ong distinguishes creating an express trust of land from supplying the signed written evidence required by section 53(1)(b). Several documents and their context can establish the link between a trust and its property. A later letter attempting cancellation may paradoxically confirm the trust’s existence. This is different from a rule that a revocation letter itself creates every missing element. The court first identified an actual declaration; the writing then manifested and proved it for the statutory requirement.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was the omission from the deed not necessarily fatal?
The court read the transaction in its documentary context, including correspondence identifying the house as the intended trust property. An express declaration did not have to be contained in one self-sufficient deed. The evidence could establish both the intention to create the trust and the property to which that intention related.
How could a cancellation letter help the beneficiaries?
The later signed letter expressly connected the house with the settlement the owner wanted to cancel. That acknowledgement could manifest and prove the trust for section 53(1)(b), even though its immediate purpose was to revoke it. The evidential effect of the words was distinct from whether the attempted revocation was legally effective.
Does section 53(1)(b) require the declaration itself to be written?
It requires a trust of land to be manifested and proved by signed writing of the appropriate person, rather than necessarily declared in that writing at the moment of creation. Later written acknowledgement can therefore matter. The underlying intention, subject matter and other substantive requirements must still be established.