How Did Knight Set Out Three Requirements For A Valid Trust?

Problem Question
i. Knight v Knight set out three requirements for a valid trust. To satisfy the first requirement, certainty of intention, James must have made it clear that he intended for it to be made a trust, rather than a gift, as shown in Jones v Lock. The words used in this instance, that Kath is mentioned as a trustee and that has absolute discretion when distributing the money, can be said to afford a clear intention to create a trust.
To satisfy the second requirement, certainty of subject, it is broken into two limbs: it has to be clearly identified as being trust property and it must be clear as to how much property is to be passed on to a beneficiary.
The first limb requires that, the trust property be defined in objective
terms, as seen in Palmer v Simmonds, where it was explained that the terms utilised clearly express a certain amount of property that will be used. The second limb requires that the beneficiaries interest in trust property be able to be quantified in order of size; however, Re Golay’s WT, shows that the courts will generally take a relaxed approach to this. In this instance it would be sufficiently clear that Kath has £150,000 to distribute amongst James’s friends and as such fulfil the certainty-of-subject requirement.
To fulfil the third requirement, the object must be certain or capable of being made certain. In this instance the trust is not a fixed trust as a fixed trust would require all the beneficiaries to be listed, leaving no doubt as to who the beneficiaries are as seen in IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust. Therefore, in this case it would be a discretionary trust, which arises when a trustee has discretion on who can or cannot be a beneficiary.
In McPhail v Doulton, the individual ascertainability test was laid down, which asks “whether you can say with certainty that an individual is or is not a member of the class?”. In this instance, the words “best mates” and “famous professional associates” would not satisfy the test of certainty as it is not possible to say for certain who is and who is not a “best mate” and thus fail to fulfil the evidential and conceptual certainty requirements in Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No. 2). ii. In regards to Kath distributing the £100,000 amongst the people of England and Wensleydale, it would be able satisfy the three requirements. However, the word ‘trusting’ may be considered a precatory word as it may be held not to enforce a mandatory obligation on Kath, and therefore have the effect of invalidating certainty of intention. Still, the context of the wording will be examined by the courts.
Nonetheless, while all three requirements may be satisfied, including evidential and conceptual certainty requirements laid down in Re Baden—as it would be possible to determine whether a person was part of England or Wensleydale—the £100,000 would nevertheless be held on a resulting trust for the testator’s estate.
This is because although, it may have fulfilled the certainty requirements, it would be considered administratively unworkable, as seen in West Yorkshire, where a trust was set up for 2.5 million inhabitants. Therefore, as James gave the residue of his estate to the University of Fulford, the £250,000 that was meant to be split between his mates, and the people of England and Wensleydale would instead go to Fulford
university.

iii. A non-charitable purpose trust is considered void at law as it needs someone who can ensure performance of the trust, see Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts.
When the £100,000 was gifted, due to the college netball team ceasing to exist it could be of benefit that it was an unincorporated association. As seen, in Re Finger’s, – Lord Goff stated that If the body has ceased to exist but the purpose continues, the gift has not failed.
In this particular instance the college netball team may be able to claim they are a charity as they would fall under S3(1) Charity Act 2011 the purpose being for the advancement of an amateur sport, and as such the gift would be valid, as long as they can also fulfil the public benefit requirement, under S4 Charity Act 2011.
However, if the netball team is not an amateur team then the gift would not be valid.
Nevertheless, there is still the possibility that the trust could fall under the rule laid out in Re Recher’s Will Trusts. If there are no words which appear to impose a trust then the gift will instead take affect for the benefit of the existing members and will be treated as adding towards their funds. As such, the funds which are the subject matter of the contract that the existing members have formed between themselves, will therefore be dealt with in exactly the same way as the funds that the members have subscribed to, in doing so it is important to note that this is not an immediate
gift.
Therefore, due to the fact that the netball club has been wound up, it can be said that the money was intended only to be retained so long as the fund operated. Thus, the money can be shared equally between the present members as seen in Re Bucks, and as the netball club seemed to have fulfilled one of the four instances upon which a fund may be wound up, as seen in in Re William Denby & Sons, with all 20 members of the netball club agreeing upon it being wound up, the gift of £100,00 would therefore, be valid.