Introduction

In trust law, one of the most critical issues is the certainty of intention. The concept of certainty of intention governs whether a donor’s gesture of transferring property will give rise to a valid trust. Although a complete transfer is required for an absolute gift, there are exceptions situations in which an incomplete or imperfect transfer may be “perfected” by equity if the donor’s intention is clear and continuing. This blog post examines the continuation of certainty of intention, focusing on the surrounding circumstances and the key principles that guide the courts in determining whether a trust has been created.

Understanding these concepts requires a deep dive into historical cases, principles, and subtle distinctions. We will explore landmark decisions such as Strong v Bird (1874), the doctrine of donatio mortis causa, property estoppel, and the difference between imposing moral obligations versus creating formal fiduciary duties. Additionally, we will discuss how the courts interpret the donor’s intention in various contexts including inter vivos gifts and testamentary dispositions and the dangers of using trusts as sham devices to circumvent creditors.

1. The Foundation of Certainty of Intention in Trust Law

At its heart, a valid trust requires the donor to show a clear and unequivocal intention to create a trust. This intention must be certain and continuous. If the donor fails to manifest a present, unbroken intention to transfer property for the benefit of another, no trust will arise. The courts examine not only the words of the donor but also all surrounding circumstances to infer whether a trust was intended.

In many cases, a donor may express an intention to give a gift during his lifetime (an inter vivos gift), but if the formalities are not entirely complied with, the gift remains imperfect. Equity, however, may intervene to perfect such an imperfect transfer if the surrounding facts clearly demonstrate that the donor never intended to reserve his rights. The principle “equity will not perfect an imperfect gift” is a long‑standing maxim but it has important exceptions.

2. Perfecting an Imperfect Trust: Exceptions to the Maxim

While the general rule is that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift, courts have developed several exceptions to ensure that the donor’s true intention is not frustrated by technicalities. Equity may step in when:

The donor has done everything within his power to effect the transfer, yet a minor technical defect remains.
The donor’s intention persists until his death, even if the transfer is incomplete during his lifetime.
The recipient (donee) is appointed as the executor or administrator of the donor’s estate, which can perfect an otherwise imperfect inter vivos gift.

These exceptions prevent the donor from inadvertently “retracting” a gift simply because not all legal formalities were completed. Two principal exceptions in trust law are the rule in Strong v Bird and the doctrine of donatio mortis causa.

3. The Rule in Strong v Bird (1874)

One of the landmark cases that illustrate the exception is Strong v Bird (1874). In this case, a stepmother lent her stepson money with the understanding that the debt would be repaid by reducing her rent. The arrangement was that a portion of the rent would offset the debt until it was fully discharged. However, after making the deductions for two quarters, the stepmother resumed paying the full rent. When she died, she appointed her stepson as her executor. This appointment meant that it would be absurd for the stepson (acting as executor) to sue himself to recover the debt.

The court held that the appointment of the donee as executor perfected the imperfect gift. In other words, even though the legal formalities were not fully completed during her lifetime, the donor’s (stepmother’s) intention to forgive the debt was clear and continued until her death. The donee’s role as executor then transformed the incomplete gift into a perfected transfer in equity.

Key Conditions for the Exception:

The donor must have a present, inter vivos intention to make a gift.
This intention must remain unbroken until the donor’s death.
The donee is subsequently appointed as the executor or administrator of the donor’s estate.
The subject matter of the intended gift must remain identifiable and relevant at the time of death.

Citation: OXFORDREFERENCE.COM (citeturn0search15)

4. Donatio Mortis Causa: Gifts Made in Contemplation of Death

Another important exception to the rule is donatio mortis causa (DMC). This doctrine applies to gifts made by a donor in contemplation of imminent death. In a DMC, the donor transfers property with the understanding that the gift becomes absolute upon his death. During his lifetime, the gift is provisional, and if the donor survives, he retains control.

For example, if a person, convinced that death is near, hands over a bankbook or a piece of jewelry to a friend, stating that it is theirs upon death, then the gift is a donatio mortis causa. The legal effect is that if the donor dies, the donee is entitled to retain the property; if the donor recovers, the gift may fail. Importantly, the transfer must be accompanied by some form of delivery or act that indicates a clear relinquishment of control over the property. The doctrine is distinct from an absolute inter vivos gift, as the gift’s perfection is contingent on the donor’s death.

Citation: OXFORDREFERENCE.COM, and additional explanation from Corax Foundation (citeturn0search4).

5. Property Estoppel and the Volunteer’s Role

Another exception arises from the concept of property estoppel. This principle protects a volunteer who, based on the actions or assurances of the property owner, incurs expenses or makes improvements. In such cases, even if the legal formalities of a trust are not fully complied with, equity may perfect the gift to prevent unconscionable results.

For instance, if a landowner allows someone to invest money into improving their property under the assumption that they will eventually receive an interest in the property, the court may enforce that interest even though the formal transfer was incomplete. The principle of property estoppel thus ensures that a volunteer who acts in reliance on the property owner’s promise is not unjustly deprived of an equitable interest.

Citation: OXFORDREFERENCE.COM and legal commentary on equitable estoppel (see relevant case law summaries).

6. The Donor’s Intention: Certainty and Continuity

A central tenet of trust law is that the donor’s intention must be both certain and continuous. The donor must manifest a present and unwavering intention to create a trust or gift. If the donor’s intention is ambiguous or changes over time, the court will not perfect the gift.

For example, if a donor declares that he will transfer a property to someone in the future, such a statement will not be sufficient to create a trust because the intention is not present at the time of the declaration. The donor must act with immediate intent this means that the gift must be unconditional at the time of the transfer (or at least in contemplation of death in the case of DMC).

The case of Jones v Lock (1865) serves as a classic example. In that case, a father, in a fit of pique, wrote a cheque for himself and then thrust it into his infant son’s hand while exclaiming that it was meant for the baby. The court had to determine whether the cheque represented an actual gift that created a trust for the baby. Ultimately, the court held that although the cheque was a perfect gift in form, it was not endorsed in the baby’s name, so there was insufficient evidence of the intention to create a trust. Rather, it was seen as a mere attempt by the father to pacify his wife.

This case and its supporting authority, Richards v Delbridge (1874) demonstrates that the surrounding circumstances are crucial. The donor’s intention is measured not only by his words but also by his conduct and the context in which those words were spoken.

Citation: Refer to Jones v Lock (1865) 1 CH App p 665 and Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 p11.

7. Moral Obligations Versus Formal Fiduciary Duties

Trusts are not only about legal transfers of property; they also involve an element of moral obligation. It is important to distinguish between a moral obligation and a formal fiduciary duty. A moral obligation is created by precatory words or requests that do not impose a legal duty. For instance, when a person asks someone to “take good care” of his car and promises that they will be held responsible for any damage, this does not create a trustee relationship. It simply imposes a moral obligation on the recipient.

Similarly, if a parent gives a child money to buy a book and says, “please don’t spend it all on sweets,” the parent is not creating a trust. The child is not a trustee but merely under a moral obligation to use the money wisely.

The courts generally treat such precatory words as non-binding on a legal level. A trust requires the donor to impose a formal fiduciary obligation such that the recipient holds the property in a manner that is legally enforceable. When a donor’s language is ambiguous or merely expresses a wish, the court will interpret it as creating only a moral obligation.

A clear example is found in Re Adams v Kensington Vestry (1884), where the testator left property to his wife “in full confidence that she will do what is right by his children.” Although the children argued that a trust was created, the court held that the words imposed only a moral obligation on the wife, who was free to use the property as she saw fit.

By contrast, in Comiskey v Hanbury (1905) AC p84, the language in the will created an executory gift with a clear fiduciary element because the donor intended that the property should be divided among his nieces. The difference lay in whether the words used by the donor were capable of creating a binding trust or merely expressed a wish.

Citation: S.S. KABBA, DECEMBER 2022 (as referenced in the lecture note).

8. Interpreting Wills: Certainty of Intention

The courts have developed a nuanced approach to interpreting testamentary documents to ascertain the true intention of the testator. Historically, the administration of estates shifted from ecclesiastical courts to the Court of Chancery in 1858, leading to a change in judicial policy. Courts began to assume that every valid testamentary gift was intended to create a trust unless the words clearly indicated otherwise.

In Adams v Kensington Vestry (1884), the court interpreted the testator’s words as imposing only a moral obligation, not a legal trust, on the wife. This interpretation was based on the overall context of the will and the surrounding circumstances. Later, in Re Hamilton, Lord Justice Lindley stressed that the court must take a holistic approach to the will. The court should not simply assume that no trust was intended; instead, it should analyze the language and context to determine whether a trust was meant to arise.

Thus, certainty of intention in wills is identified by examining both the literal wording and the surrounding circumstances. The courts aim to give effect to the testator’s genuine wishes while avoiding the creation of unintended legal obligations.

Citation: the case of Re Hamilton.

9. Trusts as a Sham Device: Avoiding Creditors

A further issue in trust law is the potential misuse of trusts as a means to shield assets from creditors. Sometimes, an owner may attempt to disguise the true ownership of property by transferring it into a trust on paper, only to continue to enjoy its benefits. Such transactions are considered “sham” trusts if they are designed solely to avoid legal obligations.

An illustrative case is Midland Bank v Wyatt (1995) 1 FLR p696, where Mr. Wyatt attempted to protect his family home by settling it on trust for the benefit of his wife and daughter. When his business subsequently failed and he became insolvent, the bank challenged the validity of the trust arrangement. The court examined whether the transfer was genuine or merely a sham devised to put the property beyond the reach of creditors. When a trust is used as a sham device, the courts will disregard the purported transfer and treat the property as still belonging to the original owner.

The key element here is the donor’s genuine intention. If the donor’s actions suggest that the transfer was only a façade to avoid creditors, equity will not perfect the trust. Instead, the courts will “pierce the veil” of the trust arrangement and hold the donor liable for his obligations.

Citation: Midland Bank v Wyatt (1995).

10. Conclusion

The continuation of certainty of intention remains a central concept in trust law. A valid trust depends not only on the proper transfer of property but also on the clear and continuous intention of the donor. While the maxim “equity will not perfect an imperfect gift” sets strict requirements, numerous exceptions such as the rule in Strong v Bird and the doctrine of donatio mortis causa ensure that a donor’s genuine wishes are honored even when technical defects exist.

Surrounding circumstances, including the donor’s conduct, the context of the transfer, and the language used, play a crucial role in determining whether a trust is created. Courts scrutinize these details to decide if an imperfect gift can be perfected by equity or if only a moral obligation is imposed. Furthermore, the misuse of trusts as a sham device is closely guarded against, ensuring that trusts remain instruments for genuine and equitable transactions.

In modern legal practice, understanding these principles is essential for both students and practitioners. A clear grasp of how certainty of intention is determined from inter vivos gifts to testamentary dispositions ensures that the true wishes of donors and testators are respected. Equitable principles continue to influence case law, reminding us that justice is not solely a matter of strict legal formalities but also of fairness, conscience, and the context of human relationships.

Sources

OXFORDREFERENCE.COM – for historical and case law details on common law, equity, and Strong v Bird.
DigestibleNotes.com – for discussions on the constitution and formalities of trusts.
Corax Foundation – for explanations on donatio mortis causa.
S.S. KABBA, DECEMBER 2022 – referenced in the lecture note for various points on certainty of intention and moral obligations.
Additional academic and legal texts, including Snell’s Equity & Trusts and Equity & the Law of Trust – Philip & Pettit.

Multiple-Choice Objective Questions

What does the term “certainty of intention” primarily refer to in trust law?
A. The donor’s legal capacity
B. The clear and unwavering intention of the donor to create a trust
C. The beneficiary’s acceptance of the gift
D. The formality of the transfer process
Which case established that an imperfect gift can be perfected when the donee is appointed as executor?
A. Jones v Lock
B. Midland Bank v Wyatt
C. Strong v Bird (1874)
D. Re Adams v Kensington Vestry
Donatio mortis causa is best described as:
A. A gift made during a donor’s lifetime with absolute effect
B. A gift made in contemplation of death that becomes effective upon the donor’s death
C. A gift that requires registration under property law
D. A moral obligation imposed on a beneficiary
What is property estoppel primarily used for in the context of imperfect gifts?
A. To perfect a gift by requiring monetary compensation
B. To enforce the donor’s intention when the recipient incurs expenses based on the promise of a gift
C. To transfer legal title without formal delivery
D. To invalidate a trust that lacks certainty
In Jones v Lock, what was the primary issue concerning the cheque given by the father?
A. The cheque was not written in the child’s name, so no trust was created
B. The cheque was void due to lack of signature
C. The cheque was considered a loan rather than a gift
D. The cheque was lost before it could be cashed
Which statement best differentiates a moral obligation from a formal fiduciary obligation?
A. A moral obligation is enforceable in court, whereas a fiduciary obligation is not
B. A moral obligation creates a binding legal trust
C. A moral obligation results from precatory words and does not impose enforceable duties
D. A moral obligation always involves financial compensation
In Re Adams v Kensington Vestry, what did the court hold regarding the testator’s statement?
A. It created a binding trust on the wife
B. It imposed only a moral obligation on the wife
C. It required the wife to partition the property among the children
D. It invalidated the entire will
Which of the following best explains why equity may perfect an imperfect gift?
A. To ensure all legal formalities are always met
B. To honor the donor’s true, continuous intention despite technical defects
C. To provide monetary damages in lieu of a gift
D. To transfer property without any intention
What is the effect of a donee’s appointment as executor in the context of an imperfect gift?
A. It nullifies the gift
B. It perfects the gift by vesting legal title in the donee
C. It delays the effect of the gift until probate
D. It converts the gift into a loan
Which principle requires that a donor must have done everything in his power to transfer the property for a trust to be perfected?
A. Donatio mortis causa
B. Property estoppel
C. Certainty of intention
D. The “every effort” rule
In determining certainty of intention, what does the court examine?
A. Only the written words of the donor
B. The donor’s age and capacity
C. Both the donor’s words and all surrounding circumstances
D. The beneficiary’s financial status
Which case demonstrates that a mere precatory statement does not create a binding trust?
A. Comiskey v Hanbury
B. Re Adams v Kensington Vestry
C. Strong v Bird
D. Jones v Lock
The concept of “trust used as a sham device” is primarily aimed at preventing:
A. Unfair monetary damages
B. The misuse of trusts to shield assets from creditors
C. The formation of donatio mortis causa
D. Beneficiaries from receiving gifts
What is the significance of the surrounding circumstances in determining the donor’s intention?
A. They are irrelevant if the donor’s words are clear
B. They help the court infer the true intention when the donor’s words are ambiguous
C. They only matter in cases involving inter vivos gifts
D. They solely determine the moral obligation imposed on the beneficiary
Which recommended text is mentioned for studying equity and trusts in the lecture note?
A. Blackstone’s Commentaries
B. Snell’s Equity & Trusts
C. Chitty on Contracts
D. Halsbury’s Laws

Correct Answers for Objective Questions

Long Essay Questions

Historical and Legal Foundations:
Discuss the historical evolution of the concept of certainty of intention in trust law. In your answer, describe how events such as the Norman Conquest and the reforms of Henry II influenced the development of common law and equity, and explain how these historical foundations underpin the modern requirement for certainty of intention in creating trusts.
Analysis of Imperfect Gifts:
Analyze the maxim “equity will not perfect an imperfect gift.” Discuss the exceptions to this rule, particularly focusing on the rule in Strong v Bird and the doctrine of donatio mortis causa. Explain how these exceptions serve to honor the donor’s continuous intention and why they are necessary.
Jones v Lock and Surrounding Circumstances:
Explain the significance of the surrounding circumstances in determining the certainty of intention, using the case of Jones v Lock as a focal point. Discuss how the facts in that case helped the court decide whether a trust was intended, and analyze the implications for modern trust law.
Moral vs. Legal Obligations in Trusts:
Compare and contrast moral obligations with formal fiduciary duties in the context of trust law. Provide examples from case law (e.g., Re Adams v Kensington Vestry and Comiskey v Hanbury) to illustrate when a donor’s words create only a moral obligation versus when they impose a legally binding trust.
Interpretation of Wills:
Critically assess how courts determine the certainty of intention when interpreting testamentary documents. Discuss the evolution of judicial policy in interpreting wills from ecclesiastical courts to the Court of Chancery and the importance of considering the overall context rather than relying solely on the literal wording.
Equity and the ‘Every Effort’ Rule:
Evaluate the principle that if a donor has done everything in his power to effect a transfer, equity will perfect an otherwise imperfect gift. Use examples from case law to explain the circumstances under which this exception applies and discuss its significance in modern legal practice.
Property Estoppel and Volunteer’s Rights:
Discuss the role of property estoppel as an exception to the rule that equity will not assist a volunteer. Explain how a volunteer who incurs expenditure based on a promise may still obtain an equitable interest and the legal rationale behind this exception.
Trusts as a Sham Device:
Examine the issue of using trusts as a sham device to shield assets from creditors. Analyze the court’s approach in cases like Midland Bank v Wyatt and discuss the importance of genuine donor intention in distinguishing legitimate trust transfers from fraudulent arrangements.
Continuing Intention in Inter Vivos vs. Testamentary Gifts:
Explore the differences between inter vivos gifts and testamentary gifts in relation to certainty of intention. How do courts ensure that a donor’s intention is both present and unbroken in each context, and what challenges arise when interpreting future or conditional intentions?
Impact of Equitable Principles on Modern Trust Law:
Discuss how the core equitable principles, particularly the emphasis on fairness and acting in personam, continue to influence modern trust law. Analyze the interplay between common law and equity in resolving disputes and the importance of these principles in achieving just outcomes.

Sample Answer for Essay Question 1: Historical and Legal Foundations

Essay Question 1:
Discuss the historical evolution of the concept of certainty of intention in trust law. In your answer, describe how events such as the Norman Conquest and the reforms of Henry II influenced the development of common law and equity, and explain how these historical foundations underpin the modern requirement for certainty of intention in creating trusts.

Sample Answer

The concept of certainty of intention is central to trust law and its evolution can be traced back to the early development of English law. The historical evolution of this concept is deeply intertwined with major events such as the Norman Conquest of 1066 and the subsequent reforms instituted by Henry II. These events laid the groundwork for the creation of a unified legal system common law which later coexisted with equity to ensure fairness.

The Norman Conquest was a turning point in English history. In 1066, William I, known as William the Conqueror, invaded England and imposed a new legal order on the conquered territories. Prior to the conquest, England was a patchwork of local customs and disparate legal practices. The Normans introduced a centralized legal system that became the foundation of what we now know as common law. This system was characterized by consistency, uniformity, and an emphasis on written precedents. However, the rigidity of common law often led to harsh outcomes because it focused more on form than on the underlying substance of disputes.

Henry II’s reign further solidified the common law system. Recognizing the need for a more systematic approach to justice, Henry II established the King’s Bench a royal court that handled disputes on behalf of the crown. The King’s Bench was instrumental in the development of judicial precedent, as its decisions created binding rules that were applied uniformly throughout the kingdom. This era also witnessed the emergence of a framework where rights and obligations were clearly defined by common law. Yet, the same rigidity that gave common law its strength also meant that it often failed to address individual circumstances adequately.

It was this failure that gave rise to equity. As litigants began to experience unjust outcomes under the strict rules of common law, they sought relief by petitioning the king. Equity emerged as a system of justice that was flexible, focusing on fairness and substance rather than on mere form. The Court of Chancery, which administered equity, was tasked with ensuring that the spirit of justice prevailed even when the strict legal rules led to harsh results. Equity allowed judges to consider the surrounding circumstances of a case, thereby giving effect to the donor’s true intention even if the legal formalities were not perfectly met.

The modern requirement for certainty of intention in creating trusts is a direct descendant of these historical developments. In today’s trust law, a valid trust depends on the clear, unequivocal intention of the donor to create a trust. Courts examine both the donor’s words and the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the necessary intention is present. This principle ensures that a donor’s genuine wishes are not frustrated by technical defects in the formalities of transfer. If the intention is ambiguous or only momentarily expressed, no trust will arise. Thus, certainty of intention serves as the cornerstone of trust formation.

Moreover, the historical evolution from rigid common law to flexible equity demonstrates how legal systems adapt to meet the needs of fairness. The early common law system, with its strict adherence to form, often produced outcomes that were not just. Equity emerged to remedy these injustices by focusing on the true substance of each case. Today, when courts interpret the words of a donor in a trust or will, they continue to draw upon this legacy. They look beyond the mere form and consider whether the donor’s actions and surrounding circumstances indicate an unbroken, genuine intention to benefit a beneficiary.

In summary, the historical foundations of English law shaped by the Norman Conquest and Henry II’s reforms are crucial to understanding the modern requirement for certainty of intention in trust law. The evolution of common law and equity illustrates the importance of balancing legal formality with fairness. By ensuring that a donor’s intention is clear and continuous, modern trust law upholds the principle that justice must prevail even in the face of technical imperfections. This historical perspective not only enriches our understanding of trust law but also reinforces the need for certainty in every transaction that gives rise to a trust.

Explanation of the Sample Answer (Step-by-Step)

Introduction with Historical Context:
- I began by introducing the central theme: certainty of intention in trust law.
- I set the stage by linking the concept to historical events such as the Norman Conquest and Henry II’s reforms, emphasizing that these events laid the foundation for the common law system.
Explaining the Norman Conquest:
- I explained how the Norman Conquest in 1066 brought a unified legal system to England, replacing the previous disparate local customs.
- I noted that this created a system known as common law, which was uniform but often rigid.
Henry II’s Reforms:
- I described how Henry II established the King’s Bench, which played a key role in the development of judicial precedent and a systematic legal framework.
- I emphasized that these reforms provided clear rules and defined rights and obligations but were sometimes inflexible.
Emergence of Equity:
- I explained the shortcomings of common law—its focus on form and the resulting harsh outcomes and how this led to the development of equity.
- I discussed the role of the Court of Chancery in administering equitable relief and ensuring that fairness prevailed over rigid formalities.
Link to Modern Trust Law:
- I connected the historical development to the modern requirement for certainty of intention.
- I highlighted that today, a valid trust depends on a clear and continuous intention by the donor, with courts examining both words and surrounding circumstances.
Conclusion and Summary:
- I wrapped up the answer by summarizing how the historical evolution from the Norman Conquest to the development of equity underpins the modern trust law requirement for certainty of intention.
- I reinforced that this balance between legal formalities and fairness continues to be vital in ensuring justice in trust transactions.
Active Tone and Clear Structure:
- Throughout the answer, I used active verbs (e.g., “introduced,” “established,” “upholds”) to maintain an active, engaging tone.
- I ensured the paragraphs flowed logically from one point to the next, making the answer clear and easy to follow.

This sample answer and explanation provide a model for how to construct a well-organized, detailed response in an exam. By following these steps, you can ensure that your answers are thorough, precise, and reflective of both historical context and modern legal principles.

Recommended Texts:
• Snell’s Equity & Trusts
• Equity & the Law of Trust – Philip & Pettit

Cart