THREE CERTAINTIES
Sanjay was a rich and eccentric bachelor who died recently. His validly executed will contained
the following dispositions:
1. My Leicester house to my sister Indira absolutely in the hope that she will allow her
daughters to live there
2. £1,000 to each of my friends who make a claim within the calendar year following my
death
3. The residue of my estate to my trustees Tanita and Tikara, on trust to distribute that at
their discretion amongst the good citizens of Leicester and, in the event that there is
any doubt as to whether a person is a good citizen of Leicester, the decision of my
brother, Rajiv, shall be final.
Advise as to the validity and effect of these dispositions.
Intoduction
For a disposition to be valid as a trust, the three certainties – certainty of intention, certainty of
subject matter and certainty of object must be present (Lord Langdale in Knight v Knight). As per
the question, this paper shall examine the validity and effect of the dispositions in Sanjay’s will.
1. Firstly, it is identified that there is an initial gift of the testator’s Leicester house to his
sister Indira ‘absolutely’, followed by a second expression – ‘in the hope that she will allow her
daughters to live there.’ The question is, does the second provision imposes a valid trust on Indira
for the benefit of her daughters?
It is advised that the court will look at all the words used, in determining whether a trust was
intended in the context of a particular gift (Lindley LJ in Re Hamilton). In Comiskey v Bowring-
Hanbury, the court held that there was a valid trust by virtue of the imperative wordings ‘I hereby
direct’. Whilst precatory words such as ‘in full confidence that she will…’ was deemed to be
insufficient to constitute certainty of intention (Re Adams and Kensington Vestry). Though
explicit use of the word ‘trust’ is not required (Gold v Hill and Tito v Waddell [No. 2]).
On the facts, it is submitted that ‘in the hope’ are precatory words which cannot demonstrate
certainty of intention on part of Sanjay to impose a legal obligation on Indira. Hence, the
Sanjay was a rich and eccentric bachelor who died recently. His validly executed will contained
the following dispositions:
1. My Leicester house to my sister Indira absolutely in the hope that she will allow her
daughters to live there
2. £1,000 to each of my friends who make a claim within the calendar year following my
death
3. The residue of my estate to my trustees Tanita and Tikara, on trust to distribute that at
their discretion amongst the good citizens of Leicester and, in the event that there is
any doubt as to whether a person is a good citizen of Leicester, the decision of my
brother, Rajiv, shall be final.
Advise as to the validity and effect of these dispositions.
Intoduction
For a disposition to be valid as a trust, the three certainties – certainty of intention, certainty of
subject matter and certainty of object must be present (Lord Langdale in Knight v Knight). As per
the question, this paper shall examine the validity and effect of the dispositions in Sanjay’s will.
1. Firstly, it is identified that there is an initial gift of the testator’s Leicester house to his
sister Indira ‘absolutely’, followed by a second expression – ‘in the hope that she will allow her
daughters to live there.’ The question is, does the second provision imposes a valid trust on Indira
for the benefit of her daughters?
It is advised that the court will look at all the words used, in determining whether a trust was
intended in the context of a particular gift (Lindley LJ in Re Hamilton). In Comiskey v Bowring-
Hanbury, the court held that there was a valid trust by virtue of the imperative wordings ‘I hereby
direct’. Whilst precatory words such as ‘in full confidence that she will…’ was deemed to be
insufficient to constitute certainty of intention (Re Adams and Kensington Vestry). Though
explicit use of the word ‘trust’ is not required (Gold v Hill and Tito v Waddell [No. 2]).
On the facts, it is submitted that ‘in the hope’ are precatory words which cannot demonstrate
certainty of intention on part of Sanjay to impose a legal obligation on Indira. Hence, the
