According to Knight v Knight, there are three certainties that express trust should fulfil, i.

certainty of intention, ii. certainty of subject matter, and iii. Certainty of object.

i. Certainty of intention
According to Charity Commission of England and Wales v Framiees (2015), the creation of
trust does not necessarily require using the word ‘trust’ in documents or communications.

In Kinloch v Secretary of State for India (1882), merely using the word ‘trust’ does not
automatically convert the document into a form of trust.

**Distinguish the context in either commercial or donative context.**

 Donative context  look for precatory words
 Commercial context  whether the trust is tended as opposed to a debt

ii. Certainty of subject matter

According to Re CA Pacific Finance Ltd (No 1) (1999): there must means in identifying or
distinguishing the subject matter of the trust.
Object test on whether a reasonable person can determine what is the subject matter in the
trust  the property must be precise.

iii. Certainty of object

Certainty of object refers to the identities of beneficiaries, however it based on the power of
the trustee. In general, trust can be divided into three categories, fixed trust, conditional trust,
and discretionary trust.

 Fixed trust: complete list test  all beneficiaries need to be identified.

o Conceptual certain and evidential certain
 Conditional trust  Conceptual certainty
 Discretionary trust  Conceptual certainty + Evidential certainty (+) Administrative
workability (+) Capriciousness

Formalities:
Inter Vivos Trust has no requirements on formalities except land related trust.
 S.5 CPO requires a deed  sign + seal + deliver
 Non-compliance of the formalities  not void
Half-secret trust 
 Must comply with S5 of Wills Ordinance  witness + in writing
 Blackwell v Blackwell (1929): half-secret trust firmly established
o Communication must be made before or contemporaneously with, the
execution of the will.
Full-secret trust 
 Must comply with S5 of Wills Ordinance  witness + in writing
 Three requirements:
o Intention to subject the legatee to an obligation
 McCormick v Grogan (1869): No secret trust when there is no
intention to be found.
o Obligation must be communicated to the legatee before the testator’s death
 
Re Boyes (1884): Legatee accepts a particular trust which thereupon
becomes binding upon him, and which it would be a fraud on him not
to carry into effect.
o Acceptance of the obligation by the legatee
 Moss v Cooper (1861): acceptance can take the form of acquiescence
either by words of consent or by silence.
o Whether a secret trust would be defeat or not is still under debate
 Re Maddock (1902): Renunciation would defeat the secret trust
 Blackwell v Blackwell (1929): Lord Buckmaster  the court would not
allow the secret trust to be defeated.

Constitution: A trust can be effective only once property has been validly transferred to the
trustees.
 Once its transferred, it cannot be revoked
 Absent of consideration is irrelevant after transfer

Gift:
 Re Rose (1952)  Equity sees the constitution of the property when settlor has done
everything in his power to effect the transfer by that date.
 Pennington v Waine (2002)  whether the settlor had done enough to effect the
transfer such that any attempt to deny the validity of the transfer by settlor would be
considered to be unconscionable.
o Whether it is unconscionable to revoke the gift.

Purposive trust:
1. Beneficiary principle  the beneficiary must be a person/ legal person
a. Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805)  exception to beneficiary principle is
charitable purposive trust.
2. The perpetuity rule  the property must be vested in individuals within a recognized
period of time otherwise any interest in that property might be voided.

 Commissioners for Special Purpose of Income Tax v Pemsel (1981)

o Four heads of the charitable purposive trust:
 For relief of proverty
 Advancement of education
 Advancement of religion
 Other purpose that are beneficial to the community
o Public benefit test:
 Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd (1951)
 Two requirements on the public benefit: beneficiaries must not
be numerically negligible; person nexus test
 Public test
 Benefit test
 Exclusively Charitable trust
o Incidental purpose  Non-charitable purpose is incidental or subsidiary to the
main charitable purpose
o Severance

 Cy-Pres
o Allow funds to applied for charitable purpose to be repurpose.