167:. If a question arose in the future as to whether a person was "residing" with him or in his company or whether he was "employed" by a person, I should have thought that in nearly every case there would be no difficulty in answering it. It is only by imagining borderline cases that it can be suggested that it is uncertain. I do not think that ought to be done. I am quite satisfied that this clause is valid and good.
39:
155:
In all these cases if there is some particular person at hand, of whom you can say that he is fairly and squarely within the class intended to be benefited, then the clause is good. You should not hold it to be bad simply because you can envisage borderline cases in which it would be difficult to say
179:
The House of Lords held for powers of appointment, objects were sufficiently certain if any given individual could be said to be in, or not in, the class. (So this was more relaxed than list certainty, which requires everyone to be said to be in the class.) Lord Upjohn reaffirmed the list certainty
120:
was still alive, give trust property to 'Nubar Sarkis
Gulbenkian and any wife and his children or remoter issue for the time being in existence whether minors or adults and any person or persons in whose house or apartments or in whose company or under whose care or control or by or with whom the
190:
It isā¦ the duty of the court by the exercise of its judicial knowledge and experience in the relevant matter, innate common sense and desire to make sense of the settlorās or partiesā expressed intentions, however obscure and ambiguous the language that may have been used, to give a reasonable
156:
whether or not a person was within the class. I have always thought that a condition should be held good so long as it can be given an intelligible and ascertainable content. It is not to be held bad for uncertainty, unless that uncertainty is such as to make the clause meaningless, see
191:
meaning to that language if it can do so without doing complete violence to it. The fact that the court has to see whether the clause is ācertainā for a particular purpose does not disentitle the court from doing otherwise than, in the first place, try to make sense of it.
162:
AC 636, 678. So far from this clause being meaningless, I think it is quite meaningful. At any rate it can be applied in practice without the slightest difficulty. The trustees have done so. They have been applying it in favour of Mr.
91:
of trusts. It held that while the 'is or is not' test was suitable for mere powers, the complete list test remained the appropriate test for discretionary trusts. It was only a year later in
147:
The Court of Appeal held that the trust should be declared valid, so long as any claimant could be said to fall within the class at hand. Lord
Denning MR said the action was a challenge to
195:
Lord Reid said, 'It is often difficult in a particular case to determine whether a temporary sojourn amounts to "residence".' But he held that it was certain enough to succeed.
158:
224:
435:
548:
217:
395:
121:
said Nubar Sarkis
Gulbenkian may from time to time be employed or residing'. It was argued this was too uncertain to be enforced.
543:
315:
409:
367:
210:
553:
97:
that the 'is or is not' test was considered appropriate for discretionary trusts by a different panel of their lordships.
423:
135:
448:
88:
116:, made a settlement in 1929 that said the trustees should āin their absolute discretionā and while his son
113:
341:
105:
43:
171:
Danckwerts LJ and Winn LJ agreed that the decision should be overturned and held the trust valid.
463:
452:
84:
381:
303:
279:
182:
93:
265:
164:
117:
17:
241:
345:
413:
399:
331:
269:
537:
355:
327:
291:
130:
253:
481:
385:
371:
38:
186:, the list certainty test was abandoned for discretionary trusts as well.
202:
109:
206:
66:
58:
50:
31:
159:Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council
188:
153:
139:where Harman J held a similar clause invalid.
218:
8:
180:test for discretionary trusts, but then in
133:declared the settlement invalid, following
437:West Yorkshire MCC v District Auditor No 3
225:
211:
203:
37:
28:
474:
112:oil businessman and co-founder of the
7:
80:Re Gulbenkianās Settlements Trusts
32:Re Gulbenkian's Settlements Trusts
25:
316:Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd
549:1968 in United Kingdom case law
1:
396:Re Badenās Deed Trusts (no 2)
410:Re Tuckās Settlement Trusts
368:Re Gulbenkianās Settlements
18:Re Gulbenkianās Settlements
570:
446:
432:
420:
406:
392:
378:
364:
352:
338:
324:
312:
300:
288:
276:
262:
250:
238:
72:Certainty, express trusts
71:
36:
359:(1881-82) LR 19 Ch D 520
544:English trusts case law
424:Re Barlowās Will Trusts
136:Re Gresham's Settlement
193:
169:
114:Iraq Petroleum Company
342:Re Harvard Securities
233:Trust certainty cases
87:case, concerning the
554:House of Lords cases
283:(1789) 2 Bro CC 585
129:At first instance,
106:Calouste Gulbenkian
44:Calouste Gulbenkian
464:English trusts law
453:English trusts law
257:(1865) 1 Ch App 25
85:English trusts law
459:
458:
382:McPhail v Doulton
307:(1854) 2 Drew 221
304:Palmer v Simmonds
295:(1849) 16 Sim 476
280:Sprange v Barnard
183:McPhail v Doulton
151:, and continued.
94:McPhail v Doulton
76:
75:
16:(Redirected from
561:
520:
517:
511:
508:
502:
499:
493:
490:
484:
479:
438:
266:Paul v Constance
227:
220:
213:
204:
165:Nubar Gulbenkian
118:Nubar Gulbenkian
41:
29:
21:
569:
568:
564:
563:
562:
560:
559:
558:
534:
533:
528:
523:
518:
514:
509:
505:
500:
496:
491:
487:
480:
476:
472:
460:
455:
442:
436:
428:
416:
402:
388:
374:
360:
348:
334:
320:
308:
296:
284:
272:
258:
246:
245:(1840) 49 ER 58
242:Knight v Knight
234:
231:
201:
177:
145:
143:Court of Appeal
127:
103:
62:UKHL 5, AC 508
46:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
567:
565:
557:
556:
551:
546:
536:
535:
532:
531:
527:
524:
522:
521:
512:
503:
494:
485:
473:
471:
468:
467:
466:
457:
456:
447:
444:
443:
433:
430:
429:
421:
418:
417:
407:
404:
403:
393:
390:
389:
379:
376:
375:
365:
362:
361:
353:
350:
349:
339:
336:
335:
325:
322:
321:
313:
310:
309:
301:
298:
297:
289:
286:
285:
277:
274:
273:
263:
260:
259:
251:
248:
247:
239:
236:
235:
232:
230:
229:
222:
215:
207:
200:
197:
176:
175:House of Lords
173:
149:Greshamās case
144:
141:
126:
123:
102:
99:
74:
73:
69:
68:
64:
63:
60:
56:
55:
54:House of Lords
52:
48:
47:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
566:
555:
552:
550:
547:
545:
542:
541:
539:
530:
529:
525:
516:
513:
507:
504:
498:
495:
489:
486:
483:
478:
475:
469:
465:
462:
461:
454:
450:
445:
440:
439:
431:
426:
425:
419:
415:
412:
411:
405:
401:
398:
397:
391:
387:
384:
383:
377:
373:
370:
369:
363:
358:
357:
356:In re Roberts
351:
347:
346:EWHC Comm 371
344:
343:
337:
333:
330:
329:
328:Hunter v Moss
323:
318:
317:
311:
306:
305:
299:
294:
293:
292:Boyce v Boyce
287:
282:
281:
275:
271:
268:
267:
261:
256:
255:
249:
244:
243:
237:
228:
223:
221:
216:
214:
209:
208:
205:
198:
196:
192:
187:
185:
184:
174:
172:
168:
166:
161:
160:
152:
150:
142:
140:
138:
137:
132:
124:
122:
119:
115:
111:
107:
100:
98:
96:
95:
90:
86:
82:
81:
70:
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
515:
506:
497:
488:
477:
434:
422:
408:
394:
380:
366:
354:
340:
326:
314:
302:
290:
278:
264:
254:Jones v Lock
252:
240:
194:
189:
181:
178:
170:
157:
154:
148:
146:
134:
128:
108:, a wealthy
104:
92:
79:
78:
77:
26:
519:Ch 126, 134
414:EWCA Civ 11
400:EWCA Civ 10
332:EWCA Civ 11
538:Categories
526:References
270:EWCA Civ 2
501:1 WLR 573
449:Certainty
427:1 WLR 278
89:certainty
199:See also
125:Judgment
110:Armenian
67:Keywords
59:Citation
319:PCC 121
510:Ch 126
492:UKHL 1
482:UKHL 5
441:RVR 24
386:UKHL 1
372:UKHL 5
131:Goff J
83:is an
470:Notes
101:Facts
51:Court
451:and
540::
226:e
219:t
212:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
