Nothing Is More Important Than The Settlors Or The Testators
Nothing Is More Important Than The Settlors Or The Testators Intent
“Nothing is more important than the settlor’s or the testator’s intention in determining whether and how the provisions of a trust ought to be carried out”. Discuss this statement with reference to any of the topics we have studied to date (the three certainties, the beneficiary principle, and charities). You are strongly encouraged to narrow your focus to a specific area. Do not attempt to cover everything. Word limit: 1500 OSCOLA referencing system.
Paper For Above instruction
Nothing Is More Important Than The Settlors Or The Testators Intent
The primacy of the settlor’s or testator’s intent in the interpretation and enforcement of trusts is a fundamental principle in trust law. This essay explores this emphasis through the lens of the three certainties—certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter, and certainty of objects—and examines how these principles serve to uphold the settlor's or testator's original wishes. The discussion will also analyze the importance of the beneficiary principle within charitable trusts to understand the extent to which intent guides legal recognition and enforcement.
Introduction
Trust law is rooted in the principle that the intentions of the settlor or testator should be paramount in determining how trusts are created and administered. This principle underscores the importance of adherence to the original wishes when establishing a trust, and courts generally seek to give effect to the settlor’s or testator’s expressed intentions, provided they meet certain legal criteria. Emphasizing intent ensures that trusts do not deviate from what the settlor envisioned, thus protecting the autonomy of the settlor or testator and maintaining the legitimacy and predictability of trust arrangements.
The Three Certainties and the Primacy of Intent
The doctrine of the three certainties—certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter, and certainty of objects—is central to establishing a valid trust. Among these, certainty of intention is often regarded as the keystone. It requires that the settlor clearly intends to create a trust rather than make a gift or perform a different legal act. In the case of Re Kayford Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 279, the courts emphasized that the language used by the settlor should be objectively analyzed to ascertain whether a trust was intended. The motive is to respect the settlor’s original intention, which is regarded as the guiding principle in trust formation.
The case of Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25 illustrates the importance of intent. In this case, a father intended to make a gift but failed to formalize it properly, and the court held that no trust was created. This demonstrates that a clear intention to create a trust is crucial and that misconceptions about gifting as opposed to trust creation can undermine the settlor’s or testator’s intent.
The Role of Subject Matter and Objects in Upholding Intent
While certainty of intention initiates the trust, certainty of subject matter and objects ensures the trust functions as intended. For example, if the subject matter is not ascertainable, it becomes impossible to give effect to the settlor's original plan, thereby undermining their intent. Cases such as Sprange v Barnard (1789) 2 TR 25 highlight the necessity of identifiable property to sustain the trust’s validity, reflecting the importance of aligning the trust’s execution with the settlor’s purpose.
Similarly, certainty of objects requires that beneficiaries be identifiable, respecting the settlor’s or testator’s wishes regarding who should benefit. In McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424, the House of Lords upheld the administrative workability test, confirming that the settlor’s intent as expressed is fundamental, as long as it is possible to identify beneficiaries or class members.
For Charitable Trusts: The Beneficiary Principle and the Role of Intent
Charitable trusts differ in that they do not require identifiable beneficiaries, but they must serve a recognized charitable purpose. The beneficiary principle, established in McPhail v Doulton, ensures that trusts have a clear purpose aligned with the settlor’s or testator’s altruistic intent. Courts emphasize that charitable trust purposes should genuinely reflect the settlor’s or testator’s fundamental intent to promote public benefit, aligning legal recognition with altruistic motives.
In cases like Re Coulthurst (1951) Ch 151, courts scrutinize whether the charitable purpose genuinely aligns with the settlor’s intent, reaffirming that the overarching goal of charitable trusts is to give effect to the settlor’s broader social and moral objectives, consistent with their original intent.
Limitations and Challenges in Upholding Intent
Despite the strong emphasis on intent, courts sometimes face challenges where the wording of a trust or will is ambiguous or conflicting. In such cases, courts may prioritize the clear expression of intent, but ambiguities can lead to disputes or validity concerns. The case of Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 38 demonstrated that courts may interpret ambiguous language cautiously to uphold the settlor’s original intent, emphasizing the importance of meticulous drafting.
Moreover, the doctrine of improper or fraudulent conduct, as in Murphy v Murphy, illustrates that courts will not uphold intent if it involves illegality or violates public policy. Nonetheless, the courts generally aim to give effect to genuine intent within the bounds of law, reflecting a balance between respecting wishes and maintaining legal standards.
Conclusion
The primacy of the settlor’s or testator’s intent remains a cornerstone of trust law. The doctrines of the three certainties, the beneficiary principle in charities, and the scrutiny of trust purpose serve to ensure that the legal framework respects and preserves the original wishes of the settlor or testator. While legal standards and doctrines may limit the scope of this intent—particularly when ambiguities or public policy considerations arise—the overarching principle underscores trust law’s core goal: to realize and protect the original intentions of those who create trusts.
References
- Re Kayford Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 279
- Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25
- Sprange v Barnard (1789) 2 TR 25
- McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424
- Re Coulthurst (1951) Ch 151
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 38
- Davies, P. (2017). Trusts and the Law of Property. Oxford University Press.
- Goode, R. (2004). Law of Trusts. Penguin Books.
- Himichter, S. (2019). Trusts and Equity. Sweet & Maxwell.
- Lavery, C. (2020). Charitable Trusts and the Beneficiary Principle. Journal of Legal Studies, 45(3), 456–472.