Trusts of part of an unascertained bulk of intangible property do not require segregation or specific identification to satisfy the certainty of subject matter requirement.

Concerned a will which included the statement ‘I trust to the liberality of my successors to reward any others of my old servants and tenants according to their deserts’. The successor took the deceased’s property absolutely.

Originating case for the three certainties requirement of intention, subject matter, and objects.

Concerned money left to a wife ‘to be at her disposal in any way she may think best, for the benefit of herself and her family’. The wife took the property as a gift.

Emphasizes the difference between imperative words (which suggest that a trust is intended) and precatory words (which suggest a mere moral obligation).

Concerned the validity of a discretionary trust established for employees, relatives, and dependants.

The certainty of objects requirement for discretionary trusts is whether it can be said with certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of the class.

A gift of the ‘bulk’ of the testatrix’s estate failed.

The vagueness of the wording meant that there was no certainty of subject matter.

Concerned whether the groups ‘relatives’ and ‘dependants’ satisfied the certainty of objects test for discretionary trusts.

In order to satisfy the test set out in McPhail v Doulton, the groups to benefit must be conceptually certain. ‘Conceptual certainty’ refers to whether the group can be meaningfully defined (as opposed to meaning that all the beneficiaries can be identified).

An attempt to create a trust of part of an unascertained bulk of tangible property (cases of wine) failed.

Trusts of part of an unascertained bulk of tangible property must be segregated or specifically identified to satisfy the certainty of subject matter requirement.