EQUITY AND TRUSTS

Hunger v Moss: Case Analysis

Hunger v Moss: Case Analysis

Hunter v Moss is a case of English trust laws from the Court of Appeal relating to certainty of subject matter which is necessary to form a particular trust. Moss assured Hunter to give fifty shares as a part of employment contract, in his company, but he wasn't able to provide them. Hunter raised a claim for those shares against Moss. Hunter argued that the promise or commitment of Moss had produced a trust over those fifty shares. According to Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd., the foundation of trust usually needs that the property be separated from the non-trust property for the validation of trust. At this situation, however both Dillon, Mann and Hirst LJJ in Court of Appeal and Colin Rimer in the High Court of justice declared that, this case is concerned with the intangible property rather than the property which is tangible, this rule is not applicable. This is because all the shares were almost similar or identical, their in segregation did not matter, and the trust was valid. However, it has been said that when the trust concerns the identical, intangible property, the segregation rule is not necessary.

Certainty of subject matter is among the three certainties from the English Trust Laws.

It says that there must be a particular identity of the property of trust and certainty as to whom is which a piece of the trust property to be held. In connection to advantageous trust uncertainty, the trust will come up short where the procedure for circulation is stipulated by the sethlow however can't produce effect (Boyce v Boyce). However the trust won't fall flat where the distribution method is not stipulated by the sethlow leaving the court to mediate (re napton).

If the lacking of certainty effects the beneficial interest, in the property of trust then the ensuing trust will be forced since equity abhors a vacuum, thus the property will be hung on trust for the sethlow or assuming that he passed away for his domain. If the property of trust is not identified properly, the trust will fall flat since the property never leaves the sethlow and there is no requirement for an ensuing trust. But the term estate of residue

won't come up short it implies all the remaining property of trust. It is measurable.

An issue arise when the wording utilized is not certain enough for knowing that which property is tend to held on the trust and what are the places where the property of trust is not separated by the sethlow from the bigger amount of identical property he owns. If the fund of a trust is not separated then the certainty of subject matter will not be applicable and the trust will fall flat. The basic issue is to identify the property that forms the fund of trust. It should be ensured that the property must be identified clearly, otherwise the court or judging authority won't be able to ...