Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury
Precatory words can create a trust where the will, read as a whole, shows an intention to impose a binding obligation.
Facts
A testator left his property to his wife absolutely, in full confidence that she would make such use of it as he would have made himself, and that at her death she would devise it to one or more of his nieces as she might think fit. The will went on to say that, in default of any such disposition by her, the property was to be divided equally among the surviving nieces. The question was whether the wife held the property on trust for the nieces.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that the will created a trust in favour of the nieces, subject to the wife's life interest. The Earl of Halsbury LC said that the words in full confidence were not decisive on their own, but that the will, read as a whole, and especially the gift over to the nieces in default of disposition by the wife, showed an intention to impose a binding obligation on her. The case shows that the court looks at the whole of the document, not just particular words.
Related cases on certainty of intention and subject matter
- Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394
- Boyce v Boyce (1849) 16 Sim 476
- Re Golay's Will Trusts [1965] 1 WLR 969
- Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1995] 1 AC 74
- Hunter v Moss [1994] 1 WLR 452
- Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25
- Re Kayford Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 279
- Knight v Knight (1840) 3 Beav 148
Studying equity and trusts? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
