Hunter v Moss
A declaration of trust of a number of identical shares out of a larger holding is valid, even though the particular shares are not identified.
Facts
Mr Moss was the registered owner of 950 shares in a company, out of an issued share capital of 1,000 shares. He declared himself trustee of 50 of those shares for Mr Hunter, an employee, but did not identify which 50 shares were to be held on trust. When the company was sold, Mr Hunter claimed his share of the proceeds, and Mr Moss argued that the trust failed for uncertainty of subject matter.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the trust was valid. Dillon LJ said that, where the subject matter of the trust is a number of shares of the same class in a company, which are all identical, there is no need to identify which particular shares are held on trust. The case was distinguished from Re London Wine and Re Goldcorp, which concerned tangible goods, on the basis that shares of the same class are indistinguishable. The decision has been criticised, but was followed in Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe).
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
- Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84
- Re Golay's Will Trusts [1965] 1 WLR 969
- Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1995] 1 AC 74
- 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.
