“Secret trusts can be established by clear evidence of intention, communication and acceptance.”
Harry Ottaway left his bungalow to Eva Tanner by will, having told her she should leave it to his son and daughter-in-law after her death. Eva agreed but later left the property to someone else. Harry's son claimed the property under a secret trust.
Whether a fully secret trust had been validly created and whether it extended to property acquired after the original agreement.
Brightman J held that a valid secret trust existed over the bungalow but not over additional property acquired later, as there was insufficient evidence of intention regarding the additional property.
This case provides clear authority on fully secret trusts and demonstrates the evidentiary requirements for establishing them. It shows the limits of secret trust obligations and remains fundamental authority for understanding how secret trusts operate in practice.
You're reading the free summary of Secret Trusts — Ottaway v Norman. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Ottaway v Norman [1972] Ch 698 (Ch)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.