Knight v Knight established the three certainties required for the creation of a valid trust in English law. The case laid down the fundamental principle that there must be certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter, and certainty of objects for a trust to be legally enforceable.

A testamentary gift failed for uncertainty where the testator left 'the bulk of my residuary estate' to trustees. The court held that 'bulk' was too vague to constitute a valid trust.

Novus actus interveniens breaks chain of causation where negligent act is not foreseeable consequence

House of Lords established that discretionary trusts must satisfy the 'complete list' test for certainty of objects. This strict test required trustees to be able to compile a comprehensive list of all possible beneficiaries.

Morice v Bishop of Durham established the fundamental principle that charitable trusts must have purposes that are sufficiently certain and capable of being carried out by the court. The case created the foundational test for charitable trust validity and the cy-près doctrine in English law.

A mortgage term postponing redemption is valid if not oppressive or unconscionable

Tinsley v Milligan established that a party can recover property held under an illegal trust if they can prove their equitable interest without relying on the illegality. The case clarified the application of the 'reliance principle' in cases involving illegal transactions between joint participants.

Milroy v Lord established the fundamental principle that for a gift to be valid, it must be completely constituted either by transfer of legal title (whether to the donee outright or to trustees) or by declaration of trust. The case demonstrates that an imperfect gift cannot be saved by treating it as a declaration of trust unless there is clear evidence of such intention.

Strong v Bird established the rule that an imperfect gift can be perfected where the intended donee later becomes the donor's executor. This case created an important exception to the general rule that equity will not assist a volunteer to perfect an imperfect gift.

Moss orally declared himself trustee of 50 of his 950 shares in a private company for Hunter's benefit. The Court of Appeal held that a trust of intangible property (shares) does not fail for uncertainty of subject matter even when the specific shares are not segregated from the larger holding, distinguishing tangible chattels.

Court establishes objective test for contractual agreement over subjective intentions

House of Lords relaxes certainty test for discretionary trusts

House of Lords establishes 'virtual certainty' test for oblique intention in murder

Pennington v Waine established that equity can perfect an imperfect gift of shares even without formal transfer where it would be unconscionable to allow the donor to resile from the gift. The case significantly relaxed the strict requirements for share transfers by allowing equitable intervention in appropriate circumstances.

House of Lords clarifies crucial distinction between trusts and powers

Keech v Sandford established the fundamental principle that trustees cannot profit from their position of trust, even where no fraud or bad faith is involved. A trustee who renewed a lease for his own benefit after being unable to renew it for the trust was held accountable for the profits, creating a cornerstone rule of fiduciary duty.

Discretionary trusts valid if clear cases identifiable despite uncertain borderline cases.

Saunders v Vautier established that adult beneficiaries of a trust who are of sound mind and absolutely entitled can call for the trust property to be transferred to them, even if this terminates the trust earlier than the settlor intended. This fundamental principle gives beneficiaries significant control over trust assets.

House of Lords decision establishing the doctrine of secret trusts, holding that equity will enforce secret trusts to prevent fraud, even though they appear to contradict statutory formality requirements for wills.

The Court of Appeal established the test for third party liability in breach of trust cases, requiring either dishonest assistance or knowing receipt.

Court of Appeal establishes 'virtual certainty' test for criminal intention

Re Hallett's Estate established the fundamental principle in trust law that when a trustee wrongfully mixes trust money with their own funds, the beneficiary can claim the mixed fund or any traceable proceeds. This case created the important rule that a trustee cannot profit from their breach by claiming they spent the trust money first.

Threat of strike action constituting intimidation is actionable tort even without actual violence

House of Lords decision establishing the four heads of charity based on the Charitable Uses Act 1601. This foundational case created the classification system that dominated charity law for over a century.

Liquidator may disclaim onerous contracts without leave of court under statutory power.

The Court of Appeal held that a half-secret trust fails if the terms communicated to trustees differ from those specified in the will.

Common mistake voids contract only if fundamental to its very existence.

High Court held that a company in financial difficulties could create a valid trust by segregating customer deposits in a separate bank account with clear trust intention.

A police officer can be guilty of misconduct in public office by wilful omission of duty

Goldcorp Exchange sold non-allocated gold bullion to customers but became insolvent. The Privy Council held no trust arose because the gold was not appropriated to individual purchasers and the subject matter was uncertain. Without segregation or identification of specific bullion, customers were merely unsecured creditors.

This case established the test for charitable purposes under the fourth head of charity - purposes beneficial to the community. The House of Lords held that a trust to provide education for employees' children was not charitable because the beneficiaries were defined by reference to their relationship with a particular company, making the class not sufficiently public.

Foresight of consequences is evidence of intention, not intention itself.

Mere knowledge of risk does not constitute voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria)

Vague agreements lacking essential terms are unenforceable due to uncertainty.

Intent required for aiding the enemy must be proven; duress may negate mens rea

Secret trusts can be established by clear evidence of intention, communication and acceptance.

House of Lords establishes three-stage test for duty of care in negligence

Third party cannot sue on contract but representative capacity provides remedy

House of Lords clarifies test for intention in murder cases

Forbearance to sue can constitute consideration even if claim would fail