ABSTRACT
It is contended in this article that the decision in Hunter v Moss, where a trust was found over unsegregated shares, should be understood as an equitable assignment for consideration. This follows from the original rationale of the subject matter requirement, whereby no trust would arise if the holder was free to use any part for their own purposes. The proposition is illustrated by the testamentary cases that were cited in Hunter, as well as inter vivos cases involving unseparated funds and shares. In the older case law, the rationale for finding an equitable interest for part of shares or money was that there had been a valid equitable assignment. Whilst it would be rare for a voluntary assignment to arise for unseparated property, this rationale can be used to explain Hunter v Moss as an assignment for consideration. The analysis explains why goods are treated differently due to the fact that the Sale of Goods Act 1979 provides a comprehensive set of rules for the passing of title at law and equity.
€ (Westlaw)
David Salmons, ‘Reconciling the case law under the certainty of subject matter requirement in the law of trusts’ [2026] Conveyancer and Property Lawyer (1) 41-54.
Leave a Reply