W6 Express Trusts: Three Certainties
W6 明示信托：三大确定性

Introduction  介绍

• For a valid express private trust, three certainties must be established (Knight v Knight; Hong Thai Travel Services).  
  对于有效的明示私人信托，必须确立三个确定性 (Knight v Knight; Hong Thai Travel Services)。
• These are essential for the trustee to know their duties and for the court to be able to supervise and enforce the trust.  
  这些对于受托人了解其职责以及法院能够监督和执行信托至关重要。
• The three certainties are:
  三大确定性为：

• 1. Certainty of Intention (or Words)
  1. 意图（或措辞）的确定性
• 2. Certainty of Subject Matter
  2. 标的物的确定性
• 3. Certainty of Objects (Beneficiaries)  
  3. 对象的确定性（受益人）

1. Certainty of Intention (Certainty of Words)
1. 意图确定性（措辞确定性）

• Requirement: The settlor must demonstrate a clear intention to create a legally binding trust obligation, imposing duties on the trustee, rather than just expressing a wish or moral obligation.  
  要求：财产授予人必须证明其明确意图是设立具有法律约束力的信托义务，从而对受托人施加义务，而不仅仅是表达愿望或道德义务。
• Form/Wording:  形式/措辞：

• No specific formula or use of the word "trust" is required (Paul v Constance; Richards v Delbridge). Equity looks to substance/intent, not form.  
  不需要特定的公式或使用“信托”一词 (Paul v Constance; Richards v Delbridge)。衡平法着眼于实质/意图，而不是形式。
• Intention can be inferred from conduct (Re Kayford - setting up a separate "Customers' Trust Deposit Account").
  意图可以从行为中推断出来 (Re Kayford - 设立一个单独的“客户信托存款账户”)。
• Look for imperative words imposing an obligation (e.g., "shall", "must", "will", "on trust", "direct") (McPhail v Doulton; Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury).
  寻找带有强制性义务的祈使词（例如，“应”、“必须”、“将”、“信托”、“指示”）（McPhail v Doulton; Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury）。

• Precatory Words: Words expressing hope, wish, desire, request, or confidence (e.g., "hoping that", "in full confidence that", "wishing") are generally insufficient on their own to create a trust. They suggest a moral obligation, not a legal one (Lambe v Eames; Re Adams and Kensington Vestry; Re Diggles; Re Snowden).
  劝谕性词语：表达希望、愿望、渴望、请求或信心的词语（例如，“希望”、“完全相信”、“希望”）通常不足以单独创建信托。它们暗示的是一种道德义务，而不是一种法律义务（Lambe v Eames; Re Adams and Kensington Vestry; Re Diggles; Re Snowden）。
• Construction Rule: The court construes the entirety of the document or circumstances to determine the true intention. Precatory words are not fatal if the overall context or other wording clearly indicates a trust (Re Adams; Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury). Compare Re Adams (failed trust) with Comiskey (valid trust despite "in full confidence").
  解释规则：法院解释整个文件或情况以确定真实意图。如果总体背景或其他措辞清楚地表明存在信托，则劝谕性词语并非致命的（Re Adams; Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury）。比较 Re Adams（信托失败）与 Comiskey（尽管有“完全相信”但信托有效）。
• Sham Intention: Using the word "trust" does not create a trust if the settlor lacks genuine intention (e.g., creating a document solely to deceive creditors without intending the trust to operate - Midland Bank v Wyatt). This is fundamentally a lack of true intention.
  虚假意图：如果委托人缺乏真正的意图，则使用“信托”一词并不能创建信托（例如，创建一份文件仅仅是为了欺骗债权人，而无意使信托运作 - Midland Bank v Wyatt）。这从根本上说是缺乏真正的意图。
• Distinguishing Trusts from Powers:
  区分信托与权力：

• Trust: Imperative/mandatory obligation on trustees.  
  信托：受托人必须履行的/强制性义务。
• Power: Discretionary authority given to someone (the donee) to deal with property, but no obligation to exercise it.
  权力：赋予某人（受赠人）处理财产的酌处权，但没有义务行使该权力。

• Types:  类型：

• Bare Power: Given to someone not in a fiduciary capacity (e.g., donor's wife in example). Donee has no obligation even to consider exercising.
  单纯权力：授予非受托责任人（例如，例子中的捐赠人妻子）。受赠人甚至没有考虑行使权力的义务。
• Fiduciary Power: Given to someone already in a fiduciary position (usually a trustee). Donee must periodically consider exercising the power, though court won't compel actual exercise (Re Hay’s ST).
  受托权力：授予已经处于受托地位的人（通常是受托人）。受赠人必须定期考虑行使权力，但法院不会强迫实际行使（Re Hay’s ST）。

• Distinguishing words: Look for mandatory ("shall", "must") vs. permissive ("may", "empowered to"). McPhail v Doulton held "shall apply...in their absolute discretion" created a discretionary trust (obligation to distribute, discretion how).
  区分用语：寻找强制性（“应”、“必须”）与允许性（“可以”、“授权”）用语。McPhail v Doulton 案认为，“应以其绝对酌情权适用……”创建了一个酌情信托（分配的义务，如何分配的酌情权）。
• Gift Over: Presence of a gift over in default of appointment strongly indicates a power, as it provides for what happens if the discretion isn't exercised.  
  剩余条款：如果未进行指定，则剩余条款的存在强烈表明存在权力，因为它规定了在未行使酌情权时会发生什么。

• Consequences of Lack of Certainty of Intention:
  缺乏确定意图的后果：

• Inter Vivos: No trust arises. If property is transferred, it's likely an absolute gift to the recipient. If no gift is intended, the recipient may hold on resulting trust for the transferor.
  生前信托：不产生信托。如果财产已转移，则很可能是对接受者的绝对赠与。如果没有赠与意图，则接受者可以为转让人持有推定信托。
• Testamentary (Will): No trust arises. The property usually passes as an absolute gift to the named person (Lassence v Tierney; Hancock v Watson - related rule).  
  遗嘱信托：不产生信托。该财产通常作为绝对赠与传递给指定的人（Lassence v Tierney; Hancock v Watson - 相关规则）。

• Key Principles Reminder  关键原则提醒

• 整体解释规则 (Construction Rule): 法院必须审视整个文件或交流的全部内容和背景来确定设立人的最终意图 。一个词语本身很少是决定性的。  
• 祈愿性词语可被推翻 (Precatory Words Can Be Overridden): 如果祈愿性词语之后有明确的、强制性的指示，后者可以表明设立人意图设立信托 (Comiskey) 。  
• 无需特定词语 (No Specific Wording Needed): 不需要使用“信托”一词，只要意图清晰即可 (Paul v Constance) 。  
• 行为可证明意图 (Intention from Actions): 设立人的行为，如设立特定账户或采取特定步骤，有时可以用来推断信托意图 (Re Kayford) 。  
• 假装信托 (Sham Intention): 即使表面语言看似设立信托，如果设立人的真实意图并非如此（例如为了欺诈目的），法院可能认定其无效 (Midland Bank v Wyatt) 。

2. Certainty of Subject Matter
2. 标的物的确定性

• Requirement: The trust property itself must be clearly defined or identifiable, AND the extent of the beneficial interests (the share each beneficiary gets) must also be certain (CA Pacific; Palmer v Simmonds). Must be certain from the outset.  
  要求：信托财产本身必须被清楚地定义或可识别，并且受益权益的范围（每个受益人获得的份额）也必须是确定的 (CA Pacific; Palmer v Simmonds)。从一开始就必须是确定的。
• Certainty of Trust Property:
  信托财产的确定性：

• Types: Any property capable of ownership can be subject matter (land, chattels, money, shares, choses in action, digital assets).
  类型：任何能够被拥有的财产都可以是标的物（土地、动产、金钱、股份、诉讼标的、数字资产）。
• Identification: Must be clear what property constitutes the trust fund. Vague descriptions fail (e.g., "the bulk of my estate" - Palmer v Simmonds; "remaining part of what is left" - Sprange v Barnard; "one of my cars" if multiple). Residuary estate in a will is generally certain.  
  识别：必须清楚什么财产构成信托基金。模糊的描述会失败（例如，“我的大部分遗产” - Palmer v Simmonds；“剩余部分剩下的东西” - Sprange v Barnard；“我的一辆车”，如果有多辆）。遗嘱中的剩余遗产通常是确定的。
• Property Forming Part of a Larger Bulk:
  构成较大批量一部分的财产：

• Tangible Assets (e.g., wine bottles, gold bars): General rule requires the specific items intended for the trust to be segregated or identified from the larger bulk. Failure to do so means no certainty of subject matter (Re London Wine; Re Goldcorp).
  有形资产（例如，葡萄酒瓶、金条）：一般规则要求将信托的特定物品从较大的批量中分离或识别出来。未能这样做意味着标的物不确定（伦敦葡萄酒案；金矿公司案）。

• Rationale: Each item is unique, even if seemingly identical.
  理由：即使看似相同，每个项目都是独一无二的。

• Intangible Assets (Identical items like shares of same class): Hunter v Moss held segregation is not necessary. Trust can attach to a specified number/proportion of shares even if not separated from the larger holding.
  无形资产（相同类别的相同项目，如股份）：Hunter v Moss 案认为，没有必要进行分离。信托可以附加到指定数量/比例的股份上，即使这些股份没有从较大的持有量中分离出来。

• Rationale: Shares of the same class are fungible (interchangeable), representing identical rights. CA Pacific supports this in HK. Criticised by some (Re Harvard Securities; Penner), but represents a key distinction.  
  基本原理：同一类别的股份是可互换的（可互换的），代表相同的权利。CA Pacific 在香港支持这一点。受到一些人的批评（Re Harvard Securities; Penner），但代表了一个关键的区别。

• Certainty of Beneficial Interests (Quantum):
  受益权益的确定性（数量）：

• The share or amount each beneficiary is entitled to must be clearly defined or objectively ascertainable.
  每位受益人有权获得的股份或金额必须明确界定或可客观确定。
• If the method for determining shares fails (e.g., one beneficiary must choose but dies before choosing - Boyce v Boyce), this certainty fails.
  如果确定股份的方法失败（例如，一位受益人必须选择但在选择之前死亡 - Boyce v Boyce），这种确定性就会失败。
• Vague terms fail (e.g., "whatever she does not want" - Sprange v Barnard; "remaining part of what is left that he does not want" - Re Jones).
  模糊的术语会失败（例如，“无论她不想要什么” - Sprange v Barnard；“他不需要的剩余部分” - Re Jones）。
• Objective criteria can provide certainty (e.g., "reasonable income" - Re Golay's WT).
  客观标准可以提供确定性（例如，“合理收入” - Re Golay's WT）。
• Not required for discretionary trusts, as trustees have discretion to determine shares.
  对于酌情信托，则不需要，因为受托人有权决定份额。

• Trust over Part of a Gift: If a gift is made, followed by an attempt to impose a trust on an uncertain part (e.g., "whatever is left", "what she does not want"), the trust part fails for uncertainty of subject matter, and the initial gift takes effect absolutely (Hancock v Watson).
  对部分礼物的信托：如果先赠送礼物，然后试图对不确定的部分施加信托（例如，“剩下的任何东西”，“她不想要的东西”），则由于标的物的不确定性，信托部分失败，最初的礼物完全生效 (Hancock v Watson)。
• Consequences of Lack of Certainty of Subject Matter:
  缺乏标的物确定性的后果：

• Uncertainty of property itself: No valid trust can be created.
  财产本身的不确定性：无法创建有效的信托。
• Uncertainty of beneficial interest: The trust fails. The property is held on automatic resulting trust for the settlor or their estate.  
  受益权益不确定：信托无效。该财产以自动返还信托形式为设立人或其遗产持有。

• Key Principles Reminder  关键原则提醒

• 两个要素 (Two Elements): 必须同时确定信托财产本身和受益人的份额/权益 。  
• 初始确定性 (Certainty from Outset): 标的物必须在信托设立时就是确定的或能够被确定。
• 有形 vs 无形 (Tangible vs Intangible): 对待散装中的有形资产（需分离/识别）和同质无形资产（无需分离）有不同规则 。  
• 剩余信托失败的后果 (Consequence of Failed Trust over Remainder): 如果试图在绝对赠与上附加一个关于“剩余部分”的信托，而该信托因标的物不确定而失败，则初始受赠人获得绝对所有权 (Hancock v Watson) 。  
• 决定份额机制失败 (Failure of Mechanism): 如果确定受益份额的方法（如选择权、第三方决定）失败，则信托因受益份额不确定而失败 (Boyce v Boyce) 。

3. Certainty of Objects (Beneficiaries)
3. 标的确定性（受益人）

• Requirement: A trust must have identifiable beneficiaries (or be for a valid charitable purpose). Beneficiaries must be legal persons (humans or corporations) capable of holding property and enforcing the trust. This links to the Beneficiary Principle (Morice v Bishop of Durham).  
  要求：信托必须有可识别的受益人（或为了有效的慈善目的）。受益人必须是能够持有财产并执行信托的法人（自然人或公司）。这与受益人原则（Morice v Bishop of Durham 案）相关。
• Tests for Certainty: The required level of certainty depends on the type of obligation.
  确定性测试：所需确定性水平取决于义务的类型。

• Fixed Trust: Requires "list certainty". It must be theoretically possible to compile a complete list of all beneficiaries at the time distribution is due (IRC v Broadway Cottages). This demands both conceptual and evidential certainty.
  固定信托：要求“名单确定性”。在分配到期时，理论上必须能够编制一份完整的受益人名单 (IRC v Broadway Cottages)。这要求概念和证据两方面的确定性。
• Discretionary Trust: Requires the "is or is not" test (or "given postulant" test). One must be able to say with certainty whether any given individual is or is not a member of the class described (McPhail v Doulton). It is not necessary to be able to list all members.
  酌情信托：要求“是或不是”测试（或“给定申请人”测试）。必须能够确定地说出任何给定的个人是否属于所描述的类别 (McPhail v Doulton)。不必能够列出所有成员。
• Powers of Appointment (Fiduciary/Bare): Also uses the "is or is not" test (Re Gulbenkian's Settlements).
  指定权（受信/纯粹）：也使用“是或不是”测试 (Re Gulbenkian's Settlements)。

•  Types of Uncertainty: (McPhail v Doulton)
  不确定性的类型：(McPhail v Doulton)

• Conceptual Uncertainty (Semantic/Linguistic): The words used to define the class are inherently vague or subjective, lacking objective criteria (e.g., "my old friends"). This is fatal to all trusts and powers. Can sometimes be cured if the settler provides an objective mechanism for resolution (e.g., decision by a Chief Rabbi - Re Tuck's ST).  
  概念上的不确定性（语义/语言方面）：用于定义类别的词语本身含糊不清或主观，缺乏客观标准（例如，“我的老朋友”）。这对所有信托和权力都是致命的。如果委托人提供客观的解决机制，有时可以补救（例如，由首席拉比做决定 - Re Tuck's ST）。
• Evidential Uncertainty: Difficulty in practice proving whether a person falls within a conceptually certain class (e.g., proving descent from a common ancestor). This does not invalidate discretionary trusts or powers (trustees apply to court for directions), but is fatal to fixed trusts (as a complete list cannot be drawn).  
  证据上的不确定性：在实践中难以证明某人是否属于概念上确定的类别（例如，证明是同一祖先的后裔）。这不会使酌情信托或权力失效（受托人向法院申请指示），但对于固定信托是致命的（因为无法列出完整的清单）。
• Administrative Unworkability: The class description is clear, but the size of the class is so vast and unmanageable that the trust cannot be realistically executed (e.g., "all the residents of Greater London") (R v District Auditor, ex p West Yorkshire). Renders trusts (especially discretionary) void, but does not affect mere powers (Re Hay's ST).  
  行政上的不可行性：类别描述很明确，但类别规模过于庞大且难以管理，以至于信托无法实际执行（例如，“大伦敦的所有居民”）（R v District Auditor, ex p West Yorkshire）。这会使信托（尤其是酌情信托）无效，但不影响单纯的权力（Re Hay's ST）。
• Capriciousness: The settlor's intention or criteria for selection appears irrational, nonsensical, or lacking any sensible basis (Re Manisty's Settlement). Can potentially invalidate powers and possibly trusts.  
  反复无常：委托人的意图或选择标准显得不合理、荒谬或缺乏任何明智的基础（Re Manisty's Settlement）。可能会使权力甚至信托无效。

• Consequences of Lack of Certainty of Objects:
  缺乏确定标的后果：

• The purported express trust fails.
  据称的明示信托失败。
• The property is held by the intended trustee on an automatic resulting trust for the settlor (if inter vivos) or the testator's estate (if testamentary).  
  该财产由拟定的受托人以自动归复信托的方式为设立人（如果是生前信托）或遗嘱人的遗产（如果是遗嘱信托）持有。

• Key Principles Reminder  关键原则提醒

• 基本要求 (Basic Requirement): 信托必须有确定的受益人（或为了有效的慈善目的）。受益人必须是能够持有财产并强制执行信托的法律主体（自然人或法人）。这与受益人原则（Beneficiary Principle - Morice v Bishop of Durham）紧密相关。  
• 测试标准因义务而异 (Test Varies with Obligation):
  测试标准因义务而异（Test Varies with Obligation）：

• 固定信托 (Fixed Trust): 要求“列表确定性”（List Certainty）。必须在理论上能够列出所有受益人的完整名单及其各自的份额 (IRC v Broadway Cottages)。  
• 酌情信托 (Discretionary Trust): 要求“是否是”测试（Is or Is Not Test / Any Given Postulant Test）。必须能够肯定地说出任何一个给定的人“是或不是”受益人类别的成员 (McPhail v Doulton)。  
• 权力 (Powers - 包括信托权力 Fiduciary Power): 也要求“是否是”测试 (Re Gulbenkian's Settlements)。  

• 不确定性的种类与后果 (Types of Uncertainty & Consequences):
  不确定性的种类与后果（Types of Uncertainty & Consequences）：

• 概念/语言不确定性 (Conceptual / Linguistic / Semantic Uncertainty): 用于描述受益人类别的词语本身含糊不清或主观（如“老朋友”、“值得帮助的人”）。这对所有类型的信托和权力通常都是致命的，会导致无效。  
• 证据不确定性 (Evidential Uncertainty): 类别定义清晰，但在实践中难以证明某人是否符合该定义，或者难以找到所有符合条件的人。这通常不会导致信托或权力无效。法院可以处理证据上的困难。  
• 行政不可行性 (Administrative Unworkability): 受益人类别定义清晰，但范围极其庞大，以至于无法形成一个可管理的“类别”（如“大伦敦所有居民”）。这通常仅使信托（尤其是酌情信托）无效，但不影响权力的有效性 (McPhail v Doulton; R v District Auditor; Re Hay's ST)。  

• 反复无常 (Capriciousness): 即使一个权力在概念上是确定的，如果其设立的目的或受益人范围显得极其不合理、异想天开或毫无意义，法院也可能宣布其无效 (Re Manisty's Settlement)。  
• 第三方解决机制 (Third-Party Resolution): 在某些情况下，如果设立人指定了一个可靠的第三方（如首席拉比）来解决关于受益人资格的疑问，这可能可以补救概念上的不确定性 (Re Tuck's ST)。  
• 失败的后果 (Consequence of Failure): 如果因受益人不确定而导致信托无效，财产将由原定的受托人以自动回复信托（Automatic Resulting Trust）的方式为委托人（生前信托）或遗嘱设立人的遗产（遗嘱信托）持有。  

Practice Questions  练习题

Q1 Certainty of Intention (Certainty of Words) 
问答 1 意向的确定性（措辞的确定性）

Richard, an experienced businessman, recently passed away. His complex will was drafted by himself without legal assistance. It contains the following key clauses:
理查德是一位经验丰富的商人，最近去世了。他的复杂遗嘱由他本人起草，没有法律援助。其中包含以下关键条款：

(a) "I leave all my shares in FutureTech Ltd (valued at approximately HK$10 million) to my long-term business partner and good friend, Samuel. I do so in full confidence that he will remember our many years of friendship and apply his excellent business acumen in dealing with these shares, hoping that he will allocate a 'considerable portion' of the proceeds therefrom to support scholarships for needy students at our shared alma mater, City University of Hong Kong. He knows what to do."
(a) “我将我在未来科技公司（FutureTech Ltd）的所有股份（估值约为 1000 万港币）留给我的长期商业伙伴和好朋友，Samuel。我完全相信他会记得我们多年的友谊，并运用他卓越的商业头脑来处理这些股份，希望他能将由此产生的“相当一部分”收益用于资助我们共同的母校，香港城市大学的贫困学生。他知道该怎么做。”

(b) "As for my property on The Peak, I leave it to my daughter, Isabella. This property is to be held by her to provide a home for herself and her children, and I direct that it must not be sold during her lifetime. After her death, the property shall pass to my grandchildren, to be divided equally among them."
(b) “至于我在太平山的房产，我将其留给我的女儿 Isabella。这处房产应由她持有，为她和她的孩子提供住所，并且我指示在她有生之年不得出售。她去世后，该房产应传给我的孙子孙女，由他们平均分配。”

(c) "I have a further HK$5 million in cash, held in a specific HSBC account (#123456). I have informed my son, Tom, that this money is for 'rainy days' and on the understanding that he promised, after my death, he will distribute this money according to my 'well-known' instructions communicated privately. This money is now 'entrusted' to him."
(c) “我还有 500 万港币的现金，存放在一个特定的汇丰银行账户（#123456）。我已经告知我的儿子 Tom，这笔钱是为了‘以备不时之需’，并且是在他承诺在我死后会按照我私下传达的‘众所周知’的指示分配这笔钱的前提下。这笔钱现在‘委托’给他。”

Shortly before Richard's death, he had complained to several friends that Tom was unreliable and expressed fears Tom might keep the money for himself. He also placed a document labelled "Private Trust - Tom" in his safe deposit box, but its contents are unknown. Samuel is a successful investor with no personal connection to Richard's alma mater. Isabella has two young children.
在理查德去世前不久，他曾向几个朋友抱怨汤姆不可靠，并表达了汤姆可能会将这笔钱据为己有的担忧。他还将一份标有“私人信托 - 汤姆”的文件放在了他的保险箱里，但其内容未知。塞缪尔是一位成功的投资者，与理查德的母校没有任何个人联系。伊莎贝拉有两个年幼的孩子。

Please analyse the legal validity of clauses (a), (b), and (c) above, specifically with regard to the principle of Certainty of Intention.
请分析以上(a)、(b)和(c)条款的法律效力，特别是关于意图确定性原则。

Sample Answer  示例答案

Introduction  介绍

This analysis will assess the validity of clauses (a), (b), and (c) in Richard's will, focusing specifically on whether each clause demonstrates the requisite certainty of intention to create a trust. The fundamental principle, established in Knight v Knight, requires a clear and unequivocal intention by the settlor to impose a legally binding trust obligation. While specific words are not determinative (Paul v Constance), the language must be imperative (McPhail v Doulton), distinguishing a legal duty from a mere moral obligation often conveyed by precatory words (Lambe v Eames; Re Adams). The court will construe the will as a whole to ascertain the testator's true intention (Re Adams; Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury).  
本分析将评估理查德遗嘱中(a)、(b)和(c)条款的有效性，特别关注每个条款是否表明了创建信托所需的意图确定性。《奈特诉奈特》确立的基本原则要求委托人具有明确且毫不含糊的意图，以施加具有法律约束力的信托义务。虽然具体措辞并非决定性的（保罗诉康斯坦斯），但措辞必须是命令式的（麦克费尔诉道尔顿），从而区分了法律义务和通常由祈使性词语传达的单纯道德义务（兰贝诉伊姆斯；亚当斯案）。法院将整体解释遗嘱，以确定立遗嘱人的真实意图（亚当斯案；科米斯基诉鲍林-汉伯里）。

• Clause (a): Shares to Samuel for Alma Mater
  (a)条款：给予塞缪尔的股份，用于母校

• Issue: Does the bequest of FutureTech Ltd shares to Samuel create a trust for the university scholarships?
  问题：将 FutureTech 有限公司的股份遗赠给塞缪尔是否为大学奖学金设立了信托？
• Rule: As outlined above, precatory words like "in full confidence" and "hoping that" are typically insufficient alone (Re Adams). A trust requires mandatory language imposing an obligation. Issues regarding the certainty of the subject matter (e.g., what constitutes a "considerable portion") are distinct from the initial question of intention.  
  规则：如上所述，像“完全相信”和“希望”这样的祈使性措辞通常本身并不充分（Re Adams 案）。信托需要强制性语言来施加义务。关于标的物确定性的问题（例如，什么构成“相当一部分”）与最初的意图问题截然不同。
• Application: The clause uses "in full confidence that he will..." and "hoping that he will allocate...". Both phrases are classic examples of precatory language, expressing expectation and desire rather than a command. Unlike Comiskey, there are no subsequent imperative instructions regarding the shares or proceeds that override this precatory tone. The phrase "He knows what to do" is vague and does not impose a legal duty. While the request mentions allocating a "considerable portion," the lack of mandatory direction means Samuel is not legally bound to allocate any portion. The language points towards Richard trusting Samuel's discretion and moral compass, not imposing a legal trust. (Note: Even if intention were certain, the phrase "considerable portion" would likely raise issues under Certainty of Subject Matter, but that is a separate point).  
  适用：该条款使用了“完全相信他会……”和“希望他会分配……”。这两个短语都是祈使性措辞的经典例子，表达的是期望和愿望，而不是命令。与 Comiskey 案不同，没有后续关于股份或收益的命令性指示可以推翻这种祈使语气。“他知道该怎么做”这句话很含糊，并没有施加法律义务。虽然该请求提到了分配“相当一部分”，但由于缺乏强制性指示，意味着塞缪尔在法律上没有义务分配任何部分。该语言表明理查德信任塞缪尔的判断和道德准则，而不是设立一项法律信托。（注意：即使意图是确定的，短语“相当一部分”也可能会引发标的物确定性问题，但这是一个单独的问题）。
• Conclusion: There is insufficient certainty of intention to create a trust. The language is purely precatory. The shares pass to Samuel as an absolute gift, carrying only a moral, unenforceable request regarding the scholarships.
  结论：创建信托的意图确定性不足。该语言纯粹是祈使性的。股份作为绝对赠与转让给塞缪尔，仅带有关于奖学金的道德上、不可强制执行的请求。

• Clause (b): Peak Property to Isabella
  条款(b)：高峰房产给伊莎贝拉

• Issue: Does the device of the Peak property to Isabella create a trust?
  问题：将 Peak 房产遗赠给 Isabella 是否设立了信托？
• Rule: Imperative language restricting the recipient's use and ownership rights and directing future disposition indicates a trust intention. Words like "is to be held by her," "I direct," and "shall pass" are strong indicators of mandatory obligation.  
  规则：限制接受人使用和所有权权利并指导未来处分的命令性语言表明存在信托意图。诸如“由她持有”、“我指示”和“应转移”之类的词语是强制性义务的强烈指标。
• Application: This clause uses clear, imperative language. The property "is to be held by her" for a specific purpose (providing a home), coupled with an explicit prohibition ("I direct that it must not be sold"), significantly curtails the rights associated with absolute ownership. Furthermore, the mandatory direction that the property "shall pass" to specific remainder beneficiaries (grandchildren) upon Isabella's death is fundamentally inconsistent with an absolute gift to Isabella. These instructions clearly impose legal obligations and define successive interests in the property.
  适用：该条款使用了清晰、命令性的语言。“由她持有”该财产以用于特定目的（提供住所），再加上明确的禁止条款（“我指示不得出售”），极大地限制了与绝对所有权相关的权利。此外，关于该财产在 Isabella 去世后“应转移”给特定剩余受益人（孙子女）的强制性指示，与给予 Isabella 的绝对赠与从根本上是不一致的。这些指示明确施加了法律义务，并确定了该财产的后续权益。
• Conclusion: There is clear certainty of intention to create a trust. The mandatory language and specific restrictions on use and disposition establish that Isabella holds the property as a trustee (likely with a life interest for herself and her children), with the grandchildren holding the remainder interest.
  结论：存在明确的设立信托的意图确定性。强制性语言和对使用和处分的具体限制表明 Isabella 作为受托人持有该财产（可能为自己和她的孩子持有终身权益），而孙子女持有剩余权益。

• Clause (c): Cash to Tom with Private Instructions
  (c)条款：给汤姆的现金附有私人指示

• Issue: Does the disposition of the HK$5 million cash to Tom create a trust based on the private instructions?
  争议点：将 500 万港币现金转让给汤姆是否基于私人指示而设立了信托？
• Rule: Certainty of intention can be inferred not only from express words but also from conduct and surrounding circumstances (Paul v Constance; Re Kayford). The word "entrusted" strongly implies a trust relationship. External evidence can be relevant to ascertaining intention, particularly in negating an intention to make an absolute gift. However, the intention must be to create a legal obligation, distinct from the certainty of the terms of that obligation (which involves certainty of objects/subject matter). Context suggesting a lack of genuine trust intention might raise issues similar to sham trusts (Midland Bank v Wyatt), although the primary analysis focuses on the expressed intention.  
  规则：意图的确定性不仅可以从明确的措辞中推断出来，还可以从行为和周围环境中推断出来（Paul v Constance; Re Kayford）。“委托”一词强烈暗示着信托关系。外部证据可能与确定意图有关，尤其是在否定做出绝对赠与的意图时。但是，意图必须是建立一种法律义务，这与该义务条款的确定性（涉及标的/客体的确定性）不同。表明缺乏真正的信托意图的背景可能会引起类似于虚假信托的问题（Midland Bank v Wyatt），尽管主要分析侧重于明确表达的意图。
• Application: Several factors point towards an intention to create a trust, not an absolute gift:
  应用：有几个因素表明存在设立信托的意图，而不是绝对赠与：

• Language: Richard uses the word "'entrusted'," which inherently signifies placing property under someone's care for another's benefit. He also refers to an "understanding that he promised" to follow specific instructions, implying an obligation was accepted by Tom.
  措辞：理查德使用了“委托”一词，这本身就意味着将财产置于某人的照管之下，以利于他人。他还提到了“他承诺的谅解”，暗示汤姆接受了一项义务。
• Reference to Instructions: The explicit mention of "well-known' instructions communicated privately" indicates the money was not intended for Tom's free use but for a specific, directed purpose.
  提及指示：明确提及“私下沟通的‘众所周知’的指示”表明这笔钱并非用于汤姆的自由使用，而是用于特定的、有指导的目的。
• External Evidence: Richard's complaints about Tom's reliability and the creation of a document labelled "Private Trust - Tom" strongly corroborate the intention not to make an absolute gift. These actions suggest Richard felt a need to legally bind Tom rather than rely on his goodwill. While Richard's fears could hint at the genuineness of the trust's ultimate purpose (a potential Wyatt-like issue, though likely secondary), they primarily serve here to negate the possibility of an intended gift.
  外部证据：理查德对汤姆可靠性的抱怨以及创建一份标有“私人信托 - 汤姆”的文件，有力地证实了不打算进行绝对赠与的意图。这些行为表明理查德觉得有必要在法律上约束汤姆，而不是依赖他的善意。虽然理查德的担忧可能暗示了信托最终目的的真实性（一个潜在的类似怀亚特的问题，尽管可能次要），但它们在这里主要用于否定有意赠与的可能性。

• Conclusion: There is sufficient certainty of intention to create a trust (or impose a binding obligation) rather than make an absolute gift to Tom. This is evidenced by the use of "entrusted," the reference to binding instructions based on a promise, and strongly corroborated by Richard's contemporaneous actions and expressed concerns. (Whether this intended trust is ultimately valid would depend on whether the terms, including the beneficiaries defined in the private instructions, can be ascertained and satisfy the other certainties, which is beyond the scope of certainty of intention alone).
  结论：有足够的意图确定性来设立信托（或施加具有约束力的义务），而不是向汤姆作出绝对赠与。这由“委托”一词、基于承诺的对具有约束力的指示的引用以及理查德同时期的行为和明确表达的担忧有力地证实。（这个有意的信托最终是否有效将取决于条款，包括在私人指示中定义的受益人，是否可以确定并满足其他确定性，这超出了意图确定性本身的范围）。

Q2 Certainty of Subject Matter
问题 2 标的物的确定性

Old Henry, an eccentric millionaire, left a will containing the following provisions:
古怪的百万富翁老亨利留下了一份遗嘱，其中包含以下条款：

(a) "I give half of all my gold bars held in my Swiss bank account to my old butler, Alfred, on trust for him. He has served me well for many years and deserves this reward." (Henry did indeed have a number of gold bars of varying sizes in a vault in a Swiss bank, stored together without any specific markings distinguishing them.)
(a)“我将我在瑞士银行账户中持有的所有金条的一半赠与我的老管家阿尔弗雷德，委托给他。他为我服务多年，理应得到这份奖励。”（亨利确实在瑞士银行的一个金库中拥有许多大小不一的金条，这些金条存放在一起，没有任何特定的标记来区分它们。）

(b) "I leave all my remaining personal chattels, including my 'valuable' stamp collection and whatever I deem 'appropriate' furniture, to my nephew, Fred. Upon receiving these chattels, Fred must hold 'any surplus remaining after providing him with a comfortable living' on trust for my distant cousins."
(b) "我将我所有剩余的个人动产，包括我‘有价值的’邮票收藏品和我认为‘合适的’家具，都留给我的侄子弗雷德。在收到这些动产后，弗雷德必须为我的远房表亲持有‘在向他提供舒适生活后剩余的任何盈余’的信托。"

(c) "I hold 10,000 shares in Grand Designs plc. I hereby declare that I hold 4,000 of these shares in trust for my two daughters, Alice and Beth. Alice is to receive 'the larger portion', the exact share to be determined by my good friend David when he thinks fit." (David had predeceased Henry.)
(c) "我持有 Grand Designs plc 的 10,000 股股份。我特此声明，我为我的两个女儿爱丽丝和贝丝持有其中的 4,000 股股份的信托。爱丽丝将获得‘较大份额’，具体份额由我的好朋友大卫在他认为合适的时候决定。" （大卫先于亨利去世。）

(d) "I wish to create a trust over any property I expect to inherit next year from my late brother's estate, for my gardener, Joe, ensuring he receives 'a reasonable income'."
(d) "我希望就我预计明年将从已故兄弟的遗产中继承的任何财产设立信托，为了我的园丁乔，确保他获得‘合理的收入’。"

Please analyse the validity of clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) above regarding the principle of Certainty of Subject Matter (considering both the certainty of the property itself and the certainty of the beneficial interests), providing reasons for your conclusions.
请分析以上(a)、(b)、(c)和(d)条款在标的物确定性原则方面的有效性（同时考虑财产本身的确定性和受益权益的确定性），并提供您结论的理由。

Sample Answer  示例答案

Introduction  介绍

To establish a valid express trust, the subject matter must be certain (Knight v Knight). This requires certainty both as to the property subject to the trust itself, and as to the beneficial interests or shares the beneficiaries are to receive (CA Pacific; Palmer v Simmonds). This certainty must exist at the time the trust is intended to take effect. Each clause in Henry’s will must be assessed against these requirements.
要设立有效的明示信托，标的物必须是确定的 (Knight v Knight)。这要求信托本身的财产以及受益人将获得的受益权或份额都必须确定 (CA Pacific; Palmer v Simmonds)。这种确定性必须在信托意图生效时存在。亨利遗嘱中的每一条款都必须根据这些要求进行评估。

Clause (a): Gold Bars for Alfred
条款 (a)：给阿尔弗雷德的金条

• Issue: Is "half of all my gold bars" in the Swiss bank sufficiently certain subject matter?
  问题：在瑞士银行的“我所有金条的一半”是否是充分确定的标的物？
• Rule: Gold bars are tangible personal property (chattels). For trusts over part of a larger bulk of tangible property, the general rule requires the specific trust assets to be segregated or otherwise identifiable from the bulk (Re London Wine; Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd). Simply specifying a proportion (like "half") of unsegregated tangible assets is generally insufficient unless the assets are truly identical and treated as fungible.  
  规则：金条是有形个人财产（动产）。对于超过大量有形财产的一部分的信托，一般规则要求将特定的信托资产从散装物中分离或以其他方式识别（Re London Wine; Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd）。仅仅指定未分离的有形资产的比例（如“一半”）通常是不够的，除非这些资产是真正相同的且被视为可互换的。
• Application: The gold bars are held in a single vault without differentiation. While "half" indicates a proportion, it does not identify which specific bars constitute Alfred's half. Unless the bars were of standard weight and purity and legally considered fungible (which was argued unsuccessfully for some types of bullion in Re Goldcorp), the lack of segregation or identification of the specific bars forming the trust property means the subject matter is uncertain. The ability to calculate half the total weight or value does not equate to identifying the trust property itself within the bulk.
  适用性：这些金条都保存在一个没有区分的单一金库中。“一半”虽然表示一个比例，但没有明确指出哪些特定的金条构成阿尔弗雷德的一半。除非这些金条具有标准重量和纯度，并且在法律上被认为是可互换的（就像在 Re Goldcorp 案中对某些类型的金条提出的论点，但未获成功），否则由于缺乏对构成信托财产的特定金条的隔离或识别，标的物是不确定的。计算总重量或价值的一半的能力并不等同于在整体中识别信托财产本身。
• Conclusion: This trust likely fails for uncertainty of subject matter due to the lack of segregation or identification of the specific gold bars comprising "half" the collection. The property remains in Henry's estate.
  结论：由于缺乏对构成“一半”藏品的特定金条的隔离或识别，该信托很可能因标的物不确定而失败。该财产仍属于亨利的遗产。

Clause (b): Chattels for Fred / Surplus for Cousins
条款(b)：弗雷德的动产/表兄弟的剩余财产

• Issue: Is the disposition of remaining chattels to Fred, with a trust over the surplus for cousins, certain as to subject matter?
  问题：将剩余动产给予弗雷德，并将剩余财产信托给表兄弟的处置，在标的物方面是否确定？
• Rule: This involves an initial gift ("all my remaining personal chattels") with an attempt to engraft a trust onto part of it ("any surplus remaining..."). The certainty of both parts must be assessed. Vague descriptions fail. Descriptions depending on the deceased's subjective state of mind ("whatever I deem 'appropriate'") are void for uncertainty. A trust over an uncertain surplus based on subjective needs ("comfortable living," "whatever is not wanted") also fails (Sprange v Barnard; Re Jones). If a trust engrafted onto an absolute gift fails for uncertainty of subject matter, the initial gift becomes absolute (Hancock v Watson).  
  规则：这涉及到一个初始赠与（“我所有剩余的个人动产”），并试图将信托附加到其中的一部分（“任何剩余的盈余……”）。必须评估这两个部分的确定性。模糊的描述会失败。依赖于死者主观状态的描述（“我认为‘合适’的任何东西”）因不确定性而无效。基于主观需求（“舒适的生活”，“任何不需要的东西”）的不确定的盈余信托也会失败（Sprange v Barnard; Re Jones）。如果附加在绝对赠与上的信托因标的物的不确定性而失败，则初始赠与变成绝对赠与（Hancock v Watson）。
• Application:  申请：

• Initial Gift to Fred: "All my remaining personal chattels" could potentially be certain (similar to residue). However, the description includes "'appropriate' furniture," which fails for subjective uncertainty as Henry cannot deem anything appropriate after death. The "'valuable' stamp collection" might be argued as certain if 'valuable' provides an objective criterion, but 'valuable' itself can be inherently vague without further definition. The uncertainty of the furniture component might arguably taint the certainty of the overall "remaining personal chattels" given initially, although residue clauses containing uncertain specific items still capture the certain remainder.
  初始赠与给 Fred：“我所有剩余的个人动产”可能具有确定性（类似于剩余财产）。但是，该描述包括“‘合适’的家具”，由于 Henry 死后无法认为任何东西是合适的，因此因主观不确定性而失败。“‘有价值的’邮票收藏”可能会被认为具有确定性，如果“有价值的”提供了客观标准，但如果没有进一步的定义，“有价值的”本身可能本质上是模糊的。家具组成部分的不确定性可能会影响最初给予的整个“剩余个人动产”的确定性，尽管包含不确定特定项目的剩余财产条款仍然会捕获确定的剩余部分。
• Trust over Surplus: The direction to hold the "surplus remaining after providing him with a comfortable living" for the cousins fails unequivocally for uncertainty. "Comfortable living" is subjective and cannot be objectively ascertained, making the surplus indeterminable (Sprange v Barnard).
  盈余信托：指示将“在为他提供舒适生活后剩余的盈余”用于表兄弟的信托，由于不确定性而明确失败。“舒适的生活”是主观的，无法客观确定，从而导致盈余无法确定（Sprange v Barnard）。

• Conclusion: The trust over the surplus for the cousins fails due to uncertainty of subject matter. Applying Hancock v Watson, the failure of the engrafted trust means Fred takes the "remaining personal chattels" absolutely. While the definition of those chattels is slightly clouded by the uncertain furniture and potentially uncertain stamps, typically the residue itself (less any specifically and validly bequeathed items) would pass to Fred absolutely.
  结论：由于标的物的不确定性，表兄弟的盈余信托失败。应用 Hancock v Watson，附加信托的失败意味着 Fred 绝对地获得“剩余的个人动产”。虽然这些动产的定义因不确定的家具和潜在的不确定邮票而略有模糊，但通常剩余财产本身（减去任何被特定和有效遗赠的项目）将绝对地传递给 Fred。

Clause (c): Shares for Alice and Beth
(c)条款：爱丽丝和贝丝的股份

• Issue: Is the trust over 4,000 shares, with beneficial interests ("larger portion") dependent on the deceased David's decision, certain?
  争议点：对 4000 股股份的信托，其受益权益（“较大份额”）取决于已故的大卫的决定，是否明确？
• Rule: Certainty of subject matter requires certainty of both the property itself and the beneficial shares. For intangible, identical property like shares of the same class, specifying a number (4,000 out of 10,000) is sufficient certainty for the trust property itself; segregation is not required (Hunter v Moss; CA Pacific). However, the beneficial interests must also be certain or ascertainable by a workable mechanism. If the mechanism provided fails, the trust fails for uncertainty of beneficial interests (Boyce v Boyce).  
  规则：标的物确定性要求信托财产本身和受益份额均须确定。对于无形的、相同的财产，如同一类别的股份，指定一个数量（10,000 股中的 4,000 股）足以确定信托财产本身；不需要隔离（Hunter v Moss; CA Pacific）。然而，受益权益也必须是确定的或可以通过可行的机制来确定的。如果提供的机制失败，信托将因受益权益的不确定性而失败（Boyce v Boyce）。
• Application: The 4,000 shares form certain trust property (Hunter v Moss). However, the division of these shares between Alice and Beth is uncertain – "'the larger portion'" provides no objective measure. The mechanism intended to resolve this uncertainty was David's discretion ("determined by... David"). Since David predeceased Henry, this mechanism has failed. This situation is analogous to Boyce v Boyce, where the inability of the first beneficiary to choose her house rendered the interest of the second beneficiary uncertain. Here, David's death prevents the determination of Alice's and Beth's respective shares.
  适用：4,000 股股份构成了确定的信托财产（Hunter v Moss）。然而，这些股份在爱丽丝和贝丝之间的分配是不确定的——“'较大份额'”没有提供客观衡量标准。旨在解决这种不确定性的机制是大卫的酌情权（“由...大卫决定”）。由于大卫先于亨利去世，该机制已失效。这种情况类似于 Boyce v Boyce，其中第一受益人无法选择她的房子导致第二受益人的权益不确定。在这里，大卫的去世阻止了对爱丽丝和贝丝各自股份的确定。
• Conclusion: While the trust property (4,000 shares) is certain, the trust fails for uncertainty of beneficial interests due to the failure of the mechanism intended to determine the shares. The 4,000 shares remain part of Henry's estate.
  结论：虽然信托财产（4,000 股股份）是确定的，但由于确定股份的机制失效，信托因受益权益不确定而失败。这 4,000 股股份仍是亨利遗产的一部分。

Clause (d): Trust for Joe over Future Property
条款(d)：为乔设立的关于未来财产的信托

• Issue: Can a valid trust be created over property Henry expects to inherit, providing a "reasonable income" for Joe?
  问题：能否就亨利预期继承的财产设立有效的信托，为乔提供“合理的收入”？
• Rule: A fundamental requirement for certainty of subject matter is that the trust property must be existing property in which the settlor has a present interest at the time the trust is created. A trust cannot be declared over future property or a mere expectancy (property the settlor hopes or expects to receive but does not yet own). While "reasonable income" can, in some contexts, be sufficiently certain (Re Golay's WT), this is only relevant if the underlying capital property is itself certain and existing.  
  规则：标的物确定性的一个基本要求是，信托财产必须是现有的财产，且委托人在设立信托时对该财产拥有现有的权益。不得就未来财产或纯粹的预期（委托人希望或期望收到但尚未拥有的财产）设立信托。虽然在某些情况下，“合理的收入”可能具有充分的确定性（Re Golay's WT），但这只有在基础资本财产本身是确定和现有的情况下才具有相关性。
• Application: The purported trust property is "any property I expect to inherit next year from my late brother's estate." This is clearly future property – a mere expectancy. Henry had no proprietary interest in it when making his will (or at his death, assuming inheritance hadn't occurred). He could not create a trust over property he did not own. The fact that the intended benefit ("reasonable income") might otherwise have been certain under Re Golay is irrelevant because the capital asset itself fails the certainty test as it is non-existent property from the settlor's perspective at the relevant time.
  适用：所谓的信托财产是“我预计明年将从已故兄弟的遗产中继承的任何财产”。这显然是未来的财产——仅仅是一种期望。亨利在立遗嘱时（或者在他去世时，假设继承尚未发生）对此没有任何所有权权益。他不能对他不拥有的财产设立信托。即使根据 Re Golay 案，预期的利益（“合理的收入”）在其他情况下可能是确定的，但由于作为资本资产本身未能通过确定性测试，因为它在相关时间从委托人的角度来看是不存在的财产，因此这一点无关紧要。
• Conclusion: This trust fails ab initio for uncertainty of subject matter because it purports to cover future property (an expectancy), over which no trust can be validly declared.
  结论：由于该信托旨在涵盖未来财产（一种期望），而不能对该财产有效宣告信托，因此该信托自始无效，原因在于标的物的不确定性。

Q3 Certainty of Objects (Beneficiaries)
问题 3：受益对象的确定性

Eleanor, a wealthy philanthropist with diverse interests, established an inter vivos trust by deed, appointing trustees Fiona and Gary. The deed contains the following clauses directing the distribution of various funds:
埃莉诺是一位拥有广泛兴趣的富有慈善家，她通过契约设立了一项生前信托，并委任菲奥娜和加里为受托人。该契约包含以下条款，指示各种资金的分配：

(a) The Heritage Fund (£1,000,000): "To be distributed equally amongst all persons who were employed by my late husband's company, 'Oakwood Enterprises', for at least five continuous years prior to its dissolution in 2020, and whose current whereabouts can be reasonably ascertained."
(a) 遗产基金（1,000,000 英镑）：“平均分配给所有在其已故丈夫的公司“奥克伍德企业”解散前的至少五年内连续受雇，且目前下落可以合理确定的所有人员。”

(b) The Community Fund (£2,000,000): "My Trustees shall distribute the income from this fund annually, in such shares as they think fit, amongst such of the residents of Greater London whom my Trustees consider to be 'truly deserving' of financial assistance."
(b) 社区基金（2,000,000 英镑）：“我的受托人应每年从该基金中分配收入，以他们认为合适的份额，分配给我的受托人认为“真正值得”经济援助的大伦敦居民。”

(c) The Gratitude Fund (£500,000): "My Trustees may, at their absolute discretion, appoint capital or income from this fund to or for the benefit of any person or persons who, in the opinion of my dear friend Professor Higgins (or if he is unavailable, the Head of the Sociology Department at the University of London), have provided me with significant friendship and support during my recent illness."
(c) 感恩基金（500,000 英镑）：“我的受托人可以完全酌情决定，将该基金的本金或收入指定给或为了任何一个人或多个人的利益，这些人或那些人，根据我亲爱的朋友希金斯教授（如果他无法提供，则由伦敦大学社会学系主任）的意见，在我最近的疾病期间向我提供了重要的友谊和支持。”

(d) The Global Fund (£3,000,000): "My Trustees shall hold this fund and must, within 21 years, distribute the capital and any accumulated income in such shares as they see fit amongst any person or persons living anywhere in the world, with the explicit exception of my children and grandchildren."
(d) 全球基金（3,000,000 英镑）：“我的受托人应持有该基金，并且必须在 21 年内，以他们认为合适的份额，将本金和任何累积收入分配给世界上任何地方的任何人，明确排除我的子女和孙子女。”

Please analyse the validity of clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) strictly with regard to the principle of Certainty of Objects, explaining your reasoning for each.
请严格根据对象的确定性原则分析 (a)、(b)、(c) 和 (d) 条款的有效性，并解释您对每个条款的推理。

Sample Answer  示例答案

Introduction:  介绍：

A valid express trust must satisfy the certainty of objects requirement, meaning the beneficiaries must be identifiable (Knight v Knight). This is linked to the Beneficiary Principle, which requires someone in whose favour the court can decree performance (Morice v Bishop of Durham). The test for certainty varies depending on the nature of the trustee's obligation: fixed trusts require 'list certainty' (IRC v Broadway Cottages), while discretionary trusts (McPhail v Doulton) and powers of appointment (Re Gulbenkian's Settlements) require 'is or is not' certainty. Potential issues include conceptual uncertainty, evidential uncertainty, and administrative unworkability.  
有效的明示信托必须满足对象的确定性要求，这意味着受益人必须是可识别的（Knight v Knight 案）。这与受益人原则相关，该原则要求必须有人法院可以判决履行义务（Morice v Bishop of Durham 案）。确定性的测试因受托人义务的性质而异：固定信托需要“名单确定性”（IRC v Broadway Cottages 案），而酌情信托（McPhail v Doulton 案）和指定权（Re Gulbenkian's Settlements 案）需要“是或否”确定性。潜在的问题包括概念上的不确定性、证据上的不确定性和行政上的不可行性。

Clause (a): The Heritage Fund (£1,000,000 for Employees)
条款（a）：遗产基金（1,000,000 英镑，供员工使用）

• Issue: Is the class of former employees sufficiently certain for a fixed trust?
  问题：对于固定信托而言，前雇员类别是否具有充分的确定性？
• Rule: This clause mandates equal distribution ("To be distributed equally") among a defined group, creating a fixed trust. This requires 'list certainty' (IRC v Broadway Cottages), meaning it must be possible, at least in theory, to draw up a complete list of all beneficiaries. This necessitates both conceptual and evidential certainty.  
  规则：本条款规定在确定的群体中进行平均分配（“平均分配”），从而创建了固定信托。这需要“名单确定性”（IRC v Broadway Cottages），这意味着至少在理论上，必须能够制定所有受益人的完整名单。这就需要概念上和证据上的确定性。
• Application: The description "all persons who were employed by... 'Oakwood Enterprises', for at least five continuous years prior to its dissolution in 2020" is conceptually certain. The criteria (employer, duration, date) are objective and clear. The additional phrase "and whose current whereabouts can be reasonably ascertained" relates to evidential certainty – the practical difficulty of finding every beneficiary. Evidential uncertainty does not invalidate a fixed trust; the trustees (or the court) can make arrangements for missing beneficiaries (e.g., payment into court). Assuming company records exist, a complete list could theoretically be compiled.  
  适用：“所有在……‘奥克伍德企业’解散前至少连续五年受雇的人员”这一描述在概念上是确定的。这些标准（雇主、期限、日期）是客观和明确的。附加短语“且目前下落可以合理确定”与证据确定性有关——找到每个受益人的实际困难。证据上的不确定性不会使固定信托失效；受托人（或法院）可以为失踪的受益人做出安排（例如，向法院支付）。假设公司记录存在，理论上可以编制一份完整的清单。
• Conclusion: Clause (a) is likely valid. It creates a fixed trust satisfying the list certainty test; the class is conceptually certain, and potential evidential difficulties regarding whereabouts do not defeat the trust.
  结论：(a)条款很可能有效。它创建了一个符合名单确定性测试的固定信托；该类别在概念上是确定的，并且关于下落的潜在证据困难不会推翻该信托。

Clause (b): The Community Fund (£2,000,000 for Deserving Residents)
(b)条款：社区基金（2,000,000 英镑，用于有需要居民）

• Issue: Is the class "'truly deserving' residents of Greater London" sufficiently certain for a discretionary trust?
  问题：对于一项酌处信托而言，“大伦敦地区真正有需要”的居民这一类别是否足够确定？
• Rule: This clause uses "shall distribute... in such shares as they think fit," indicating a discretionary trust. The applicable test is the 'is or is not' test (McPhail v Doulton): can it be said with certainty whether any given individual is or is not a member of the class? This requires conceptual certainty. Additionally, discretionary trusts can fail for administrative unworkability.  
  规则：该条款使用了“应以他们认为合适的份额分配……”，表明这是一项酌处信托。适用的测试是“是或不是”测试（McPhail v Doulton 案）：是否能够确定地说出任何给定的个体是否属于该类别的成员？这需要概念上的确定性。此外，酌处信托可能因行政上的不可行性而失败。
• Application:  申请：
• Conceptual Certainty: The term "'truly deserving'" is highly subjective and likely lacks conceptual certainty. There is no objective standard by which the trustees or the court could determine who falls into this category.  
  概念上的确定性： “真正值得”这个术语非常主观，可能缺乏概念上的确定性。受托人或法院没有客观的标准来确定谁属于这一类别。
• Administrative Unworkability: The class "residents of Greater London" is conceptually certain but represents a vast number of people. Lord Wilberforce in McPhail specifically mentioned "all the residents of Greater London" as a potential example of a class so wide as to be administratively unworkable for a trust, as it would be impossible for trustees to meaningfully survey the class. The addition of the uncertain term "truly deserving" exacerbates this.  
  行政上的不可行性：“大伦敦居民”这个类别在概念上是确定的，但代表了大量的人。 Wilberforce 勋爵在 McPhail 案中特别提到了“所有大伦敦居民”作为一个潜在的例子，说明某个类别过于宽泛，以至于信托在行政上是不可行的，因为受托人不可能有意义地调查这个类别。 不确定的术语“真正值得”加剧了这种情况。
• Conclusion: Clause (b) likely fails for certainty of objects on two grounds: lack of conceptual certainty ("truly deserving") and administrative unworkability ("residents of Greater London"). The property will be held on resulting trust.  
  结论： 第(b)款可能因对象的确定性不足而失败，原因有两个：缺乏概念上的确定性（“真正值得”）和行政上的不可行性（“大伦敦居民”）。 该财产将以推定信托方式持有。

Clause (c): The Gratitude Fund (£500,000 for Friendship/Support)
第(c)款：感恩基金（500,000 英镑用于友谊/支持）

• Issue: Is the class of persons providing "significant friendship and support" certain, given the third-party resolution clause?
  问题：鉴于第三方决议条款，提供“重要友谊和支持”的人群是否明确？
• Rule: This clause uses "may... appoint," indicating a power of appointment (likely a fiduciary power as held by trustees). The test is the 'is or is not' test (Re Gulbenkian), which requires conceptual certainty. However, conceptual uncertainty may potentially be cured if the settlor provides a mechanism for objective determination, such as the opinion of a specified third party (Re Tuck's ST). Administrative unworkability does not invalidate a power.  
  规则：该条款使用“可以...指定”，表明一种指定权（可能是一种由受托人持有的信托责任权力）。测试标准是“是或不是”测试（Re Gulbenkian），这要求概念上的确定性。但是，如果委托人提供客观确定的机制，例如指定第三方的意见（Re Tuck's ST），则概念上的不确定性可能会得到补救。行政上的不可行性不会使权力无效。
• Application: The phrase "significant friendship and support" is arguably conceptually uncertain due to its subjective nature. However, Eleanor has provided a mechanism to resolve any doubt: the opinion of Professor Higgins or the Head of Department, whose decision is stated to be final. Following the principle in Re Tuck's ST, this provision likely cures conceptual uncertainty by providing an objective means of determination. Evidential difficulties in proving friendship/support might arise but do not invalidate a power.  
  适用：短语“重要的友谊和支持”由于其主观性，在概念上无疑是不确定的。但是，Eleanor 提供了一种解决任何疑问的机制：Higgins 教授或系主任的意见，他们的决定被声明为最终决定。根据 Re Tuck's ST 中的原则，该条款可能通过提供客观的确定手段来消除概念上的不确定性。证明友谊/支持方面的证据困难可能会出现，但不会使权力无效。
• Conclusion: Clause (c) likely creates a valid power of appointment. The potential conceptual uncertainty of the class description is cured by the valid third-party determination clause.
  结论：条款（c）可能创建了有效的指定权。类别描述中潜在的概念不确定性已通过有效的第三方确定条款得到补救。

Clause (d): The Global Fund (£3,000,000 Hybrid Class)
(d)条款：全球基金（3,000,000 英镑混合类别）

• Issue: Is the class "any person... living anywhere in the world, with the explicit exception of my children and grandchildren" certain for a discretionary trust?
  问题：对于一项酌处信托而言，“世界上任何地方居住的任何人……明确排除我的子女和孙子女”这一类别是否确定？
• Rule: This clause uses "shall hold... must... distribute... in such shares as they see fit," indicating a discretionary trust. The 'is or is not' test applies (McPhail v Doulton). Such "hybrid" or "intermediate" classes (everyone except specified individuals) are generally considered conceptually certain. However, discretionary trusts (unlike powers) can fail for administrative unworkability.  
  规则：该条款使用“应持有……必须……分配……以他们认为合适的份额”，表明这是一项酌处信托。“是或不是”测试适用（麦克菲尔诉道尔顿案）。这种“混合”或“中间”类别（除特定个人之外的所有人）通常被认为是概念上确定的。但是，酌处信托（与权力不同）可能因行政上的不可行而失败。
• Application:  申请：
• Conceptual Certainty: The class is defined by exception. For any given person, it can be certainly determined whether they are or are not one of Eleanor's children or grandchildren. Therefore, the class is conceptually certain.  
  概念上的确定性：该类别由例外情况定义。对于任何特定的人，都可以确定地确定他们是否是埃莉诺的子女或孙子女之一。因此，该类别在概念上是确定的。
• Administrative Unworkability: Although conceptually certain, the class encompasses potentially billions of people ("any person... living anywhere in the world"). A trust for such a vast and undefined group is highly likely to be deemed administratively unworkable, as the trustees cannot possibly survey the field or exercise their discretion meaningfully (McPhail v Doulton; R v District Auditor). (If this had been structured as a power, it would likely be valid, subject only to capriciousness, as administrative unworkability does not apply to powers ).  
  行政上的不可行性： 尽管概念上是确定的，但该类别可能包含数十亿人（“世界上任何地方的任何人士”）。 为如此庞大且未定义的群体设立信托极有可能被视为行政上不可行，因为受托人不可能调查所有领域或有意义地行使他们的自由裁量权 (McPhail v Doulton; R v District Auditor)。 （如果这被构建为一项权力，它可能有效，仅受反复无常的限制，因为行政上的不可行性不适用于权力）。
• Conclusion: Clause (d) likely fails for certainty of objects due to administrative unworkability, even though the class is conceptually certain. The property will be held on resulting trust.  
  结论：条款 (d) 可能因行政上的不可行性而未能满足对象确定性的要求，即使该类别在概念上是确定的。 该财产将以反转信托的形式持有。

Certainty of Intention (Certainty of Words) Form
意图的确定性（措辞的确定性）形式

Certainty of Subject Matter Form
标的物确定性表格