Morice v Bishop of Durham [1804]

• Facts:

◦ A trust was created for the "objects of benevolence and liberality."

◦ The issue was whether this trust was valid.

• Outcome:

◦ The court held the trust invalid because it failed to satisfy the beneficiary principle.

◦ The terms "benevolence and liberality" were too vague and lacked identifiable beneficiaries.

• Sir William Grant MR's Principle:

◦ Asserted the importance of the beneficiary principle, stating:

▪ "There can be no trust over the exercise of which this Court will not assume control; for an uncontrollable power of disposition would be ownership, and not trust."

▪ A valid trust requires identifiable beneficiaries who can enforce the trust.

• Impact and Analysis:

◦ Beneficiary Principle:

▪ Reinforces the foundational rule that a trust must have someone (beneficiary) to whom the trustee owes enforceable duties.

▪ Without identifiable beneficiaries, the trust is invalid and treated as a resulting trust for the testator's estate.

◦ Uncertainty in Purpose Trusts:

▪ The court's decision reflects a strict approach to conceptual and evidential certainty.

▪ Broad, subjective terms like "benevolence" and "liberality" are insufficient to establish enforceable obligations.

• Legacy in Trust Law:

◦ The case remains a cornerstone of the beneficiary principle and is frequently cited to illustrate the limits of purpose trusts.

◦ Trusts for non-charitable purposes, unless they fall within specific exceptions, continue to be invalid under English law.

This case highlights the court's role in ensuring enforceability and clarity in trusts, emphasising that vague intentions or undefined purposes cannot constitute a valid trust.