Re Harvard Securities [1998]

Key Notes

• Upheld Hunter v Moss: The court in Harvard Securities affirmed the decision in Hunter v Moss, maintaining that the principles established in that case apply to intangible property such as shares, which are fungible.

• Strict Application of Hunter: Subsequent cases following Hunter adhered to the stricter interpretation where shares (or other identical, fungible assets) do not require specific identification, unlike tangible property.

• Gold Bars, Crude Oil, and Tangible Property: The court clarified that Hunter does not apply to tangible property, such as gold bars or crude oil, even if those items are part of a collection of identical assets. This distinction was critical because tangible assets must be specifically identified to create a valid trust.

• Lord Neuberger's Comments: Lord Neuberger stated that Hunter v Moss does not extend to tangible property, emphasising that the ruling is confined to intangible assets where the subject matter can be vague, such as shares in a company. Even if the trust property comes from a collection of identical tangible assets, the rules from Hunter do not apply.

This case reinforces the distinction between the handling of intangible and tangible property in trust law, maintaining the more flexible approach for intangible assets like shares while applying stricter rules to tangible property.