Re Tuck [1978]

Facts

• A baronet established a trust for future baronets.

• The trust stipulated that beneficiaries must be married to a wife who is:

◦ "Of Jewish blood," and

◦ "Continues to worship according to the Jewish faith."

• To resolve doubts about whether these conditions were met, the baronet designated the Chief Rabbi in London (from either the Portuguese or Anglo-German Jewish community) to make a conclusive determination.

Outcome

• Lord Denning: Clauses like this are effective to resolve/pre-empt uncertainty.

◦ A conceptually uncertain class (e.g., "friends") can become certain if defined with clear criteria or by reference to an expert.

◦ The Chief Rabbi was deemed better equipped than the courts to determine "Jewish faith."

• LJ Eveleigh:

◦ The Chief Rabbi understands what "Jewish faith" means, and the testator aligned his meaning with that understanding.

◦ There was no speculation required, as the matter was capable of being made certain ("id certum est").

Impact and Analysis

• Effectiveness of Experts in Resolving Uncertainty:

◦ The court recognised the validity of delegating definitional questions to experts where the expert's role aligns with the testator's intention.

◦ This approach limits the need for court involvement in highly specialised or subjective determinations.

• Applicability to Other Cases (e.g., ‘Friends’):

◦ The principle may not work universally, especially for vague or subjective terms like "friends."

◦ Example: A clause allowing "persons as my wife considers to be my friends" may not be valid because:

▪ The wife is no more capable than the courts of identifying "friends" with certainty.

▪ Trustees would effectively provide evidential certainty to themselves, raising issues of circularity.

• Defining Experts and Their Role:

◦ While courts accepted the Chief Rabbi as an expert, determining who qualifies as an "expert" can itself be complex.

◦ This highlights the limits of using external arbiters to resolve conceptual uncertainty.

Key Notes

• Re Tuck affirmed that certain ambiguous terms in trusts can be resolved by referring to experts, provided the expert's role and scope are clearly defined and align with the testator's intent.

• The decision may not extend to inherently subjective or relational concepts (e.g., "friends") where expertise cannot be objectively established.