Re Wright’s Will Trusts [1999]

Key Notes

• Facts: The case dealt with a trust that included beneficiaries described as "relatives" and "deserving friends." The ambiguity arose because "deserving friends" was a vague term, creating uncertainty about who could qualify as a beneficiary.

• Outcome: The court ruled that it could not sever the uncertain part of the beneficiary class (i.e., "deserving friends") from the certain part (i.e., "relatives"). Since the trust included both certain and uncertain terms, the entire trust was considered invalid.

• Reasoning: The court emphasised that the lack of clarity in the definition of "deserving friends" meant the trust could not be upheld. The ambiguity in one part of the definition rendered the trust invalid, as the court could not separate the certain from the uncertain.

Impact & Analysis

• Ambiguity Makes Trust Invalid: This case reinforced the principle that if part of the definition of the beneficiaries is too uncertain (such as the vague term "deserving friends"), the entire trust can fail.

• No Severance of Ambiguities: The decision highlighted that the court could not sever the uncertain part of the trust and still uphold the valid parts. The entire beneficiary class must be sufficiently clear for the trust to be valid.

• Reliance on Certainty of Objects: The case supports the need for clarity in defining trust objects (beneficiaries) and reflects the importance of certainty in discretionary trusts.