Introduction
This essay examines the legal effects of Miranda’s purported dispositions concerning a fund for former Runway magazine subscribers, magazines held on trust for her assistants, vintage dresses intended for her great-niece Serena, and a flat held on trust for Miranda by her solicitor Nigel. Set within the context of English trust and property law, the analysis addresses the validity of each disposition, focusing on the requirements for creating valid trusts, the enforceability of gifts, and the transfer of legal and beneficial interests. The essay advises Jacqueline on the money and magazines, Serena on the dresses, and Nigel on the flat, drawing on key legal principles such as the certainty requirements for trusts, the formalities for property transfers, and the implications of intention and communication. By exploring relevant case law and statutory provisions, this piece aims to provide a clear and logical evaluation of each scenario, highlighting the potential legal outcomes and the likelihood of enforceability.
Advice to Jacqueline: The £30,000 Fund for Runway Subscribers
Miranda’s transfer of £30,000 to Jacqueline to be held on trust for “such of Runway’s top subscribers as you wish, as a signal of gratitude” raises questions about the validity of this trust arrangement. For a trust to be valid under English law, it must satisfy the three certainties: certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter, and certainty of objects (Knight v Knight, 1840). Miranda’s intention to create a trust appears evident from her explicit instructions to Jacqueline to act as trustee. The subject matter, £30,000, is also clearly defined and thus satisfies the second certainty.
However, the certainty of objects—identifying the beneficiaries—is problematic. Miranda’s statement refers to “top subscribers” as selected by Jacqueline’s discretion, which suggests a discretionary trust. Yet, the term “top subscribers” lacks clarity. While historical data indicates around 100 subscribers opted for “Top” status in 2007, the broader subscriber list (approximately 50,000 annually) and the loss of pre-2005 records due to a ransomware attack complicate identification. The test for certainty of objects in discretionary trusts, as established in McPhail v Doulton (1971), requires that it be possible to say with certainty whether any individual is or is not a member of the class. Here, the ambiguity of “top subscribers” (whether based on the 2007 opt-in or another criterion) and the partial loss of data render it challenging to define the beneficiary class with precision.
Consequently, this trust is likely to fail for lack of certainty of objects. If the trust fails, the £30,000 would typically result in a resulting trust back to Miranda, as the property reverts to the settlor when a trust cannot be executed (Vandervell v IRC, 1967). Jacqueline should be advised that she cannot distribute the funds as intended and must hold them pending further legal clarification or return them to Miranda.
Advice to Jacqueline: The Magazines for Andy and Emily
Miranda’s instruction to Jacqueline to hold two copies of a January 1991 issue of Runway magazine on trust—one for Andy “if she wants it” and the other for Emily—also requires scrutiny under the three certainties. The intention to create a trust is present, as Miranda explicitly uses the term “trust.” The subject matter, two distinct magazines, is clearly identifiable and thus certain.
Regarding the objects, Emily is a named individual, satisfying the certainty requirement for a fixed trust. However, Andy’s entitlement is conditional on her acceptance (“if she wants it”), and her lack of response to Miranda’s call indicates potential disinterest. While this conditionality introduces uncertainty, case law suggests that a trust can still be valid if the condition is capable of being fulfilled within a reasonable timeframe (Re Allen, 1953). If Andy remains unresponsive, the gift might fail, potentially resulting in a resulting trust for that magazine back to Miranda. For Emily, the trust appears valid, and Jacqueline should hold the magazine for her benefit.
However, an additional issue arises with the transfer of the property. For personal property like magazines to be held on trust, the legal title must vest in the trustee. Here, Miranda has physically handed over the magazines to Jacqueline, which arguably completes the transfer (Cochrane v Moore, 1890). Therefore, Jacqueline is advised to retain both magazines on trust, distributing one to Emily and attempting to confirm Andy’s wishes for the other, failing which it may revert to Miranda.
Advice to Serena: Entitlement to the Vintage Dresses
Miranda’s statements regarding the seven vintage dresses during a family gathering, coupled with her subsequent private conversation with Serena, suggest an intention to make a gift. However, under English law, a gift of personal property requires both intention and delivery to be enforceable (Thomas v Times Book Co, 1966). Miranda’s comments, such as “Serena should definitely have the dresses” and her later confirmation of intent, indicate a donative intention, albeit expressed informally and with a degree of ambiguity due to the laughter and context of the family setting.
Crucially, delivery—either actual or constructive—has not occurred. Miranda explicitly states that she will “keep them for now” pending confirmation of a photoshoot, which suggests retention of possession and control. Without delivery, the gift remains incomplete and unenforceable. Furthermore, Miranda’s subsequent change of mind reinforces that no binding commitment was made. Even if Serena relied on the promise by quitting her course (a form of detrimental reliance), the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot create a proprietary interest in personal property where delivery has not occurred (Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher, 1988, though primarily an Australian case, reflects principles applicable in equity).
Therefore, Serena is advised that she has no legal entitlement to the dresses. Her actions, while unfortunate, do not confer a right to enforce the promise as a gift or trust, given the lack of formalities and the incomplete nature of the transfer.
Advice to Nigel: The Flat in Chelsea
The disposition of the Chelsea flat, held on trust by Nigel for Miranda, involves the purported transfer of beneficial interest to Serena. Under English law, the transfer of an equitable interest in land must comply with formalities under section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925, which requires a disposition of an equitable interest to be in writing, signed by the person disposing of it. Miranda’s instruction to Nigel and her drafted email (sent as a WhatsApp screenshot due to a server error) attempt to effect this transfer.
However, the WhatsApp screenshot of the draft email likely does not satisfy the statutory requirement for a signed, written disposition. While electronic communications can sometimes constitute writing under the Interpretation Act 1978, the informal nature of a screenshot and the lack of a formal signature weaken its validity as a legal document (J Pereira Fernandes SA v Mehta, 2006). Moreover, Miranda’s change of mind further complicates enforcement, as equity generally respects the settlor’s ability to revoke a disposition before it is fully constituted, provided no detrimental reliance has occurred (Milroy v Lord, 1862).
Nigel is thus advised that the beneficial interest likely remains with Miranda. The attempted transfer does not meet the necessary formalities, and without further written confirmation or action, Nigel continues to hold the flat on trust for Miranda. Nigel should await further instructions and ensure any future disposition adheres to statutory requirements.
Conclusion
In summary, this analysis reveals varying outcomes for Miranda’s purported dispositions. Jacqueline is advised that the £30,000 fund trust for Runway subscribers likely fails due to uncertainty of objects, resulting in a return of the funds to Miranda, while the trust for the magazines holds partially (for Emily) but may fail for Andy if she declines. Serena has no legal claim to the vintage dresses, as the gift lacks delivery and formal completion. Nigel continues to hold the Chelsea flat on trust for Miranda, as the attempted transfer to Serena does not satisfy the necessary legal formalities. These conclusions underline the importance of clarity, formalities, and completion in trust and property law, demonstrating the limitations of informal arrangements in creating enforceable legal obligations. The implications of these findings suggest that Miranda should seek legal advice to ensure future dispositions are structured with precision and adherence to statutory requirements, thereby avoiding ambiguity and potential disputes.
References
- Cochrane v Moore (1890) 25 QBD 57.
- J Pereira Fernandes SA v Mehta [2006] EWHC 813 (Ch).
- Knight v Knight (1840) 3 Beav 148.
- Law of Property Act 1925, s. 53(1)(c).
- McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424.
- Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De GF & J 264.
- Re Allen [1953] Ch 810.
- Thomas v Times Book Co [1966] 2 All ER 241.
- Vandervell v IRC [1967] 2 AC 291.
- Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387.
[Word count: 1523, including references]
