Hunter v Moss [1994]
Share
Hunter v Moss [1994] 1 WLR 452 is an English trusts law case from the Court of Appeal that addresses the certainty of subject matter necessary to form a trust. The case establishes that, when dealing with intangible, identical property, segregation of trust and non-trust sections may not be necessary for a valid trust.
Moss, the managing director of Moss Electrical Co Ltd, promised Hunter 50 shares in his company as part of an employment contract. However, Moss did not provide the shares, leading Hunter to claim that Moss's promise had created a trust over the 50 shares. The shares were not segregated or identified individually. The key issues were whether the language used was sufficient to create a trust and whether the lack of segregation between the shares affected the certainty of subject matter required for a valid trust.
In the High Court, Colin Rimer QC held that the identical nature of the shares rendered segregation unnecessary, distinguishing the case from Re London Wine Co (Shippers) [1986]. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, led by Dillon LJ, upheld the validity of the trust. Dillon LJ emphasised the necessity of the trust to enforce the terms of the employment contract and distinguished Re London Wine Co (Shippers) [1986] as being concerned with chattels, not declarations of trust. The Court concluded that, since there was no tangible distinction between the shares, the lack of segregation did not invalidate the trust.
Hunter v Moss is often cited for the proposition that, with intangible, identical property, segregation of trust and non-trust sections is not necessary. While Dillon LJ did not explicitly state this principle, it is considered the obvious conclusion from his reasoning. The decision was reluctantly applied in Re Harvard Securities [1997], where it was interpreted to mean that there was no need to segregate intangible property.
Moss, the managing director of Moss Electrical Co Ltd, promised Hunter 50 shares in his company as part of an employment contract. However, Moss did not provide the shares, leading Hunter to claim that Moss's promise had created a trust over the 50 shares. The shares were not segregated or identified individually. The key issues were whether the language used was sufficient to create a trust and whether the lack of segregation between the shares affected the certainty of subject matter required for a valid trust.
In the High Court, Colin Rimer QC held that the identical nature of the shares rendered segregation unnecessary, distinguishing the case from Re London Wine Co (Shippers) [1986]. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, led by Dillon LJ, upheld the validity of the trust. Dillon LJ emphasised the necessity of the trust to enforce the terms of the employment contract and distinguished Re London Wine Co (Shippers) [1986] as being concerned with chattels, not declarations of trust. The Court concluded that, since there was no tangible distinction between the shares, the lack of segregation did not invalidate the trust.
Hunter v Moss is often cited for the proposition that, with intangible, identical property, segregation of trust and non-trust sections is not necessary. While Dillon LJ did not explicitly state this principle, it is considered the obvious conclusion from his reasoning. The decision was reluctantly applied in Re Harvard Securities [1997], where it was interpreted to mean that there was no need to segregate intangible property.
