Knight v Knight is a landmark English trust law case which established the enduring principle of the “three certainties” required for the creation of a valid private express trust. Decided in 1840 by Lord Langdale MR, the case is still considered foundational in determining whether a settlor’s intention is sufficiently clear for courts of equity to enforce a trust.
The ruling in Knight v Knight has had widespread influence, and its formulation of the three certainties test has been followed consistently in most common law jurisdictions.
At its core, the case examines whether a settlor’s language — in this instance, in a will — creates a binding trust or merely expresses a wish or moral obligation. The Court held that unless all three elements (intention, subject matter, and objects) are certain, a trust cannot be upheld.
In Knight v Knight, the testator’s language was deemed insufficiently certain, resulting in an absolute gift rather than the creation of a trust.
Factual Background of Knight v Knight
The dispute in Knight v Knight arose from a family inheritance involving the prominent Knight family. Richard I Knight (1659–1749), a wealthy ironmaster from Herefordshire, had accumulated significant property, including the manors of Leintwardine and Downton. He made a settlement in 1729 to pass these properties down through his family.
His grandson, Richard Payne Knight (1750–1824), an art connoisseur and Member of Parliament, later inherited the estate. He made a will in 1814, leaving the property to his brother Thomas Andrew Knight — a noted horticulturist — and in tail male to his male descendants. However, he added a clause which read:
“I trust to the liberality of my successors to reward any others of my old servants and tenants according to their deserts, and to their justice in continuing the estates in the male succession, according to the will of the founder of the family, my above-named grandfather.”
Thomas Andrew Knight eventually died intestate, having been predeceased by his only son. His daughter Charlotte Knight (c. 1801–1843) was his sole heir and had married Sir William Edward Rouse-Boughton.
At this point, a dispute arose between Charlotte’s family and John Knight — a descendant of Richard I Knight’s third son, Edward Knight. John Knight claimed that Thomas was bound to make a strict settlement of the property in favour of the male line and that the property should have passed to him as the next senior male descendant.
Sir William Rouse-Boughton, however, argued that no such binding trust had been created, and Thomas had received the property absolutely, which then rightfully passed to Charlotte.
Issues
The key issue in Knight v Knight was whether the language used in Payne Knight’s will created a valid trust, enforceable in equity, or whether it merely expressed a wish or hope. In other words, was the expression “I trust to the liberality… and to their justice…” sufficient to establish a binding trust in favour of the male line of the Knight family?
Knight v Knight Judgement
Lord Langdale MR held that no valid trust had been created. The court concluded that the language in Payne Knight’s will was too uncertain to be enforceable as a trust. As a result, Thomas Andrew Knight had received the property absolutely and was not bound by any trust in favour of the male line.
In reaching his decision, Lord Langdale MR formulated what has become known as the three certainties test — a requirement for the creation of any valid express trust in English law. This remains a cornerstone of trust law doctrine to this day.
The Three Certainties Test
In Knight v Knight, Lord Langdale established that in order for a trust to be valid, it must satisfy three certainties:
- Certainty of Intention: There must be a clear intention on the part of the settlor to create a trust. This is to distinguish between a legal obligation and a mere moral obligation. In the present case, the words “I trust to the liberality…” were not sufficient to demonstrate a clear intention to impose a legal obligation. Instead, they expressed a hope or wish.
- Certainty of Subject Matter: The property intended to be held on trust must be identifiable and defined. In this case, there was no dispute about the identity of the property. However, this limb remains a critical element of the test more generally.
- Certainty of Objects: The intended beneficiaries of the trust must be clearly identifiable. The court must be able to determine who the beneficiaries are. In Knight v Knight, even if there had been certainty of intention, the wording regarding future male descendants of the grandfather was vague and uncertain in defining the class of beneficiaries.
Because the first requirement — certainty of intention — was not satisfied, and the third was arguably also lacking, Knight v Knight concluded that the property had been given to Thomas Andrew Knight absolutely, free from any obligation to continue the male line succession.
Analysis Based on the Knight v Knight Judgement
The judgement in Knight v Knight turned primarily on the interpretation of the testator’s words. Lord Langdale MR drew a clear distinction between precatory words (such as “I trust” or “I hope”) and language that imposes a clear legal obligation. The court held that Payne Knight’s wording lacked the necessary intention to create a binding trust.
This reasoning underscored a fundamental principle of trust law: equity does not enforce vague intentions. A settlor must use language that unequivocally shows an intention to create a trust, and a court cannot imply such an obligation where it is not clearly stated.
Furthermore, the case illustrates the challenges that arise when settlors use ambiguous or aspirational language. Had Payne Knight used more direct and imperative language, the outcome might have been different. However, his reliance on the “liberality” and “justice” of his successors was held to be insufficient.
Conclusion
Knight v Knight remains one of the most foundational cases in English trust law. It provided the definitive formulation of the three certainties test, ensuring that any attempt to create a trust must be clear in its intention, its subject matter, and its beneficiaries.
In this case, the court found that the language used by Payne Knight in his will was insufficiently certain, and thus no valid trust was created. The property was held to have passed to Thomas Andrew Knight absolutely.
The case of Knight v Knight continues to be cited and relied upon in courts and legal education, setting a clear precedent for how trust instruments should be interpreted. Its principles are as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century, and they provide essential guidance for anyone involved in the creation, administration, or litigation of trusts.