Sprange v Barnard is a classic and frequently cited decision in English trusts law dealing with the requirement of certainty of subject matter for the creation of a valid trust. The case illustrates how courts distinguish between a gift and a trust, especially when testamentary language is vague or imprecise.
In Sprange v Barnard, the Court of Chancery examined whether certain words used in a will were sufficient to create a binding trust or whether they merely reflected an intention to make an absolute gift.
The importance of Sprange v Barnard lies in its clear demonstration that even where a testator appears to have future beneficiaries in mind, a trust will not arise unless the property subject to the trust is described with sufficient certainty. This case continues to be used to explain why uncertainty defeats trust obligations under English law.
Facts of Sprange v Barnard Case
In Sprange v Barnard, a woman (the testatrix) made a series of testamentary documents dealing with the distribution of her property after death. Under these documents, she left £300 worth of stocks to her husband.
The wording of the testamentary disposition stated that the £300 in stocks was given to the husband “for his sole use.” The documents further stated that, upon the husband’s death, any part of the stocks which he “does not want for his own wants and use” should be divided equally among certain beneficiaries, who were members of her family.
Thus, the husband was given immediate control and use of the property, while other beneficiaries were mentioned only in relation to what might remain after his death. The language did not specify how much of the stock was to be preserved, nor did it clearly define what portion, if any, was intended to be held for the benefit of others.
These facts formed the background against which the court had to determine whether a trust had been created.
Issue
The central issue before the court in Sprange v Barnard was:
Did the will declare a valid trust over the stocks, or did it merely make an absolute gift to the husband?
More specifically, the court had to decide whether the words “that he does not want for his own wants and use” were sufficiently certain to identify the subject matter of a trust.
Decision
The Court of Chancery held that no trust was created.
In Sprange v Barnard, the court concluded that the words used in the testamentary documents were insufficiently certain to give rise to a trust. As a result, the husband took the entire £300 in stocks beneficially and absolutely.
Sprange v Barnard Judgement
The judgement in Sprange v Barnard was delivered by Sir Richard Arden, Master of the Rolls.
He held that the dominant intention of the testatrix was to make a gift to her husband, rather than to bind him with a trust obligation. The court emphasised that the phrase referring to what the husband might not want for his own use was too vague to impose enforceable duties.
The wording did not define:
- What portion of the stocks the husband was entitled to keep
- What portion was to be preserved for the other beneficiaries
- Any objective standard for determining the unused part
Because of this uncertainty, the court refused to treat the disposition as a trust.
Legal Principle Involved
The key legal principle established and affirmed by Sprange v Barnard is the requirement of certainty of subject matter in the creation of a trust.
Under English trusts law, for a trust to be valid, three certainties must be present:
- Certainty of intention
- Certainty of subject matter
- Certainty of objects
Sprange v Barnard specifically addresses the second requirement — certainty of subject matter.
Certainty of Subject Matter Explained
Certainty of subject matter requires that the property to be held on trust must be clearly identified or identifiable. The court must be able to determine:
- What property is subject to the trust
- What portion of that property is held for beneficiaries
In Sprange v Barnard, although the property itself (the £300 in stocks) was identified, the extent of the beneficial interest was not. The wording allowed the husband to consume or use as much as he pleased, leaving the remainder, if any, for others.
The court found that this approach failed the test of certainty because it was impossible to determine in advance what part of the property was meant to be held on trust.
Gift Versus Trust
A crucial aspect of Sprange v Barnard is the distinction between a gift and a trust.
The court interpreted the phrase “for his sole use” as indicating an intention to give the husband complete ownership of the property. The later reference to distribution of any remaining property was treated as secondary and uncertain, rather than as creating a binding obligation.
In Sprange v Barnard, the dominant intention was found to be the making of a gift, not the creation of a trust. Where such dominance exists, courts are reluctant to impose trust obligations based on vague or discretionary language.
Why the Trust Failed
The trust failed in Sprange v Barnard for the following reasons, all arising directly from the wording used:
- The amount intended for the secondary beneficiaries was not fixed
- The husband had unrestricted freedom to use the property
- The phrase “does not want for his own wants and use” lacked objective meaning
- There was no enforceable obligation placed upon the husband
Because of these factors, the court could not supervise or enforce a trust arrangement.
Authority of the Case
Sprange v Barnard is authority for the proposition that:
To make a valid declaration of trust, the subject matter of the trust must be sufficiently certain.
This principle has remained a foundational rule in English trusts law and is frequently cited when courts are asked to decide whether vague testamentary language creates enforceable trust obligations.
Conclusion
Sprange v Barnard remains a leading authority on certainty of subject matter in English trusts law. The Court of Chancery’s decision makes it clear that precise language is essential when creating trusts through wills or other instruments. Without certainty, no trust can arise, even if the testator appears to have intended to benefit others.
By holding that the husband took the property absolutely, Sprange v Barnard reinforces the principle that courts will not enforce trusts based on ambiguous or indeterminate language. The case continues to serve as an important reminder of the strict requirements governing the creation of trusts under English law.