The legal idea behind a trust is that two different people can own property at the same time. One person has the legal title and the other person has the benefit interest.Trust law comes from the way people used land in mediaeval England and is part of English law.[1] People who owned land would give a third party the formal title to their land while keeping the beneficial stake. However, the modern use of Trust encompasses a wide range of legal principles and practises. This essay shall illustrate in depth the meaning of trust according to philosophers, the different types of trusts, the three certainties and maxims of trust and how trust law has revolutionised the modern world.

Trust was a topic of discussion for the influential philosopher and legal theorist John Locke, who wrote extensively on the subject of property rights.[2] He claimed that people's natural rights, including the right to property, could be protected and secured via the formation of a legal system and property rights. Trusts, as legal mechanisms for managing property, are consistent with Locke's emphasis on safeguarding private property. The recognition of Trusts Act 1987[3] was created to codify the fundamental concepts of trust law and to provide uniform standards for recognising trusts across jurisdictions. There are three types of trusts namely, express trusts, implied trusts and constructive trust. For a trust to be considered as expressed, the settlor must have made their intentions explicit, usually in writing. The fundamental principle behind these trusts is an individual's right to privacy and control over their own assets. Expressed trusts in some assets require written documentation to prevent fraud, as seen in the case of Rouchefoucauld v Boustead[4], when the court refused to allow a verbal agreement about property to be disregarded. This idea is reinforced by the Statute of Frauds, which needs written proof for certain forms of trusts to be enforced.

In contrast, the law may have animplied trustin order to ensure justice or to carry out the purported will of the settlor.[5] This is created by law. There are two distinct kinds of implied trusts namely constructive trusts and resulting trusts. In cases where it would be unfair for the trustee to keep the property, the court may impose a constructive trust as a remedy. For instance, a constructive trust was imposed on gambling gains obtained via the use of stolen funds in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd.[6] This exemplifies the court's effort to avoid unfair gain. When a trust fails or terminates without using all of the trust assets, the property results back to the settlor, creating a resulting trust. The House of Lords ruled in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC[7] that when payments are made but the receiver does not have a legal right to the money, a resulting trust is created. For instance,a resulting trust can happen by operation of law in business deals where property is moved without naming the receiver, which suggests that the transferee should not have full ownership. Implied trusts reflect the law's inherent desire for justice and fairness, whereas explicit trusts clarify and preserve the settlor's goals. When the settlor's intent is clear, a stated trust is ideal because it safeguards trust law's contractual flexibility and predictability. The equitable jurisdiction's authority to implement fairness even without express representations is shown in decisions like Re Vandervell's Trusts[8], where a resulting trust was believed to suit the settlor's aims. Thus, express and implied trusts help the legal system. Expressed trusts support freedom by respecting and executing people' clear property choices. An implied trust can prevent undue enrichment and fulfil a settlor's objectives when their intentions are unclear. Thus, keeping trust law principled and fair to all parties.

The three key certainties for a trust's existence and legality in trust law has been established in Wight v Atkyns[9]and followed in Knight v Knight.[10] The settlor must intend to establish a trust rather than choose another legal structure. This is called the certainty of intention. In Paul v Constance[11], the judiciary analysed the acts and verbal promises of the trust-maker to assess whether they intended to form a trust. Certainty of Subject Matter requires precise trust property identification. Trust assets and beneficial interests must be clearly defined. The trust in Palmer v Simmonds[12] failed because the phrases "bulk of my estate," were too ambiguous to create trust property. This stipulation eliminates any uncertainty about the trustees' responsibilities, as shown in Sprange v Barnard[13], where the lack of a clear delineation of the benefit's portion caused issues. According to the concept of Certainty of Objects, beneficiaries must be clearly identified. The complete list test must acknowledge all potential beneficiaries for a trust to be lawful, according to IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust.[14] However, McPhail v Doulton[15] relaxed discretionary trust criteria. This verdict required the 'is or is not test' to determine whether a person is a beneficiary. In the case of Re Baden (No2)[16], the three judges provided different point of views. Sachs LJ was more permissive, stating that the trust is genuine if it can be determined that a person is a class member. This is the individual ascertainability test. Megaw LJ said that the trust should not collapse for ambiguity if a large number of beneficiaries can be identified. Stamp LJ, a conservative, said the trust ought to fail for uncertainty if every possible beneficiary is not identified. The discrepancies in their judgements show the complexity of implementing the discretionary trust certainty test. The three certainties are vital to trust formation. When the above prerequisites are not met, as shown by the above situations, the trust may be void owing to uncertainty.

The maxim, Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy[17] underpins trust and equity law. When the law fails, equity will try to find a fair alternative. Equity ensures that the wounded obtain justice when a rule of law leads to an unequal conclusion. This aphorism underpins a trust, which allows one person to serve as custodian of another's property to protect and advance the beneficiary's interests. From its beginnings to its current uses, trust law has changed in important ways. Today, trusts are very common and can be used for many things, like planning your estate, giving to charity, and making complicated financial tools. Trusts today are flexible and can be changed to fit the needs of the settlors and recipients. They are also much more than just ways to move property. They are based on both the law and the principles of fairness, which have been changed and improved over the years to fit the needs and problems of today when it comes to managing and distributing assets.

In a nutshell, trust law encompasses the everlasting principles of equity and justice, striking a balance between the settlor's wishes and the rights of the beneficiaries. From its mediaeval origins, it has developed into an indispensable aspect of today's legal system, fully equipped to deal with the complexity of the modern world. The three certainties provide clarity and justice in trust administration, confirming trust law as an evolving and ethical link between past and present, private aim and public welfare.

THE QUEATION IS; What is trust?

Is my essay good enough?