Firstly, Hopkins fundamentally states that a trust could exclusively be valid if there was certainty of objects, because the beneficiaries were those who could exclusively enforce the trust against the trustees in court . Harris supports this by stating that the courts assumed a duty on the trustee to go to court and take what was theirs. In his view, he describes the relationship as ‘a rule-concept of duty’, when a discretionary trust imposes an obligation or requirement for the trustee to act logically. However, on the other hand, Thomas and Hudson argue that the later courts required a certainty list because they could only execute a trust, by dividing the property equally among the beneficiaries . After all, there were actual cases in which the later courts appointed a new trustee, ensured there was distribution by the trustee and asked beneficiaries to create a distribution scheme. Therefore, this compelled their Lordships in McPhail v Doulton to change the test because nothing was conforming them to the strict requirement of certainty which was essential and this current test proved to be very ineffective in obtaining certainty of
Firstly, Hopkins fundamentally states that a trust could exclusively be valid if there was certainty of objects, because the beneficiaries were those who could exclusively enforce the trust against the trustees in court . Harris supports this by stating that the courts assumed a duty on the trustee to go to court and take what was theirs. In his view, he describes the relationship as ‘a rule-concept of duty’, when a discretionary trust imposes an obligation or requirement for the trustee to act logically. However, on the other hand, Thomas and Hudson argue that the later courts required a certainty list because they could only execute a trust, by dividing the property equally among the beneficiaries . After all, there were actual cases in which the later courts appointed a new trustee, ensured there was distribution by the trustee and asked beneficiaries to create a distribution scheme. Therefore, this compelled their Lordships in McPhail v Doulton to change the test because nothing was conforming them to the strict requirement of certainty which was essential and this current test proved to be very ineffective in obtaining certainty of