## Facts

- Mr. Moss, the defendant, owned 950 shares in a private company.
- He declared he would hold 50 of those shares on trust for Mr. Hunter, the plaintiff.
- No specific shares were identified as constituting the trust property.
- This raised questions about whether the trust satisfied the certainty of subject matter requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether a valid trust can arise over a portion of identical intangible assets (such as shares) without specific identification of those assets.
2. Whether the "certainty of subject matter" rule requires precise allocation for such property.
3. Whether the distinction between physical assets and intangible, fungible assets affects the requirement for identification in trust creation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the trust was valid despite the absence of identification of particular shares.
- The distinction between physical and intangible assets was emphasized; all ordinary shares in a company are identical and interchangeable.
- The court confirmed that for identical intangible property, specifying a portion (e.g., 50 out of 950 shares) is sufficient to satisfy the certainty requirement.
- The reasoning was contrasted with cases involving physical assets (e.g., wine bottles), for which segregation is required.

## Legal Principles

- Certainty of subject matter is essential for a valid trust but may be satisfied in relation to fungible, intangible assets without precise identification.
- For identical shares held within one company, it is unnecessary to allocate specific shares for a trust to be valid.
- The principle does not apply to physical assets or to non-identical assets, where segregation and clear identification remain necessary.
- Later case law confirmed that the rule in Hunter v Moss applies solely to identical, non-physical assets.

## Conclusion

Hunter v Moss established an exception to the certainty of subject matter requirement for trusts over identical intangible assets, such as shares, allowing trusts to be created without allocating specific units, provided the assets are truly fungible and indistinguishable. The ruling does not extend to physical or non-identical property.

Hunter v Moss [1994] 1 WLR 452 (CA)