## Facts

- Mr. Jones, after returning from a business trip, placed a cheque for £900 into his infant son's hand, stating, "I give this to baby; it is for himself."
- He subsequently reclaimed the cheque and placed it in a safe.
- Mr. Jones died soon after the incident.
- The dispute concerned whether the cheque formed part of Mr. Jones's estate or had been held in trust for his son.

## Issues

1. Whether Mr. Jones's actions and words demonstrated a clear intention to create a trust for his son over the cheque.
2. Whether the manner in which the cheque was given constituted a valid gift or amounted to an effective declaration of trust.
3. Whether informal or imprecise statements can satisfy the formal requirements necessary to declare a trust.

## Decision

- The Court of Chancery held that no valid trust had been created by Mr. Jones in favour of his son.
- The court determined that Mr. Jones's conduct and statements did not show a clear and direct intention to declare a trust.
- The purported gift of the cheque was ineffective as a valid transfer because legal title did not pass.
- The court distinguished between informal expressions of intent and the necessity for formal steps to create a trust.

## Legal Principles

- Certainty of intention is essential for the creation of a valid trust; mere wishes or ambiguous statements do not suffice.
- Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift; the formal requirements for the transfer of property or declaration of trust must be satisfied.
- Formal language and clear steps are necessary for both the effective disposition of property and the creation of trust obligations.
- The case highlights the distinction between outright gifts and declarations of trust, emphasizing the need for precision and certainty.

## Conclusion

Jones v Lock highlights the necessity of clear intention and compliance with formalities in trust creation; informal or vague expressions of intention cannot substitute for the legal precision required, and attempts to benefit others without such formality may fail.


Jones v Lock [1865] 1 Ch App 25