Re Tuck [1978] Ch 49 (CA)

Facts

• Sir Adolph Tuck established a trust requiring beneficiaries to be of Jewish faith and "Jewish blood".
• The terms "Jewish faith" and "Jewish blood" in the trust instrument were ambiguous, leading to disputes about qualification as a beneficiary.
• The trust included a clause appointing the Chief Rabbi of London as arbitrator to resolve disputes about beneficiaries’ qualifications.
• The legal action centered on whether the involvement of a third-party arbitrator could clarify the trust’s objects and uphold its validity.

Issues

1. Whether the ambiguity in the trust’s terms regarding beneficiaries’ qualifications rendered the trust uncertain and therefore invalid.
2. Whether third-party arbitration, as provided by appointment of the Chief Rabbi, could lawfully resolve uncertainty of objects in the trust.
3. Whether implementing such an arbitration mechanism aligns with the requirement of certainty of objects in trust law.

Decision

• The court held that the mechanism appointing the Chief Rabbi as arbitrator was valid and could be used to resolve disputes regarding beneficiaries’ qualification.
• It determined that the use of third-party arbitration rendered the terms sufficiently certain to uphold the trust’s validity.
• The judgment marked a shift from strict invalidation of trusts with ambiguous terms, providing a practical means to preserve the settlor’s intentions.

Legal Principles

• Certainty of objects is essential for the validity of a trust; objects must be clearly defined or otherwise identifiable.
• Historically, uncertainty in beneficiary classes could invalidate a trust (as illustrated in previous authorities such as Re Gulbenkian’s Settlements).
• The court accepted that a third-party arbitrator can provide the necessary certainty, allowing trusts with ambiguous terms to be upheld if appropriate clarification mechanisms exist.
• The use of third-party arbitration reflects a pragmatic, flexible approach to trust interpretation, particularly where religious or cultural terms are concerned.

Conclusion

Re Tuck [1978] Ch 49 establishes that the appointment of a third-party arbitrator to resolve disputes about beneficiary qualification can provide the certainty of objects required for the validity of a trust, allowing ambiguous terms to be clarified and the settlor’s intentions to be preserved.