You are forty questions into the FLK2 paper. The stem describes a dying woman who scrawls a note leaving "the bulk of my savings to my dear nephews" and asks whether a valid trust arises. Four answers stare back, all plausible. Your pulse rises. Sound familiar? Trusts Law produces more of these "almost identical option" traps than almost any other subject on the SQE1 assessment, and candidates who rely on vague intuition tend to lose easy marks here.
The good news is that Trusts is one of the most rules-driven topics in the whole syllabus. Once you can apply the tests mechanically, the distractors fall away. Let me walk you through the parts that actually earn marks.
Why Trusts Law trips up SQE1 FLK2 candidates
Trusts sits in FLK2 alongside Land Law, Wills and Property Practice, and the examiners love to weave them together. A single-best-answer question might dress up a trust point as a will dispute or a co-ownership puzzle. So the first habit to build is spotting the trust issue even when the facts try to hide it.
The other reason candidates stumble is that equity rewards substance over form. A document need not say the word "trust" to create one, and saying the word does not guarantee a valid trust exists. You have to test the facts against settled principles rather than the label the parties used.
Quick reframe: a trust is simply a relationship where a trustee holds the legal title to property for the benefit of a beneficiary who holds the equitable interest. Keep that split — legal versus equitable — at the front of your mind and most questions become clearer.
The three certainties: your core FLK2 testing tool
Every express trust must satisfy the three certainties laid down in Knight v Knight (1840): certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter, and certainty of objects. Treat this as a checklist you run on every Trusts MCQ.
Certainty of intention
The settlor must intend to impose a binding obligation, not merely express a hope or wish. So-called precatory words — "in full confidence", "I trust that", "in the hope" — generally fail. Look at Lambe v Eames (1871) and Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884): loose, hopeful language did not create a trust. Contrast Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury (1905), where the will read as a whole did impose an obligation. The lesson for the exam: read the whole stem, not just the trigger phrase.
Certainty of subject matter
Both the trust property and each beneficiary's share must be identifiable. "The bulk of my estate" failed in Palmer v Simmonds (1854) because "bulk" is too vague. Compare Hunter v Moss (1994), where a trust of 50 out of 950 identical shares was valid — intangible, identical assets need not be physically segregated. But tangible goods usually do: Re London Wine Co (1986) struck down a trust of unsegregated bottles of wine. If a question hands you "my favourite paintings" or "a reasonable amount", the certainty almost certainly fails.
Certainty of objects
The test depends on the type of trust. For a fixed trust, you need the complete list test — you must be able to draw up a full list of every beneficiary (IRC v Broadway Cottages). For a discretionary trust, the lower "is or is not" test from McPhail v Doulton (1971) applies: can you say of any given person whether they are or are not within the class? "My friends" tends to fail for conceptual uncertainty; "my employees and former employees" usually passes.
When the certainties are not all met, work out the consequence. No certainty of intention means the recipient takes the property outright as a gift. No certainty of subject or objects generally means the property results back to the settlor or their estate on a resulting trust. The SQE loves to test the consequence, not just the rule.
Constitution and the beneficiary principle
Certainty alone is not enough. A trust must also be properly constituted — the legal title must actually be vested in the trustee. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift (Milroy v Lord, 1862), and equity will not assist a volunteer. So if a settlor promises to transfer shares but dies before completing the transfer form, the intended beneficiary usually gets nothing.
Watch for the exceptions, because examiners adore them. The rule in Re Rose (1952) saves a transfer where the transferor has done everything in their own power to complete it. Strong v Bird (1874) can perfect a gift where the intended donee becomes the donor's executor. And Pennington v Waine (2002) introduced an "unconscionability" gloss. If a stem describes a half-finished share transfer, one of these will usually be the hidden point.
Then there is the beneficiary principle: a private trust must generally have human beneficiaries who can enforce it (Morice v Bishop of Durham, 1804). A trust for a pure purpose — say, "to maintain my garden" — normally fails unless it falls within the narrow class of anomalous valid purpose trusts (tombs, specific animals) or qualifies as a charitable trust. Charitable purposes under the Charities Act 2011 are the recognised exception and do not need identifiable individual beneficiaries.
Resulting and constructive trusts in FLK2 questions
Beyond express trusts, FLK2 expects you to recognise trusts that arise by operation of law. A resulting trust arises where an express trust fails, or where someone contributes to the purchase price of property held in another's name. A constructive trust arises to prevent unconscionable conduct — for example where parties form a common intention about beneficial ownership of a family home and one relies to their detriment (Stack v Dowden, 2007; Jones v Kernott, 2011).
This is exactly where Trusts overlaps with Land Law, so do not silo your revision. A co-ownership question testing equitable shares is really a constructive trust question wearing a Land Law costume.
Trustee duties and breach: the high-yield finish
Once a trust exists, the trustees carry strict duties. They must act personally, act in the beneficiaries' best interests, and avoid conflicts of interest. A trustee may not profit from the trust without authority — the classic authorities are Keech v Sandford (1726) and Boardman v Phipps (1967). The statutory duty of care under the Trustee Act 2000 governs investment and delegation, and trustees must apply the standard investment criteria when investing trust funds.
For breach, know the remedies. Beneficiaries can pursue a personal claim against the trustee for the loss, or a proprietary claim to trace misapplied trust property into substitute assets. Tracing in equity has its own rules — think Re Diplock and the mixing principles — and questions often ask which remedy gives the beneficiary the best outcome where the trustee is insolvent. The proprietary claim usually wins, because it bites on the asset itself rather than competing with other creditors.
Exam tactic: when a stem describes a trustee buying a flat with mixed personal and trust money, the examiner is testing tracing and the choice of remedy. Identify whose money went where, then pick the remedy that protects the beneficiary best.
How to revise Trusts for the SQE1 single best answer format
Reading is not the same as applying, and the SQE is purely applied. A few habits that move marks:
- Run the three certainties as a fixed checklist on every Trusts stem — intention, subject, objects, in that order.
- Always identify the consequence of a failed certainty, not just whether the trust is valid.
- Keep a one-page table of the constitution exceptions (Re Rose, Strong v Bird, Pennington v Waine) — they are easy marks once memorised.
- Practise spotting constructive trusts hidden inside Land Law and family-home facts.
- Drill timed MCQs. Each SQE1 paper carries 180 single-best-answer questions across 5 hours 20 minutes, so your speed on familiar Trusts patterns frees time for harder topics.
Do this for a couple of weeks and that dying-woman scenario from the opening becomes a five-second answer: "the bulk of my savings" fails certainty of subject matter, so no trust arises and the property falls back into the estate.
How CELE SQE can help
If Trusts and the rest of FLK2 still feel slippery, our structured courses break each subject into testable rules with worked MCQs throughout — the SQE1 Long-term Course is £3,720, the Mid-term £2,750 and the Short-term £1,750, with a single-FLK option at half price and a £150 early-bird discount. Many candidates pair a course with the SQE1 Question Bank at £575 per month to keep their timed practice sharp, and later move on to our SQE2 Course at £1,450. Reach us any time on WeChat SQE100, at [email protected], or at celebar.com — happy to point you to the right starting place.