In re Tuck’s Settlement Trusts (Public Trustee v Tuck)

A condition is not invalid merely because proving its facts may be difficult. The majority held that Jewish blood in this settlement meant some Jewish blood, and that adherence to the Jewish faith was an intelligible condition precedent. The settlement was therefore valid. Lord Denning MR additionally considered that a clause making a Chief Rabbi’s decision conclusive could cure conceptual uncertainty, subject to misconduct or unreasonableness. That broader reasoning was not the common ground: Lord Russell did not rule on the clause, and Lord Justice Eveleigh treated it as identifying the settlor’s meaning.

A 1912 settlement provided income for successive baronets who remained of the Jewish faith and married an approved wife, defined by reference to Jewish blood and adherence to the Jewish faith. Disputes or doubts about those facts were to be conclusively determined by one of two Chief Rabbis.

After Sir Bruce Tuck married a woman who was not an approved wife, the validity of the settlement was challenged. Mr Justice Whitford considered the condition too uncertain without the Chief Rabbi clause, but upheld the settlement by relying on that clause. The seventh defendant appealed. The central issue was whether the conditions concerning Jewish blood and Jewish faith were void for uncertainty.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed with costs. All costs except those of the appellant were ordered to come out of the estate, and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. Conditions precedent. Lord Russell’s judgment, read by Lord Denning MR, and agreed with by Lord Justice Eveleigh, treated the relevant provisions as conditions precedent or qualifying conditions, rather than conditions subsequent or forfeiting conditions. The uncertainty issue was therefore decided on that basis, consistently with Re Allen (1953) Chancery 810.
3. Jewish blood. In the context of the settlement, the expression meant some Jewish blood. The settlor’s scheme did not require 100 per cent Jewish blood. The additional requirement concerning upbringing and continued worship reinforced that construction.
4. Jewish faith. The majority held that adherence to the Jewish faith was not an unintelligible concept. Variations in rites, practices and beliefs did not justify destroying the settlement. The comments in Clayton v Ramsden [1943] A.C. 320 were treated as arising in the context of a condition of defeasance. Lord Justice Eveleigh also observed that the present settlement supplied contextual guidance through its reference to the Chief Rabbi.
5. Separate reasoning. Lord Denning MR considered that, even if the words were conceptually uncertain, the Chief Rabbi clause cured the uncertainty. He reasoned more generally that a settlor could entrust a dispute or doubt to trustees or a third person, whose honest decision should stand unless affected by misconduct or wholly unreasonable conduct, without ousting the court’s jurisdiction. Lord Russell expressly declined to rule on that issue. Lord Justice Eveleigh doubted that the authority of Dundee General Hospitals Board of Management v Walker [1952] 1 All England 896 permitted the Chief Rabbi to create a meaning for uncertain words, construing the clause instead as identifying the settlor’s intended meaning.

1. Court of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal with costs and refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
2. High Court, Chancery Division: Mr Justice Whitford indicated that the condition would have been too uncertain without the Chief Rabbi clause, but upheld the settlement by giving effect to that clause.