Quistclose Investments Ltd agreed to a loan of £209,719 8s 6d on the conditions that the dividend would be paid with it and the money would be put in a separate account (also with Barclays Bank).

Shortly after the decision, an article appeared in the Law Quarterly Review,[3] written by Peter Millett QC, suggesting how the traditional trust need for certainty of objects (beneficiary) could be squared with the decision of the House of Lords and the refusal to accept new categories of purpose trust in equity.

The key issue, according to Lord Millett, in upholding the trust concept is ascertaining where the beneficial interest in the money lies.

Lord Millett suggests that there are four possible answers: (1) the lender, (2) the borrower, (3) the ultimate purpose and (4) no one in the sense that the beneficial interest remains "in suspense".

Lord Millett then analysed all of the foregoing, and determined that the beneficial interest remains with the lender until the purpose for which the funds are lent is fulfilled.

They have been upheld in cases of: One issue that has to date escaped notice in the judicial consideration of Quistclose trusts is how narrowly the purpose has to be defined.

The lower courts in Twinsectra suggested that the purpose must be sufficiently well defined, but Lord Millett distanced himself from that position by claiming that "uncertainty works in favour of the lender, not the borrower".

In Quistclose itself and in Carreras Rothmans v Freeman Mathews Treasure, where loans were made for a specific purpose, this may also amount to sufficient intention.

In Re Kayford, it was suggested that a segregated account for customers' money to be placed in to guard against the insolvency of the company was a proper and responsible thing to do.