The decision was applied in Re Harvard Securities,[2] creating a rule that segregation is not always necessary when the trust concerns intangible, identical property.

While some called it "fair, sensible and workable",[3] or noted that "Logically the decision in Hunter v Moss appears a sensible one",[4] Alastair Hudson felt that "doctrinally, it is suggested that the decision in Hunter v Moss is wrong and should not be relied upon",[5] because it contradicted existing property law and drew a distinction between tangible and intangible property he felt to be "spurious".

The problem was that these bottles were not individually identifiable, and Oliver J held that: I appreciate the point taken that the subject matter is a part of a homogeneous mass so that specific identity is of as little as importance as it is, for instance, in the case of money.

The standard case in this area, Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd,[1] was distinguished because the subject matter there was potentially different, while all of Moss's shares were identical.

Rimer J instead cited with approval Rollestone v National Bank of Commerce in St. Louis, a decision of the Supreme Court of Minnesota where it was held that there was no need for segregation in such a situation.

[15] Campbell J nonetheless reached the same conclusion (that a settlor could declare a valid trust of an unascertained parcel of shares that was part of a larger fund), albeit by different reasoning.

Jill Martin, in an article in the Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, argued that the case was "fair, sensible and workable... [it] is a welcome example of the court's policy of preventing a clearly intended trust from failing for uncertainty".

[3] Alison Jones, in a different article for the same journal, said that "Logically the decision in Hunter v Moss appears a sensible one",[4] but noted that it did create "difficult questions".

[16] Other academics were more critical, with David Hayton writing in the Law Quarterly Review that "the unreserved judgment of Dillon LJ.... may well come to be stigmatised".