From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1869] LR 4 HL 82 (HL). A Testator left his entire estate to a friend, Mr Grogan, with instructions, communicated separately, that Grogan dispose of it to his other friends and relatives in various ways. Grogan made some of the legacies, but not others, and a disappointed legatee brought an action to assert that Grogan was a trustee of the estate and under an obligation to distribute the estate in the terms indicated by the testator.In effect, the claimant was asking the court to find what would now be called asecret trust.

The House of lords accepted that the authorities did allow for the enforcement of a secret trust. However, the purpose of this enforcement was to prevent a fraud being perpetrated on the beneficiaries of the will/trust. Where there was no likelihood of fraud, enforcement of a secret trust would serve no valid purpose, and would defeat the requirements of the wills act (1837) that a will be made in writing.

In this case, the will had been made some two years before the testator informed Mr Grogan of his intentions, and there was no evidence of any fraud at that time. Of course, it could be argued that Grogan had failed in his ethical duty to the beneficiaries, but that was not a could reason for subverting the well-established principle expressed by the Wills Act. Therefore, with a certain amount of reluctance, the House held that no trust was binding on Grogan.