From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

The customers of a wine dealer purchased wine in an arrangement that called for the wine to be put in trust for the customer pending delivery. When the company became insolved, the question arose whether the wine that was 'in trust' was identified with sufficient certainty for there to be a valid trust.

It was held that there was not sufficient certainty of subject matter -- although the number of bottles was certain, it was not clear which bottles were the subject of the trust. Unlike cases such as hunter v moss (1993), which concerned intangibles, wine bottles are theoretically distinguishable from one another. In a way this seems an odd decision; after all, the customers did not buy particular bottles of wine, they bought a certain number of bottles, to be taken from the supplier's general stock. However, to allow a trust of uncertain tangible objects to succeed would lead the courts into making decisions about whether different metas of tanglible objects were distinguishable or not.