Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Introduction
|
• 'Milroy v Lord': Turner LJ:
- E won't perfect an imperfect gift: trust only when legal title conclusively vested - E won't assist a volunteer: if gave no consideration, volunteer can't claim prop. under an incompletely constituted trust • Had some exceptions, but on the whole they were clear and defined • But much less coherence and principle since 'P v W' per Arden LJ |
|
Constitution of a trust - 'Milroy v Lord'
|
'Milroy v Lord': settlor had used a deed not a share transfer form; gift void.
Turner LJ: for each form of transfer, donor must do "everything which...was necessary to be done" 1: Outright transfer: prop. passed to donee 2: Declaration of trust: prop. vested in trustee 3: Self-declaration of trust: leg. title already vested; need certainty of intention • An imperfect gift cannot be saved by ct's construing as another form, or "every imperfect instrument would be made effectual" • Would undermine the purpose of and policy considerations behind the formality requirements COMMENT: rules were unforgiving but clear • Doggett: the burdens of trusteeship shouldn't be imposed where there is ambiguity re intention |
|
Formalities per property type
|
Land: s.53(1)(b) LPA 1925 - writing
Eqt. interests: s.53(1)(c) LPA 1925 - writing Shares: Companies Act 2006 - share transfer form + registration Chattels: deed, delivery or gift |
|
Strict application of rules
|
'Jones v Lock': failed outright transfer (handing cheque to baby) couldn't be construed as self-declaration of trust
• 'Re Fry': donor hadn't obtained Treasury consent to a transfer of shares still had something to do himself |
|
Exception 1
Donationes mortis causa |
DEF: a lifetime gift conditional upon- and taking effect upon- death
'Cain v Moon': L. Russell CJ: 3 req's: 1: Made in contemplation of death. Not nec. expectation, but fairly imminent; not awareness of mortality - 'Agnew v Belfast Banking Co': e.g. illness, war service, hazardous journey - 'Wilkes v Allington': doesn't matter that COD different than expected (expected cancer, died of pneumonia) 2: S-M delivered to the donee; intention to part w/'dominon' over it - 'Sen v Headley': title deed were ess. indicia to house; constructively delivered - 'Re Mustapha'; 'Woodward v Woodward': keys sufficient 3: Donor's intention is conditional - 'Re Lillingston': needn't be expressed; can be implied from the circ's NB: not certain that DMC can be used to create a trust 'Birch v Treasury Solicitor': sometimes said to imply this, but contested |
|
Exception 2
'Strong v Bird' rule |
1: Testator intended to make an immediate ('Re Freeland') inter vivos gift ('Re Stewart') or to forgo a debt ('Strong v Bird')
- 'Re Innes': intention to make a testamentary gift not sufficient 2: Intention continued until death - 'Re Gonin': no gift of house as mother had prepared cheque as alternative 3: Intention re specific property, not just gen. desire to provide sth. for the donee 4: Donee is appointed executor - idea that trust completed by legal vesting at death 'Re Ralli': problematic; extended rule to the declaration of a trust BUT status is uncertain • Meagher & Lehane: is a "sorry example of equity abused"; assisting a volunteer this way def. undermines leg. certainty |
|
Exception 3
Proprietary estoppel |
Unlike promissory estoppel, both shield and sword; can create a proprietary interest in a volunteer, even though no valid gift/trust in his favour
- HL 'Cobbe v Yeoman's Row' - 'Gillett v Holt' - 'Jennings v Rice' - 'Taylor Fashions' |
|
Influence of equity 1
Every effort/last act |
'Re Rose' & 'Re Rose': both settlors had done all in their power to make the donation; gifts improperly constituted due to oversights by 3Ps
• Evershed LJ (CA 1952): would be 'unconscionable' for E not to intervene, as testator had done the 'last act' nec.; thus couldn't resile from their promise 'Mascall v Mascall': father prevented from revoking gift of land from son after arg. (land transfer form not yet registered) |
|
Influence of equity 2
Generous/equitable results |
'Vandervell v IRC': L. Wilberforce: V had done 'everything in his power' to effect the gift to the Royal College
BUT: he palpably hadn't; he wished to retain control of the option to repurchase the shares 'Paul v Constance': joint bingo winnings in man's account 'as much yours as mine'. Held to be self-declaration of trust as were "simply people", unversed in the subtleties of equity |
|
PC 'Choithram v Pagarani'
|
Facts: TCP died before signing the doc's which would have constituted the gift. But- CRUCIALLY- he was to be a trustee of the charitable foundation and already had legal title --> could view gift as self-declaration of trust; no writing nec.
• L. B-W: equity will not strive officiously to defeat a gift - TCP had provided for his family - Solemn declaration: 'I die happy; I have done all I intended to do' Need sufficient certainty of intention: - E looks to intention, not form - 'Re Williams' - Word 'trust' not nec. - 'Paul v Constance' COMMENTS: • Decision was a 'humane fiddle' • NB: TCP's failure due to incapacity, not oversight/foolishness • Didn't seriously undermine certainty as peculiar facts/limited application of ratio |
|
CA 'Pennington v Waine'
(Case) |
New head of exception - uncon.?
Facts: Settlor (Ada) tried to transfer parcel of shares to nephew (Harold). But instead of passing share transfer form to co. for registration, gave to auditors; failed to pass on. - Hadn't done everything in her power - 'Re Rose' - Hadn't declared self as trustee - 'C v P' Arden LJ: would be 'uncon.' for A to have changed mind and H not receive shares; CT arose; constituted the gift. "Equity has tempered the wind to the shorn lamb" - Was uncon. for a to resile as solicitor had told H 'everything's done' --> Gunnow: unclear what makes this uncon.; no detrimental reliance (cf. other CT's e.g. in PE) Clarke LJ: no need for delivery to effect "an equitable assignment" • BUT: didn't explain grounds for this exception to formalities |
|
CA 'Pennington v Waine'
(Criticism) |
• Oakley; Halliwell etc: CA misunderstood L. B-W in 'C v P'
• Halliwell: such a power is an "unwieldy beast"; ct ess. giving itself unfettered discretion. Need more principled and coherent development of uncon. • Resulting uncertainty means P's forced to litigate wherever there's a chance of uncon. perfecting an imperfect gift via a CT • Tech. point: CA 'Milroy' was authority, not PC 'C v P, esp. was was on v. different facts |
|
Covenants
|
Can only be enforced here if the ct finds that the covenantee held the promise itself a trust for the beneficiary - 'Fletcher v Fletcher'
PREV.: ct's unwilling to allow volunteers to sue to enforce the trust - 'Re Kay'; 'Re Cork' BUT: Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999: 3Ps may sue to enforce contracts/covenants: - If are intended to confer a benefit on them - Except where it wasn't the intention that they should be able to enforce it |
|
Conclusions
|
NB: if such a gift/trust fails, property usually held on resulting trust for donor's estate
• Equitable outcome in 'P v W' perhaps to be supported, but has deprived law of much certainty and coherence • Now unclear if/when gifts will be held constituted for uncon. (inherently vague term) via a CT • Such a vague approach also goes ag. the maxim 'equity is equality'; it treats similar cases differently |