Constitution Flashcards
Milroy v Lord
Ratio: There are three ways in which a legal owner may confer the benefit of his property on another person:
1. An outright gift
2. A transfer on trust
3. A self-declaration of trust
The donor/settlor must do everything necessary to make the intended disposition. Equity will not perfect the disposition or treat him as having used another method.
Facts: Settlor executed a voluntary deed purporting to transfer shares to Lord to be held on trust for the claimants. This was not the correct method for transferring legal title to shares. Trust failed as equity will not perfect the disposition.
Jones v Lock
Ratio: Example of the Rule in Milroy v Lord. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift.
Facts: Father declared that a cheque for £900 payable to himself was for his baby. However, he did not endorse the cheque. When he died shortly after the £900 did not pass to the baby because he had not done everything necessary to make the disposition.
Richards v Delbridge
Ratio: Example of the Rule in Milroy v Lord. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift.
Facts: Grandfather wanted to assign a lease to his grandson. He endorsed a memorandum to this effect. This was not the correct method as a separate deed should have been used. The gift was not upheld as the donee had not done everything necessary to transfer the property.
Choithram International S.A. and Other v Lalibai Thakurdas Pagarani and Others
Ratio: Extended the rule in Milroy v Lord.
Facts: A businessman orally declared his intention to make a gift to charity but he did not transfer the legal title before he died. Since charities are not legal entities, they require trustees to hold property for specified purposes, a gift to a charity is essentially a transfer on trust. To constitute the trust, property should have been transferred to all the trustees. However, the businessman was one of the trustees of the particular charity. PC held that although he had not yet transferred the property into the joint names of the trustees, he had manifested an intention to hold it on trust for the purposes of the charity. Since one of the trustees had the property vested in him, and all trustees are entitled to have trust property vested in them jointly, the PC ordered the personal representative of the deceased trustee to vest the property in the surviving trustees.
Re Cole
Ratio: Chattels may be transferred either by a deed of gift or by actual delivery.
Re Rose
Ratio: Where the settlor has done everything in their power to facilitate the transfer, equity may regard the transfer as complete.
Facts: Mr Rose executed two transfers of shares on 30th March 1943. Transfers and share certificates were delivered to the company registrar, but were not registered until 30th June 1943. It was necessary to know for duty purposes when the transfers became effective. Court of Appeal held that the transfers were effective in equity once Mr Rose had done everything in his power to vest the shares in the transferees. Pending registration, Mr Rose held the legal title to the shares on constructive trust for the intended transferees.
Mascall v Mascall
Ratio: Extends Re Rose to include transfers of land. Once all the relevant documents had been executed and the transfer stamped and handed to the transferee (but before registration at the land registry) the transfer was viewed as complete in equity.
Re Fry
Ratio: Example of transferor failing to put the matter beyond their control and so Re Rose did not apply.
Zetal v Kaye
Ratio: Example of transferor failing to put the matter beyond their control and so Re Rose did not apply.
Pennington v Waine
Ratio: If a stage has been reached whereby it is unconscionable to recall a gift, it will be treated as perfect in equity.
Facts: Ada Crampton owned 1500 of the 2000 shares in a company of which she was a director. She instructed Mr Pennington, a partner in the company, to transfer 400 shares to her nephew Harold. She carried out the necessary process and gave it to Mr Pennington who failed to take any further action. Ada told Harold she wanted him to become a director and counter-signed a consent form to this effect. Court held that although Ada had not done everything in her power to ‘irrevocably transfer ownership’ a stage had been reached where it would be unconscionable for her to recall the gift and thus it was treated as perfect. The relevant factors considered were:
• Ada made the gift of her own free will
• Ada told Harold about the gift and signed the share form which she delivered to Mr Pennington for him to secure registration
• Mr Pennington, her agent, told Harold he need take no action
• Harold agreed to become a director, which he could not do without shares being transferred to him
• Ada countersigned the form of consent to act as a director
Note: This case is better understood as an example of proprietary estoppel.
Strong v Bird
Ratio: Fortuitous vesting - failure to perfect the intended transferee’s legal title may be cured if they later happen to obtain this title through other means.
Facts: Bird borrowed some money from his step-mother. She orally released him from the debt but legally this was ineffective and upon her death the legatees requested repayment of the debt. However, Bird had been appointed as executor of the estate and thus would be responsible for collecting this debt. Since he could not sue himself it was held that his appointment as executor was evidence of his stepmother’s unchanged intention to forgive the debt.
Re Stewart
Ratio: Exception in Strong v Bird can be extended to the perfection of imperfect gifts.
Also, the exception will apply even if the intended recipient is one of several executors.
Re Freeland
Ratio: For fortuitous vesting to succeed in relation to perfecting imperfect gifts, there must be an intention to make an immediate gift.
Facts: Testatrix had only intended to give the claimant the property (her car) in the future after it had been fixed and returned from a third party. There was no intention to make a gift.
Re James
Ratio: The exception in Strong v Bird applies even where the donee becomes an administrator on the intestacy of the donor.
Note: this was doubted in Re Gonin since the administrator is appointed by a third party.
Re Ralli
Ratio: Suggests that a trust would become constituted if the trust property came into the trustee’s hands in any legitimate way.
Facts: Testator left property on trust to his wife, remainder to his two daughters equally. One daughter, Helen, set up a separate trust known as a marriage settlement. She covenanted to transfer all her current and later property to her trustees, this would have included any property she received from her father’s will trust. However, Helen died while her interest under her father’s trust was still in remainder and so it was not possible to transfer legal title of that property to the trustee of her marriage settlement. When her mother died, Helen’s interest under her father’s trust fell into possession. X was the sole surviving trustee of her father’s trust, and was also the trustee of Helen’s marriage settlement. Held that the property under the father’s trust could be transferred to Helen’s marriage settlement.
