Exceptions to Milroy v Lord Flashcards
What is the general principle from Milroy v Lord (1862)?
A. A gift is valid once the settlor expresses intention
B. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift
C. The law recognizes verbal declarations of gifts
D. A failed gift automatically results in a constructive trust
B. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift
Explanation:
Milroy v Lord establishes that if a gift or trust fails due to incomplete transfer, the courts will not intervene to perfect it.
Under the Re Rose principle, when does a transfer become effective in equity?
A. When legal title is formally registered
B. When the transferor expresses a clear intention to gift
C. When the transferor has done everything in their power to transfer ownership
D. When the donee takes physical possession of the property
C. When the transferor has done everything in their power to transfer ownership
Explanation:
Re Rose (1952) states that equitable title passes when the donor has done all they can to effect the transfer, even if legal title has not yet passed.
What was the key development in Mascall v Mascall (1985)?
A. The principle of unconscionability
B. Extending Re Rose to land transfers
C. The rule in Strong v Bird
D. The introduction of donationes mortis causa
B. Extending Re Rose to land transfers
Explanation:
Mascall v Mascall extended Re Rose by holding that if the transfer is beyond the donor’s control, it is effective in equity, even if registration has not occurred.
What is the main principle from Pennington v Waine (2002)?
A. The transfer is valid if the donee relies on it
B. Only written and signed transfers are enforceable
C. Gifts require immediate physical delivery
D. The transferor can revoke the gift at any time before registration
A. The transfer is valid if the donee relies on it
Explanation:
In Pennington v Waine, equity enforced the transfer as it would have been unconscionable for the donor to revoke it after the donee relied on the gift.
A donor gifts shares to their nephew and signs a transfer form. The form is handed to the nephew but is never sent to the company registrar. What is the legal consequence?
A. The transfer is invalid because legal title has not passed
B. The transfer is valid because the donor’s intention was clear
C. The transfer is effective under the Re Rose principle
D. The company can register the transfer at any time
A. The transfer is invalid because legal title has not passed
Explanation:
Under Milroy v Lord, a transfer fails unless legal title passes. Since the form was not sent for registration, the gift remains imperfect.
A donor gifts land to a friend and completes the transfer deed but does not register it. The donor later changes their mind. What is the legal effect?
A. The donor can revoke the gift since registration is incomplete
B. The gift is effective in equity if the deed is beyond the donor’s control
C. The gift is automatically void under Milroy v Lord
D. The donee must obtain a court order to enforce the gift
B. The gift is effective in equity if the deed is beyond the donor’s control
Explanation:
In Mascall v Mascall, the court held that once the donor has put the transfer beyond their control, the gift cannot be revoked.
A testator intended to gift property to their son but failed to execute the necessary transfer documents. The son was later appointed as the testator’s executor. What is the likely legal outcome?
A. The gift remains void despite the son’s appointment
B. The son must apply for probate before claiming ownership
C. The gift is perfected under the rule in Strong v Bird
D. The son can claim equitable ownership through adverse possession
C. The gift is perfected under the rule in Strong v Bird
Explanation:
In Strong v Bird (1874), the court held that if the donee later becomes the donor’s executor, the gift is perfected, even if it was initially imperfect.
A donor, on their deathbed, gives their house keys and title deeds to their friend, stating “This house is yours if I do not survive.” What is the legal consequence?
A. The transfer is invalid because it is not in writing
B. The transfer is effective under donationes mortis causa
C. The house automatically forms part of the donor’s estate
D. The gift is valid as a deathbed transfer if the donor dies as anticipated
D. The gift is valid as a deathbed transfer if the donor dies as anticipated
Explanation:
A valid DMC (deathbed gift) requires:
Gift made in contemplation of death
Conditional upon death
Delivery of dominion (e.g., handing over title deeds).
Sen v Headley (1991) confirmed that giving title deeds constitutes delivery.
A donor intends to gift property to their niece and provides a signed transfer form. The form is not sent for registration, but the niece acts in reliance on the gift by selling her house. The donor later revokes the gift. What is the legal effect?
A. The revocation is valid as the gift was incomplete
B. The court may enforce the transfer under the principle of unconscionability
C. The niece has no remedy because the transfer was not registered
D. The gift is enforceable if it would be unconscionable to revoke it
D. The gift is enforceable if it would be unconscionable to revoke it
Explanation:
In Pennington v Waine (2002), the court held that if a donee relies on a gift to their detriment, it may be enforced in equity.
A donor tells their solicitor to transfer shares to a friend but dies before signing the transfer form. The shares remain in the donor’s name. What is the legal outcome?
A. The shares transfer automatically upon the donor’s death
B. The solicitor can complete the transfer posthumously
C. The gift fails due to lack of execution
D. Equity may enforce the gift if it would be unconscionable to deny it
D. Equity may enforce the gift if it would be unconscionable to deny it
Explanation:
Equity may intervene where it would be unfair for the donor’s estate to retain the property, especially where the donee reasonably relied on the gift.
