Unit 1 Flashcards
Vandervell v IRC (importance in unit 1)
Existing equitable interest - when transferring legal and equitable interest together there is no trust after this is completed
Paul v Constance
Constance told the c that his money was “as much yours as it is mine”. When he died c tried to claim for the money arguing he held it on trust. Held: there was an intention to hold the money on trust for the c.
Gray v IRC
Transfer occurred orally instructed the trustees to hold the blocks of shares onto the settlements he made for his grandchildren. No documents. Held: the transfer occurred by the oral declaration
Re Vandervells Trusts No2
V had resulting trusts with the option to buy shares. The trustees bought the shares and held them on trusts for children’s settlements. Held: a valid declaration and the money used to purchase the shares was from the children’s settlement - trust was transferred through the actions of the trustees
Milroy v Lord
3 modes of transfer:
Outright gift
Declares themself a trustee
Transfer onto another trustee
Re Rose - every effort test
Every effort test - if the settlor has made every effort to transfer the property then the transfer will be complete
Mascall v Mascall
Father and son fall out after the transfer form was signed and stamped (transfer of property) but before registration. Held: every effort test had been passed and transfer was effective in law.
Pennington v Waine
Ownership can pass in equity when it is unconscionable for it not to do so.
AC intended to transfer shares to her nephew CramptonAC failed to handover the share transfer form to the company secretary who is tested with the registration of the share transfer but handed it to the auditor instead who is an agent of AC neglected to pass it on to the company secretary AC passed away. held: the hell the shares were held on a constructive trust for Crampton.
