Unit One (case cards) Flashcards

1
Q

Thomas v Times Book Co Ltd 1966

A

physical handover of assets - delivery + intention is required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

physical handover of assets - delivery + intention is required

A

Thomas v Times Book Co Ltd 1966

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Re Cole 1964

A

not enough for an effective transfer of ownership

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

not enough for an effective transfer of ownership

A

Re Cole 1964

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Jaffa v Taylor Gallery Ltd 1990

A

where physical delivery is not possible. then deed to transfer ownership is okay

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

where physical delivery is not possible, then deed to transfer ownership is okay

A

Jaffa v Taylor Gallery Ltd 1990

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Grey v lRC 1960

A

Natural meaning of the word ‘disposition’ Compare to Vandervell

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Natural meaning of the word ‘disposition’ compare to Vandervell

A

Grey v IRC 1960

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Re Paradise moter co LTD 1968

A

writing not needed for a disclaimer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

writing not needed for a disclaimer

A

Re Paradise moter co LTD 1968

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Vandervell 1967

A
  • did not comply with S.53 (1) c LPA 1925
  • Held that where we have a situation where the beneficiary recieves both legal and equitable title the trust has ended
  • Courd held - did not come within scope of the act - did not matter that there was no writing - oral instruction sufficed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q
  • did not comply with S.53 (1) c LPA 1925
  • Held that where we have a situation where the beneficiary recieves both legal and equitable title the trust has ended
  • Courd held - did not come within scope of the act - did not matter that there was no writing - oral instruction sufficed
A

Vandervell 1967

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Hudson v Hathaway 2022

A

COA said email sign off is sufficient to be a signature for S.53 (1) (c)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Paul v Constance 1977

A

Coa held declaration of trust to new GF - money went to both wife and GF

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Coa said email sign off is sufficient to be a signature for S.53 (1) (c)

A

Hudson v Hathaway 2022

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Coa held declaration of trust to new GF - money went to both wife and GF

A

Paul v Constance 1977

17
Q

Re Kayford 1975

A

No written formalities required for a declaration of trust “equity looks to substance (intent) not form”

18
Q

No written formalities required for a declaration of trust “equity looks to substance (intent) not form”

A

Re Kayford 1975

19
Q

Re Bowden 1936

A
  • Changed mind 60 years later about transfering her property over
  • Court held - she had no interest in that property anymore
20
Q
  • Changed mind 60 years later about transferring her property over
  • Court held - she had no interest in that property anymore
A

Re Bowden 1936

21
Q

Milroy v Lord 1862

A

Gave three mutually exclusive methods of transfering property inter vivos -
1. legal transfer of title too recipient
2. Transfer of title to a trustee for a beneficiary
3. A self declaration of trust
Cannot mix and match modes - only one is right

22
Q

Gave three mutually exclusive methods of transfering property inter vivos -
1. legal transfer of title too recipient
2. Transfer of title to a trustee for a beneficiary
3. A self declaration of trust
Cannot mix and match modes - only one is right

A

Milroy v Lord 1862

23
Q

Jones v Lock 1865

A
  • Put check in babies hand
  • Perfect gift not made - intention to make a gift but formalities not completed
24
Q
  • Put check in babies hand
  • Perfect gift not made - intention to make a gift but formalities not completed
A

Jones v Lock 1865

25
Richard v Delbridge 1874
No formalities - transfer did not work
26
No formalities - transfer did not work
Richard v Delbridge 1874
27
T Choithram international S.A v Pagarani 2001
- Did not fit neatly into the categorisation of Lord v Milroy - "the facts of the case are novel and raise a new point" - Gift on trust had been created
28
- Did not fit neatly into the categorisation of Lord v Milroy - "the facts of the case are novel and raise a new point" - Gift on trust had been created
T Choithram international S.A v Pagarani 2001
29
Re Rose 1952
If settlor has made "every effort" to transfer the property, the transfer will be complete in equity
30
If settlor has made "every effort" to transfer the property, the transfer will be complete in equity
Re Rose 1952
31
Mascall v Mascall 1984
Every effort test passed
32
Every effor test passed
Mascall v Mascall 1984
33
Pennington v Waine 2002
- Every effort test not passed - UNCONSCIONABILITY - would have been unconscionable for auntie to change mind
34
- Every effort test not passed - UNCONSCIONABILITY - would have been unconscionable for auntie to change mind
Pennington v Waine 2002
35
Curtis v Pulbrook 2011
- For it to be unconscionable the recipient must have done something to her detriment relying on the fact the shares had been transfered to her
36
- For it to be unconscionable the recipient must have done something to her detriment relying on the fact the shares had been transfered to her
Curtis v Pulbrook 2011