CFC

Question 1

Structure of an individual disposition

Answer 1

1. What type of disposition is it?
2. What are the requirements?
3. What is the general rule if requirements not complied with?
4. Are there any exceptions?
5. Will equity perfect or will it fail as disposition?

Question 2

Milroy v Lord

Answer 2

3 types of disposition;

1. Out right gift
2. Transfer on trust
3. Self declaration of trust

Question 3

Requirements of a gift?

Answer 3

• Intention

- Transfer of LT

Question 4

If gift fails requirements what is general rule?

Answer 4

• Milroy v Lord - invalid gift of shares will not be treated as a self declaration trust
• Jones v Lock - Cheque to baby did not fulfill requirements, therefore failed as gift. Equity does not perfect.
• Richards v Delbridge - Invalid lease did not transfer LT not treated as self declaration trust. Wrote on back of lease. Must be a separate lease.

Question 5

Transfer on trust requirements

Answer 5

• Valid declaration of trust (certainties + formalities)

- Transfer of legal title

Question 6

What is general rule if transfer on trust is not constituted?

Answer 6

• Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift
• Equity will not assist a volunteer
• Equity will not create a valid self declaration trust out of a failed gift or transfer on trust

Question 7

Requirements for a self declaration trust

Answer 7

Only needs to be a valid trust ( C + F)

Question 8

Requirements for a valid transfer of a chattel

Answer 8

Re Cole; intention and delivery

Or a deed of gift

Question 9

Valid transfer of shares

Answer 9

S1 Stock Transfer Act;

• Stock transfer form
• Sent off with share certificate
• Title passes on registratino

Question 10

Valid transfer of copyright

Answer 10

S90(3) Copyrigh, Designs and Patent Act

Question 11

Valid transfer of a bank account

Answer 11

S136 LPA 1925 - signed written notice to debtor

Question 12

Valid transfer of land

Answer 12

S52(1) LPA 1925;

• Created by deed
• Registered S27 LRA 2002

Question 13

Glaister-Carlisle v Glaister-Carlisle

Answer 13

• Intention to transfer legal title
• Threw poodle at wife in an argument shouting ‘you keep the bitch’
• Not sufficient intention as in heat of moment

Question 14

Richards v Delbridge

Answer 14

Trust of land failed for LT not performed by valid deed

Question 15

Re Rose

Answer 15

Courts will perfect an imperfect gift if;

• Correct method of transfer used
• Do all in one’s power (no further action required)
• Put the method beyond one’s control (irrevocable)
  
  • ** property with donees agent. Out of control.

Question 16

Mascall v Mascall

Answer 16

 Extension to Re Rose. The father gave everything to the son in terms of paperwork and share certificates. The gift was therefore irrevocable and all the son had to do was register. It was beyond the father’s control.

Question 17

Zeital v Kaye

Answer 17

The deceased owner of an absolute equitable interest in a shareholding had not done everything in his power to transfer the shareholding when he had not handed over the share certificate, although he had handed over a share transfer form signed by the registered shareholder

Question 18

Pennington v Waine

Answer 18

Extension of rule in Re Rose. Documents not out of the control of the donor as in the possession of her agent. However it was judged to be unconscionable to deny the transfer as ;
 Gift given of own free will
 Told Harold of the gift
 Signed transfer form
 Became director on basis of share transfer
**documents not out of her control in a re: rose sense but p v w operates to mean once in your own agents hands and there is nothing more to do then the rule can still apply.

Question 19

Equitable proprietary estoppel

Answer 19

This is the idea that a transfer will be deemed to be made if it were unconscionable to go back on the assurance. Based on the ‘minimum equity required to do justice’.

Question 20

Thorer v Major

Answer 20

Proprietary estoppel arises where there is an assurance, reliance and detriment so that it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance

Question 21

Curtis v Pulbrook

Answer 21

Suggests that the rule in Pennginton v Waine is best explained by proprietary estoppel as the nephew relied on the assurance to his detriment, so it would have been unconscionable to deny it.

Question 22

Choithram v Pagarani

Answer 22

A donor orally declared his intention to make a gift on trust to a charity but did not transfer it before he died. The donor was himself one of the charities trustees and because all trustees are entitled to have the trust property vested in them the Privy Council ordered that this happen. It would be unconscionable not to.

Question 23

Rule in Strong v BIrd

Answer 23

• If donor intends gift but not delivered and the donor dies before delivery, then if the desired donee is also the executor then equity will allow the gift
• Requirements;
  
  • Intention to make and immediate gift
  • Intention remains unchanged until death

Question 24

Re Freedland

Answer 24

Must be an intention to make an immeidate gift not future gift
- judged to be a future intention where continued to drive the car

Question 25

Re Gonin

Answer 25

Intention remains unchanged until death | - giving a cheque in lieu of the house was seen to be a change intention

Question 26

Re Stewart

Answer 26

Extended rule in Strong v Bird to gifts

Question 27

Re James

Answer 27

Extended to adminstrators

Question 28

Re Ralli

Answer 28

Extended to trusts

Question 29

Death Bed Gifts - Donatio Mortis Causa

Answer 29

Cain v Moon - Contemplation of imminent death - Conditional on death - Actual or constructive delivery (Senn v Headley)

Question 30

Re Miller

Answer 30

Death not imminent so not a case for DMC. Was only a chance of death, not given in contemplation of imminent death.

Question 31

Senn v headley

Answer 31

- If the gift cannot be formally given, then if a means of access is given, e.g. keys then this is constructive delivery - constructive delivery depending on giving means of dominion and control

Question 32

Knight v Knight

Answer 32

Established 3 certainties; - Intention - Subject matter - Object

Question 33

Adams & Kensington

Answer 33

If intention lacking then take property free of trust

Question 34

Paul v Constance

Answer 34

- Spoken words sufficient for a trust | - Conduct sufficient for trust

Question 35

Comiskey v Bowring Hanbury

Answer 35

Imperative wording necessary for creation of trust through written wording

Question 36

Re Adams & Kensington

Answer 36

- Precartory written wording insufficient to demonstrate intention

Question 37

Palmer v Simmonds

Answer 37

If subject matter of trust is uncertain then will fail as a void disposition - In this case failed as 'bul of my estate' not sufficient for a trust'

Question 38

Re Golay's WT

Answer 38

Reasonable income judged to be sufficiently certain subject matter

Question 39

Re London Wine

Answer 39

Wine not identifiable as not segregated so the property was not identifiable

Question 40

Hunter v Moss

Answer 40

Share is a chose in action, not a chattel (i.e. not identifiable) did not have to be identifiable as all the shares were the same

Question 41

Boyce v Boyce

Answer 41

- What share of property is stated in the trust must be certain - Will stating that 2 daughters would inherit property, however eldest daughter had to choose which property she wanted first. However as eldest daughter did not choose what share of property she wanted, she got nothing as no definite share of property entitled to

Question 42

Vandervell (effect of lack of certain object)

Answer 42

- Resulting trust

Question 43

MOrice v Bishop of Durham

Answer 43

Must be a human to enforce the trust

Question 44

Fixed trust objects

Answer 44

- Property divided so must be possible to identify all beneficiaries - List method - IRC Broadway Cottages

Question 45

Objects under discretionary trust

Answer 45

Not all beneficiaries need to be identifiable, only need to pass the is/is not test – McPhail and Doulton COncept must be conceptually certain

Question 46

Re Baden

Answer 46

``` 3 different interpretations of the McPhail and Doulton list test; o Megaw LJ – As long as there si a substantial number within the class, then it does not matter that there are some people outside the class o Sachs LJ – Onus on claimant to prove he is within the class o Stamp LJ – Need to know exactly who is in, and exactly who is out. If there is any uncertainty then the trust is void. This is the list test again ```

Question 47

R v District Auditor ex p West Yorks

Answer 47

Trust will fail for adminstrative unworkability

Question 48

Re Barlow's WT

Answer 48

Gift has lower threshold of conceptual certainty

Question 49

Maitland; Paul v Constance

Answer 49

- Trusts are essentially informal

Question 50

Formalities for wills

Answer 50

o S9 Wills act 1837  A. Must be in writing and signed by the testator  B. Signature must be made or acknowledged in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time  C. Each witness must attest and sign the will or acknowledge their signature in testator’s presence

Question 51

Land

Answer 51

o S53(1)(b);  Manifested and proved by signed writing  Without signed writing the trust is unenforceable o Exception;  Hodgson v Marks (1971) • Resulting trust in favour of Hodgson as never intended full equitable title to pass • Meant that S53(1)(b) did not apply, so there was a trust despite the lack of formalities

Question 52

Disposition of subsisting equitable interest S53(1)(c)

Answer 52

- Signed writing | - Incurs stamp duty

Question 53

Timpson Executors v Yerbury

Answer 53

4 types of equitable disposition - Assign to 3rd party - Direct a trustee to hold property for 3rd party - Contractor for valuable consideration - Declare himself a trustee for 3rd party

Question 54

Grey v IRC

Answer 54

Directed a trustee to hold property for 3rd party instead of yourself Still must comply with S53 (1)(c)

Question 55

Vandervell v IRC

Answer 55

Do not have to comply with S53(1)(c) if LT transferred and ET intended to move as well. Oral instruction is sufficient, need no written evidence

Question 56

Effect of S53(1)(c) non-compliance

Answer 56

trust is void

Question 57

Neville v Wilson

Answer 57

If equitable interest sold then S53(1)(c) will not apply if the property is unique and therefore has remedy of specific performance as this will create a constructive trust so S53(2) will apply

Question 58

Declaration of trsut for 3rd party (in relation to S53(1)(c))

Answer 58

- Grainge v Wilberforce - Under a subtrust the previous ET holder no longer has any duties so drops out of trust, therefore S53(1)(c) does not apply - B. Green - S53(1)(c) should apply as that will mean there is proof of transfer - Kaye v Zeital - Subtrusts fall outside scope of S53(1)(c)

Question 59

Re Paradise Motos

Answer 59

S53(1)(c) does not apply as the potential beneficiary never held the asset so could not dispose of it

Question 60

What will make denial of a disposition unconscionable?

Answer 60

- reliance - knowledge of disposition - assurance that no further act is necessary

Question 61

Re Beaumont

Answer 61

Cheque from the donor to donee not transferable under a DMC

Question 62

Re mead

Answer 62

Cheque to donor can form subject matter of a trust

Question 63

Birch v treasury

Answer 63

Delivery of a bank deposit book constitued constructive delivery under a DMC

Question 64

Re lashmor

Answer 64

If b declares trust for c of b's equitable interest then s53(1)(c) is not necessary as this is a bare trust and b drops out of picture - affirmed in Nelson v Greening. Though did not consider alter stove position

Question 65

What is the mnemonic for the structure of a CFC question?

Answer 65

``` Turtles -> title Despise -> disposition type Rancid -> disposition requirements Penis -> property type Rather -> property requirements Tasting -> trust validity? Purple -> problem Elephant -> exception Cum -> conclusion ```