CFC Flashcards Preview

E + T Exams Cards > CFC > Flashcards

Flashcards in CFC Deck (65):

Structure of an individual disposition

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?


Milroy v Lord

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


Requirements of a gift?

- Intention
- Transfer of LT


If gift fails requirements what is general rule?

- 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.


Transfer on trust requirements

- Valid declaration of trust (certainties + formalities)
- Transfer of legal title


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

- 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


Requirements for a self declaration trust

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


Requirements for a valid transfer of a chattel

Re Cole; intention and delivery
Or a deed of gift


Valid transfer of shares

S1 Stock Transfer Act;
- Stock transfer form
- Sent off with share certificate
- Title passes on registratino


Valid transfer of copyright

S90(3) Copyrigh, Designs and Patent Act


Valid transfer of a bank account

S136 LPA 1925 - signed written notice to debtor


Valid transfer of land

S52(1) LPA 1925;
- Created by deed
- Registered S27 LRA 2002


Glaister-Carlisle v Glaister-Carlisle

- 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


Richards v Delbridge

Trust of land failed for LT not performed by valid deed


Re Rose

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.


Mascall v Mascall

 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.


Zeital v Kaye

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


Pennington v Waine

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.


Equitable proprietary estoppel

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’.


Thorer v Major

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


Curtis v Pulbrook

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.


Choithram v Pagarani

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.


Rule in Strong v BIrd

- 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


Re Freedland

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


Re Gonin

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


Re Stewart

Extended rule in Strong v Bird to gifts


Re James

Extended to adminstrators


Re Ralli

Extended to trusts


Death Bed Gifts - Donatio Mortis Causa

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


Re Miller

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


Senn v headley

- 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


Knight v Knight

Established 3 certainties;
- Intention
- Subject matter
- Object


Adams & Kensington

If intention lacking then take property free of trust


Paul v Constance

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


Comiskey v Bowring Hanbury

Imperative wording necessary for creation of trust through written wording


Re Adams & Kensington

- Precartory written wording insufficient to demonstrate intention


Palmer v Simmonds

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'


Re Golay's WT

Reasonable income judged to be sufficiently certain subject matter


Re London Wine

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


Hunter v Moss

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


Boyce v Boyce

- 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


Vandervell (effect of lack of certain object)

- Resulting trust


MOrice v Bishop of Durham

Must be a human to enforce the trust


Fixed trust objects

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


Objects under discretionary trust

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


Re Baden

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


R v District Auditor ex p West Yorks

Trust will fail for adminstrative unworkability


Re Barlow's WT

Gift has lower threshold of conceptual certainty


Maitland; Paul v Constance

- Trusts are essentially informal


Formalities for wills

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



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


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

- Signed writing
- Incurs stamp duty


Timpson Executors v Yerbury

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


Grey v IRC

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


Vandervell v IRC

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


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

trust is void


Neville v Wilson

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


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

- 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)


Re Paradise Motos

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


What will make denial of a disposition unconscionable?

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


Re Beaumont

Cheque from the donor to donee not transferable under a DMC


Re mead

Cheque to donor can form subject matter of a trust


Birch v treasury

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


Re lashmor

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


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

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