Informal acquisition of equitable title Flashcards
(9 cards)
Jones v Lock (1865-66) L.R. 1 Ch. App. 25
Jones v. Lock (1865) 1 Ch App 25- father with cheque waving in front of baby crib- he was intending to make gift - self declared as trustee instead
Re fry
the donor had done everything he could to transfer shares to his son, but died before the Treasury gave permission for the transfer of international shares. Held: no transfer at law or in equity
Court said NOT a perfected gift- the treasury might not have given that consent- it would be wrong to have construed as perfected.
Might NOT be distinguished from Re Rose- in Re Rose the directors of the company also have a discretion to refuse transfers- registration of shares occurred after the tax date cut-off.
Re Rose
Although, in general, “equity will not perfect an imperfect gift” such that the gift is not considered complete until registration, there is an exception when the donee has done everything within their power to complete the legal transfer.
Therefore, the court held that the gift was deemed to be held on a (constructive) trust by the donor for the donee, after the donor had taken all the necessary steps, and consequently, the dividends belonged to the donee.
Mascall v Mascall [1984] EWCA Civ 10
re rose - this rule was applied to the gift of registered land in Mascall v Mascall [1984]
father gave land to his son and signed transfer form, sen t of to registry, but after the paperwork had been dispatched - they had a falling out and the father tried to stop the land registry from transferring the land
courts said no, because he had done all he had to do to transfer it
Curtis v Pulbrook [2011] EWHC 167 (Ch)
move back to re rose?
high court decision - had to follow pennington as binding authority
Briggs, J: careful application of the exceptions to the maxim ‘Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift’:
If the rule in Re Rose (the ‘every effort’ rule) applies; or
If detrimental reliance by the donee sufficiently binds the donor’s conscience so the court may impose a constructive trust; or - estoppel argument?
If a ‘benevolent construction of the words used’ justifies the court in finding an effective gift or implied self-declaration of trust.
Briggs J expressed doubt whether ‘the circumstances when equity will and will not perfect an apparently imperfect gift … serve any clearly identifiable or rational policy objective’ (at [47] ).
Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) LR 21 Ch D 9
equity will recognise a mortgage which has been created by a valid deed, but the legal formality of registration has not been complied with
Baker v Craggs [2018] EWCA Civ 1126
The Charltons sold part of their property to the Bakers, but the application to register the Bakers’ new freehold title was delayed. In the meantime, the Charltons sold another part of their property to the Craggs, with the benefit of a right of way (an easement) over the Bakers’ land.
When the Craggs registered their new freehold title with the benefit of the easement, the Bakers’ title had still not been registered.
*CA held: As the Bakers were in actual occupation of their property, their title took priority over the Craggs’ interest: LRA, Schedule 3 (2). - they had an equitable propriety interest
The Craggs’ easement was removed from the Land Register.
*But if the Bakers had not moved in, the Craggs’ easement would have taken priority, as it was registered first.
Englewood Properties v Patel [2005] EWHC 188 (Ch)
The vendor’s equitable obligation is to protect the interest that the purchaser has acquired under the contract: Englewood Properties v Patel [2005] EWHC 188 (Ch). The vendor must take reasonable care of the land and consult the purchaser over any decisions affecting it.
