Ineffective Transfers:
Milory v Lord: Lord was trustee for Milroy. However, the settlor did not transfer the shares to Lord, but merely gave Lord the power to distribute the dividends, which meant that the gift was incomplete.

Richards v Delbridge: Richards attempted to make an outright gift through transferring the lease over, however there was no deed and so no gift.

Shah v Shah: attempted to give shares as a gift "I am holding shares immediately for you" however, the court held the wording amounted to a trust: the intention of a declaration of trust is "manifested by the words he has used in the context of all the relevant facts"

'Every Effort Rule'/ Rose Rule:
Re Rose: Deceased executed a transfer of shared to his wife a s a gift of love and affection. The transfer was not registered by the company until later by which time the donor had passed away. Did he fulfil the "every effort rule"? Held, he had done all he could in his own power to transfer the shares.
Note: the gift becomes enforceable from the time of transfer instead of registration due to "registration gap".

T. Choithram International SA v Pagarani: A man lying on his deathbed sought to declare a trust over his property but failed to transfer legal title in the property to all trustees- the trust was not validly constituted. Held, a valid trust was created, applying the Re Rose, the settlor could be taken to have done all that was necessary to create a trust.

Re Fry: Transferor had not obtained Treasury approval which was mandatory to effect the transfer of the property, he had not done everything required of him before his death.

Mascall v Mascall: father wished to transfer land to his son and so gave him a deed of transfer and the land certificate. Then they fell out and the father argued that the property was still his because the son had not registered the deed in his name through the land registry. Held, the father had done everything in his power to make the transfer effective. Without registration the legal title had not passed, but title had passed in equity which meant that the property was held on trust for the son by the father.

Pennington v Waine: testator gave documents to her agent and told donee her intentions. Agent assured the testator that there was no more for them to do despite the fact that ownership had not been registered by. The testator later died and registration still had not occurred. The 'every effort rule' had not been fulfilled as the testator was aware of the issue and could have taken matters back into her own hands before her death it would have been unconscionable for her to have to do so therefore the transfer was passed.

Zeital v Kaye: The deceased owner of a shareholding attempted to transfer the shareholding but the share certificates were missing. Held, he had not done everything in his power to order new copies and so the trust failed.

Curtis v Pulbrook: Believed Pennington v Waine was actually an exception to the Rose Rule as opposed to an extension upon the rule

	Erstellt von cadhla_corrigan vor mehr als 10 Jahre

LLB Trusts and Equity (4. Constitution of Trusts) Notiz am The Constitution of Trusts, erstellt von cadhla_corrigan am 30/04/2014.