Strong v Bird

What is the rule in Strong v Bird [1874]?

It is an exception to the principle that equity will not assist a volunteer, allowing an imperfect gift to be perfected if the donee is appointed as the donor's executor or administrator.

What is the practical rationale for the rule?

It avoids the anomaly of an executor having to sue themselves to recover property that the deceased donor intended them to receive.

Describe the facts in Strong v Bird.

.The case involved a dispute over whether a debt owed by Bird to his stepmother was effectively forgiven after she appointed him executor. The court found that her forgiveness and appointment completed the gift, preventing the estate from claiming the debt.

How did Pinnel’s Case (1602) contrast with the ruling in Strong v Bird?

At common law, part payment of a debt is not valid consideration for total discharge but in Strong v Bird, equity upheld the discharge of the debt upon the donee's appointment as executor.

What did Re Stewart (19081908) establish regarding the scope of the rule?

It established that the rule is not limited to the forgiveness of debt and can include gifts of real property.

Is the rule applicable if there are multiple executors?

Yes, according to Neville J in Re Stewart (1908), it is immaterial whether the donee is the sole executor or one of several.

What is the first primary requirement for the rule in Strong v Bird to apply?

The donee must be appointed as a personal representative (executor or administrator) of the deceased donor.

What was the significance of Re James (1935)?

It held that the rule can apply even when an executor is appointed under an invalid will, provided they later become the administrator.

How did Re James (1956) extend the rule regarding administrators?

The court held that the rule applies even where the donee appoints themselves as the administrator of the deceased's estate.

What was the criticism of Re James (1956) in Re Gonin (1979)?

It was criticized because there is often no specific intention on the part of the deceased when a donee independently appoints themselves as administrator.

What is the second primary requirement for the rule in Strong v Bird to apply?

The deceased must have intended to make an immediate gift of the property, and that intention must persist until death.

What criteria did Re Wilson (1993) emphasize regarding the donor's intent?

The intention must be to transfer specific property immediately, and it must not be testamentary in nature (an intent to give only upon death).

Does the rule apply if a donor intends to make a gift only at a future date?

The rule will not apply as held in Re Freeland.

Which the case from (2014) recently upheld the rule in Strong v Bird?

Day v Harris (2014).