Express Trusts: Validity and Creation II - Lecture 4 - Property II

What is certainty of objects (one of the certainties required to establish an express trust)?

Certainty of objects is figuring out who are the beneficiaries and possible beneficiaries to give rise to a trust.

Why is certainty of objects important as per Re Gulbenkian’s Settlement Trusts?

“The Court of Chancery, which acts in default of trustees, must know with sufficient certainty the objects of the beneficence of the donor so as to execute the trust.”

Why is certainty of objects important as per McPhail v Doulton?

McPhail v Doulton outlines that a trust should be upheld if there is practical certainty in the definition according to the expressed intention of the settlor.

What are the 4 types of issues raising from certainty of object (one of the certainties required to establish an express trust) in summary?

1. Conceptual Certainty

2. Evidentiary Certainty

3. Ascertainability

4. Administrative Workability

What is meant by conceptual certainty (an issue arising in relation to certainty of object)? And what is an example of this?

Conceptual certainty focuses on the language used to define the beneficiaries or objects and the precision of language to define the class of persons outlined by the settlor (such as what is the definition of a friend or next of kin, if there is no clearness on this, the trust will fail based on conceptual certainty of object)

Example → Consider, e.g., a trust for ‘my sons’ in circumstances where I have biological sons and stepsons.

What is meant by evidential certainty (an issue arising in relation to certainty of object)? And what are examples of this?

Evidentiary Certainty refers to the extent of evidence available on particular cases to identify individuals as beneficiaries or objects of a trust

• Example → such as no paper or computer records of the request - such as it being conceptually certain of those who graduated at ucl studying law at 1972, but if there is no evidence of graduations in 1972, then it would fail for uncertainty of object in regards to evidential uncertainty

• Example → Consider e.g. a trust for ‘those who graduated from UCL with a law degree in 1973’ – no computer records and UCL’s paper records destroyed in a fire.

What is meant by ascertainability (an issue arising in relation to certainty of object)?

The extent to which the continued existence of a object/beneficiaries and their whereabouts, can they be physically located?

The trust will not fail if there is inability to ascertain objects and the law has dealt with ways beneficiaries cannot be found, such as being paid into court according to the Benjamin Order and S27 Trustee Act to advertise their intention of paying out their money under a trust and if no objects come forward to obtain the money/item, then the trustee will not be implicated by this.

What is meant by administrative workability (an issue arising in relation to certainty of object)? And which express trust is it particularly important?

Administrative workability is important for discretionary trusts, relating to the extent that it is practiable for the trustees to carry out the terms of the trust and concerned with the size of the class of objects with the funds available to carry this out (is the object so large and the funds are so small that the trustees cannot fulfill the obligation?)

What test must Fixed Trusts complete in order to satisfy the requirements for Certainty of Objects? And which case outlines this?

IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust outlined that the ‘complete list’ test applies to fixed trusts.

What is meant by the ‘complete list’ test required for Fixed Trusts to complete in order to satisfy certainty of objects?

Complete list test applies to fixed trusts and this is where you need to be able to list ALL the beneficiaries for it to be a valid trust - it doesnt matter that the list cannot be drawn up at the time the trust is made (such as making a trust for your grandchildren even if the grandchildren cannot be listed at the time) - it should be drawn up and listed when the trustee are able to delegate snd divide it to their grandchildren.

What happens if the ‘complete list’ test required for Fixed Trusts to complete in order to satisfy certainty of objects is NOT complete?

If the description of the beneficiaries within the list is NOT clear, it will be void according to certainty of object (such as a fixed trust for my friends, the trustee will need to draw a complete list of everyone who fulfills being their friend)

What is NOT an example of the ‘complete list’ test being applied for the Fixed Trust to fulfill certainty of objects?

‘Hold trust for old friends in equal share’

This would be vague and the focus would be primarily with ‘old friends’, since they could be acquaintances, friends or not friends, whether you didnt like them or not - so this would fail on certainty of object and a fixed trust for your old friend would not be valid - making it a failed express trust for failing to comply with the ‘complete list’ test under certainty of object.

The two cases of Re Sayers AND OT Computers v First National Tricity Finance Ltd relate to certainty of objects required for Fixed Trusts, what does it outline?

These two cases (Re Sayer and OT Computers v First National Tricity Finance Ltd) outline even if there is conceptual certainty, the fixed trust would still fail if there is no awareness of WHO the beneficiaries are in terms of evidence or if there is no record on the following request. Hence it fails on evidential certainty.

Re Sayers relates to certainty of objects required for Fixed Trusts, what is the context and outcome of Re Sayers?

Context → The context was that the trust set up for employees and ex-employees of a company.

Outcome → The trust failed for evidential certainty as it was impossible to make a list of who worked underneath the company since it was set up.

OT Computers v First National Tricity Finance Ltd relates to certainty of objects required for Fixed Trusts, what is the context and outcome of OT Computers v First National Tricity Finance Ltd?

Context → The trust was set up for the companies urgent suppliers and it was stated that a list of all the urgent suppliers would be set out in a schedule attached to the trust instrument, but the schedule of suppliers was not compiled.

Outcome → The list of urgent suppliers failed and was not sufficient so the trust failed on evidential certainty.

What are the two exceptions to the ‘complete list’ rule (which is initially required for Fixed Trusts) in general?

1. Where each B’s interest is independent of the others (such as a trust for £100,000 to each of my old friends)

2. Unborn beneficiaries can be sufficiently certain

One of the TWO exceptions to the ‘complete test’ rule for Fixed Trust is where each B’s interest is independent of the others (such as a trust for £100,000 to each of my old friends), what is the context, outcome and rationale behind the Re Barlow’s Will Trusts which created this exception?

Context of the case → Settlor left paintings upon trust to see them and allows any family member or friends to pay for the painting at a lower price and the issue of 'friends' raised the question of conceptual uncertainty as there are many degrees of friendships spanning from mere acquitantance and it wasnt clear what the settlor intended.

Outcome of the case → This trust fails as conceptual uncertain in terms of powers or trust, but it was found it didnt creatre a trust or power for friends, but created series of INDIVIDUAL gifts to anyone answering the discription of friends - a series of individual gifts answering the description of friend, so they didnt get a trust or power.

Reason behind the outcome → The reason this is important that you make a individual gift, there is a more LAX test of conceptual certainty and they must prove they are friends, since it wasn’t a fixed trust there is no requirement of lists of friends, but the person has to prove they are friend within the meanings of the term since it is a gift. Hence it doesnt fail for uncertainty since it ISNT a trust or power within a fixed trust.

One of the TWO exceptions to the ‘complete test’ rule for Fixed Trust is where unborn beneficiaries can be sufficiently certain, what is the rationale behind this?

This is common in the family context, it doesn’t fail for certainty of object. The trust is still valid, provided that the objects can be identified at the date the property comes to be distributed (such as when my wife dies, since she holds it for life and to then give it to their children in equal shares as an example).

Does the ‘complete list’ test (required to establish certainty of object within express trusts) apply to POWERS? What case says this, and what test is used instead if not?

The ‘complete list’ test doesnt apply to powers like it does for fixed trusts - the test utilised for powers is the 'is or is not' test as per Re Gulbenkian.

Re Gulbenkian is the case that determines the test for POWERS to establish certainty of objects is the ‘is or is not’ test, what is the context and outcome of Re Gulbenkian?

Re Gulbenkian is the precedent for this 'is or is not test'

Context of the case → Gulbenkian made a trust which conferred power on trustees to appoint trust income in order to support/benefit the following persons - his children, wife or his employees.

Outcome of the case → HOL held that this was a valid power, conceptual certainty whether or not they were the class of people (such as are you one of Mr Gulbenkian's children, his wife, or one of his employees? if not, then you do not classify not fulfill the requirement of the 'is or is not’ test.

What about other issues relating to certainty of objects (evidentiary uncertainty, ascertainability, administrative workability), how does this apply to POWERS in comparison to express trusts?

The power is so flexible and the results of certainty of object are generous in regards to powers, in relation to -

1. Evidential Uncertainty - no cases for this seems unlikely to invalidate a power of appointment, if the given person cannot be shown to be within tbe class, we can presume they are outside of it

2. Ascertainability - failure to ascertain objects cannot invalidate a power of appointment

3. Administrative Workability - unlikely to be a problem in case of power of appointment, fidicuairy power in favour of anyone in the world was held to be valid as per Re Hay's ST

What does Re Hay’s ST say in relation to addressing issues of ‘administrative workability’ within certainty of object - relating to POWERS?

Re Hay’s ST concludes a trust for the entire world is accepted as a valid power

What does Re Manisty’s Settlement say in relation to addressing issues of ‘administrative workability’ within certainty of object - relating to POWERS? And what was said in obitur?

It was suggested that a power of appointment may be declared void if there is no sensible intention of the part of the settlor - he suggested in obitur that the power could be voided on capriciousness - though there has been no case in which power declared void on this basis, since Re Hay ST expands the scope so it is very unlikely that the test of capriciousness will be applied, so it shoud be rejected as too vague and ill-defined.

Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 1), McPhail v Doulton is a case focusing on certainty of object (conceptual uncertainty) within discretionary trust, what is the context, issue, outcome and Lord Wilberforce’s commentary?

Context of the case → The trust deed entailed that the employees and ex-employees and by extension their dependents and relatives would obtain benefit and conferred powers to the trustee to provide grants as they see fit for amounts they deem reasonable.

Issue of the case → This case questioned whether employees and relatives complied with the conceptual certainty test within the discretionary trust and it wouldnt have because the vagueness of how far you go down the family tree, but if the 'is or is not' test applied, the discretionary trust would be valid.

Outcome of the case → The Court held that a discretionary trust was valid if it could be said it was certain who would be a class of objects, not necessary to compile a complete list of objects, hence the application of the 'is or is not' test. In McPhail v Doulton, they replaced the complete list test (as in fixed trusts), shifting it to the 'is or is not' test (Applicable to powers) to create more flexibility within the objects in relation to discretionary trust

Judge’s commentary → Lord Wilberforce outlined that the discretionary trust is valid if it can be said with certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of the class.

Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 2) is a case focusing on certainty of object (conceptual uncertainty) within discretionary powers/trust powers, what is the context, outcome and judge’s commentary?

Context of the case → Following the outcome of the McPhail v Doulton, the high court decides whether the discretionary trust in the case satisified the 'is or is not' test to be apply the test.

Outcome of the case → In the court of appeal, it was read that 'dependent/relatives' were conceptually certain and knowing who was/was not a relative or not a member of the class, so the trust was made valid.

Judge’s commentary → They all agreed on the outcome that the trust is valid, but they disagreed on the reasoning

What did Lord Stamp state in his judgment in Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 2)?

A strict approach applied, he argued a discretionary trust is only valid that it can be literally said and decided whether a group of people were/were not a class of object, placing them into a 'no/yes' box and hence, he had no tolerance for evidential uncertainty if someone was placed in the 'maybe?/uncertain?' box as to whether they're a relative or another object of class.

What did Lord Sachs state in his judgment in Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 2)?

A more generous, pragmatic approach and his tolerance for evidential uncertainty is high, he argued that we should be more generous in cases of evidential uncertainty and you came across someone who didnt fit within the 'yes/no' box, the law will presume they are outside the class of people presumed and the trust still remains valid but the said person will not be an object within it.

What did Lord Megaw state in his judgment in Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No 2)?

He argued that if there were a substantial number of objects it can be said with certainty that they fall within the trust, hence his tolerance of evidential uncertainty is moderate - so you would have a valid discretionary trust as long as there is a substantial number of people who do fit the class, then we can make room for discrepnacies and uncertainties as long as it is NOT the majority.

R v District Auditor, ex parte West Yorkshire MCC was a case relevant the relevance of administrative unworkability (an issue in certainty of object) relating to DISCRETIONARY TRUSTS, what is the context and outcome?

Context of the case → Discretionary trust for inhabitants of West Yorkshire including 2.5 million people

Outcome of the case → It was void. This is because it was conceptually certain but it was impossible to build the class hence it was regarded administratively unworkable hence the discretionary trust was voided. Discretionary trust is wide-scale then it could fail on the grounds of administrative unworkable therefore void - wilberforce argued that this was the key distinction between powers of appointment versus discretionary trusts, but this was applied in R v District Auditor.

How do we resolve uncertainty of object in discretionary trusts as per Re Coxen?

Re Coxen concluded that merely making the trustee the resolver of uncertainty would be unsufficient to cure the uncertainty in relation to discretionary trusts such as them insufficiently deciding the objects, hence the trustees opinion is not enough to resolve uncertainty in S's language used.

You can use a trustee to handle evidential uncertainty, but not conceptual uncertainty in regards to discretionary trusts.

How do we resolve uncertainty of object in discretionary trusts as per Re Tuck’s ST? And how does it differ from Re Coxen?

There is debate as Re Tuck had contrasted with Re Coxen that trustee could help handle the certainty of object - though this is debated and uncertain.

How do we resolve uncertainty of object in powers of appointment as per Re Leek?

Context → The case focused on a power granted to trustees, allowing them to distribute income to a class of beneficiaries that included people the trustees considered to have a "moral claim," subject to the consent of a third party (a company).

Outcome → It was held that a third party can be validly empowered to decide whether a particular person fits within the class of beneficiaries. The court affirmed that a power is valid if the trustees (or the appointed third party) can say with certainty whether any given individual "is or is not" a member of the class of objects, even if the class is not fully defined. The power in Re Leek was deemed valid because it was possible to determine whether any specific claimant met the criteria determined by the third-party opinion, distinguishing it from cases where the class is conceptually uncertain.

How does timing (relating to issues within certainty of object) relate to POWERS of appointment as per Re Gulbenkian?

Re Gulbenkian stated - ‘It must be possible to determine the validity of the power immediately it comes into operation.’

• You need certainty of objects at time trustees come to make the distribution as the trustee at that time will know who the objects are - there must be certainty of object at that time, or it will fail and be void as a trust

What happens when there is an absence of Certainty of Objects?

The trust fails immediately if there is an absence of certainty of object.

If there is a self-declaration of trust such as S holding it on Trust for someone else, S keeps the property in relation.

Fuller outlines why formalities are important for 3 reasons, what are these 3 reasons?

Fuller outlined that formalities are important for 3 reasons -

1. Evidence → formalities provide evidence of the existence of a trust

2. Precuationary → formalities ensure that the owner seriously cobsiders what theyre doing before setting up a trust

3. Channelling → formalities also provide a means by which ceertain actions can be validly achieved in law

What statutory formalities are required for the creation of express trusts - specifically TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS as per S9 Wills Act 1837? And what happens to testamentary trusts if there is a failure to comply with the formalities?

Failure to comply with S9 Wills Act 1837 means that the testamentary trusts will be void.

A valid will under Wills Act 1837, S9 requires:

1. a will;

2. in writing;

3. signed by the testator (or someone else at her direction);

4. in the presence of witnesses;

5. witnesses must attest and sign the will, or otherwise acknowledge their signature in testator’s presence

What statutory formalities are required for the creation of express trusts - specifically INTER VIVOS TRUSTS OF PERSONS?

Life time trusts or inter vivos trusts require no special formalities.

If the parties wishes to give someone a item/object that isnt a property, then they can declare this without any proper formalities in question.

What does Paul v Constance state in relation to formalities required for INTER VIVOS TRUSTS OF PERSONS?

As per Paul v Constance that an oral declaration of trust such as 'this money is as much as yours as it is mine' is a valid way of conceiving a inter vivos trust

What statutory formalities are required for the creation of express trusts - specifically INTER VIVOS TRUSTS OF LAND as per S53 LPA 1925?

S53 LPA 1925 operates on the proving of trusts, not creation of trusts according to S53(1)(b) - hence if it is an oral agreement, the court recognises that it is valid, but is NOT enforceable without writing.

S53 is ONLY applicable to express trusts, it cannot impact resulting or constructive trust, so there is no requirement of writing.

National Iran Oil v Cresent Gas Corp is a case focusing on S53 LPA 1925 (formalities required for inter vivos trusts of land), what is the context and outcome?

Context of the case → NOC declares a trust in favour of RSW but fails to comply with S53(1)(b) and creditors get judgement against it and a week after then judgment, NOC transfers land to RSW.

Outcome of the case → It was concluded that the validity to RSW depends on whether the parol trust was valid itself and in the absence of valid writing as per S53(1)(b), then we cannot say that the trust was enforceable against NOC's creditors, so the oral agreement was not enough - though the distinction with Gardner v Rowe was because there was writing at some point even if it was later down the line.

What is the consequence of non-compliance with formalities in the case of inter vivos trusts of land as per Gardner v Rowe?

Gardner v Rowe outlined even if the signed writing came later, it was sufficient to prove the existence of the trust was valid when the oral agreement was concluded, so it was free of the settlor's debts and the trust remained.

What if there is a compliance with formalities as per S53 LPA 1925 for inter vivos trusts of land, but it is done through FRAUD? And what are the TWO cases which provide exceptions

Equity ‘will not permit a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud’: This is demonstrated in the following cases and these cases are following exceptions to the S53 LPA 1925 requirements

The relevant cases are -

• Bannister v Bannister

• Rochefoucauld v Boustead

Bannister v Bannister is one of TWO exceptions to S53 LPA 1925 requirements for inter vivos trusts of land, what is the context, issue, outcome and importance - how does it relate to Rochefoucald v Boustead?

Context → Ms Bannister inherited two cottages upon the death of her husband including the one in which she lived. She sold both cottages to her brother-in law for at least £150 less than market value after he gave an oral undertaking that she could remain living in her cottage rent free, for as long as she wished. Her brother in law then sought to evict her from the cottage.

Issue → Ms Bannister claimed she held a beneficial life interest in the cottage which arose as soon as her brother in law gave the oral undertaking that she could remain in the property rent free, for as long as she wished. Mr Bannister claimed there was no valid trust over land because it had not been evidenced in writing, as required under s53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925. He also claimed that his purchase of the two cottages had not been fraudulent and he was, therefore, entitled to insist on the true construction of the conveyance as having transferred both legal and equitable title to him.

Outcome → Mr Bannister held the cottage on constructive trust for Ms Bannister who held a life interest in the property, and could remain there rent free. Ms Bannister only agreed to sell the property at an undervalue because of the undertaking that she could remain there. It would be fraudulent of Mr Bannister to insist on the absolute character of the conveyance to defeat Ms Bannister’s life interest, and a valid trust of land had been created despite it not having satisfied the formality requirements of s53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925.

Importance and how it compares to Rochefoucauld v Boustead→ It was held the trust was constructive in nature, contradicting the express nature outlined in Boustead case (since it involved a constructive in nature, the case of Rochefoucauld v Boustead COULD NOT be applied, hence creating an exception?)

Rochefoucauld v Boustead is one of TWO exceptions to S53 LPA 1925 requirements for inter vivos trusts of land, what is the context, outcome and reasoning?

Context of the case → R agreed to purchase certain land via an oral agreement, B held the land for trust for R and B refused to do this. The outcome was that the trust was express in nature and it was permissible under the writing requirements

Outcome of the case → There is an exception to the perceptions of S53 that it only applies to express trusts in terms of writing, but as per the case, express trust is unenforceable but equity will not permit a statute to be used as an instrument for fraud - so there are exception to the physical writing rule in regards to fraud to then make the trust enforceable as the fraudulant behaviour is unconscionable, so the law will NOT allow the fraudster to use legal stutues and instruments to commit fraudalant behaviour to commit a fraud - hence the trust can be enforcead against them

Reasoning for the outcome → This case creates an exception to S53(1)(b) but this doesnt apply too self-declaration cases. This casse is limited in its application to trusts by trasnfer (such as cases where property is transferred to a trustee on the basis it should be held for the beneficiary). This case is only justified because it is preventing fraud, so we should undercut the writing requirements as self-declaration requiprements dont involve fraud

How does one dispose equitable interests (relating to inter vivos trusts of land) within S53(1)(c) LPA 1925?

‘a disposition of an equitable interest or trust subsisting at the time of the disposition, must be in writing signed by the person disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing or by will.’

What is meant by the constitution of trusts, and why is it a problem/concern?

Constitution of trusts is when the title to the trust property is vested in the trustees, therefore it is only constituted when you have legal title move around.

There is no problem with constitution as S already owns the property.

The key question is whether there has been an effective ‘declaration’ of trust.

Hilton v Cosnier is a case relating to the constitution of trusts, what is the context and outcome?

Context of the case → This relates to deceased ex-girlfriend and intending to give it to his grandchildren.

Outcome of the case → It is unreal to give an imperative direction to hold the property on trust and it wasnt intended so it wasnt constituted.

Yusuf v Yusuf is a case relating to the constitution of trusts, what is the context and outcome?

Context of the case → The mother instructed the lawyer to write a trust in favour of her son.

Outcome of the case → The court said it was a question finding the intention of trust as there was only an intention to sign a future document - she had FAILED to mainfest an intention of trust.

T Choithram International SA v Pagarani is a case relating to the constitution of trusts, what is the context and outcome?

Context of the case → A wealthy business man dying of cancer, he set up the charitable foundation where he was the settlor and one of the trustees, he claimed that he wanted to give all of his wealth to the foundation and it was a question whether this was constitutung a trust?

Outcome of the case → It was valid as a mean of self-declaration because Mr P was one of the trustees/settlor, the property already rested in his hands, and wanting to give his money to the trust was validly constituted even if it wasnt transfered or held jointly by the other trustees.

What does Re Ralli’s WIll Trusts say in relation to Trusts by Transfer in relation to requirements for a successful transfer and relating to chattels, company shares and land?

Re Ralli’s Will Trusts outlined that requirements for successful transfer and vesting of legal title depend on the nature of the property -

• Chattels → delivery and intention to transfer title;

• Company shares → registration of new owner on shareholders’ register is required - only possible when company receives duly executed share transfer forms and share certificates. See: Companies Act 2006, ss. 544, 770-772; Stock Transfer Act 1963, s.1 and Schedule 1.

• Land → registration or (in the case of unregistered land) by deed.

What are the 3 steps to fail gifts - incompletely constituted trusts in general?

1. Equity’s starting point which is the two statements ‘equity follows the law’ AND ‘equity will not assist a volunteer’

2. Donor or settlor has done everything in her power to transfer the title

3. Beyond Re Rose? Exploiting Unconscionability?

One of the three steps to fail gifts (incompletely constituted trusts) is that Equity’s starting point which is the two statements ‘equity follows the law’ AND ‘equity will not assist a volunteer’, Millroy v Lord addresses this, what is the outcome of Millroy v Lord?

Milroy v Lord set that there are two principles to this

1. equity follows the law (must be observed by law and equity will not perfect an imperfect title)

2. equity does not assist a volunteer

This does not allow the formality rules for transfer of property to be avoided

One of the three steps to fail gifts (incompletely constituted trusts) is that Equity’s starting point which is the two statements ‘equity follows the law’ AND ‘equity will not assist a volunteer’, Re Fry addresses this, what is the context outcome of Re Fry?

Context of the case → donor signed share transfer form, delivered form and certificates to company.

Outcome of the case → It failed to get treasury approval and it was held in the court that the gift was incomplete at law and equity would NOT assist

One of the three steps to fail gifts (incompletely constituted trusts) is that Donor or settlor has done everything in her power to transfer the title, Re Rose, Midland Bank Executor & Trustee Co Ltd v Rose addresses this, what is the context and outcome of Re Rose, Midland Bank Executor & Trustee Co Ltd v Rose?

Context of the case → donor signs transfer form, delivers form and certificates to donees and donor dies before donee has himself registered as new owner.

Outcome of the case → The court of appeal held that the donor had done 'everything in his power' to transfer legal title to the shares, the donor had armed the donee with everything required to have himself registered as a legal owner. There was nothing left for the donor to do. It was held to be sufficient to pass equitable title to the shares, such that the donor held the legal title on trust for the donee.

One of the three steps to fail gifts (incompletely constituted trusts) is that Donor or settlor has done everything in her power to transfer the title, Mascall v Mascall addresses this, what is the outcome of Mascall v Mascall?

Outcome of the case → S applies transfer of registered land, where the father gives the property to son to transfer over to him, and the test in Re Rose was upheld in this instance.

One of the three steps to fail gifts (incompletely constituted trusts) is Beyond Re Rose? Exploiting Unconscionability?, Pennington v Waine addresses this, what is the context, issue and outcome of Pennington v Waine?

Context of the case → The donor signed transfer form, delivered form and certificate to her agent, instructed agent to perfect the transfer and donor died before donee registered as the legal owner.

Issue of the case → struggles on when equity will fulfill the incomplete transfer and to what extent is it unconscionable for the donor to resile on their promise?

Outcome of the case → The court held that the donor had put the matter 'out of her hands' and that it would have been unconscionable for the donor to resile from the gift at this late stage (the donor at this stage unlike in Re Rose had done less to help registerted the donee and remained in the doner's soliictors hands, so the doner didnt do as much but the court outlined that they had done enough to pass equitable title to the shares and it would conscionable for the transferor/doner to go back on their word)

One of the three steps to fail gifts (incompletely constituted trusts) is Beyond Re Rose? Exploiting Unconscionability?, Curtis v Pulbrook addresses this, what is the context, issue and outcome of Curtis v Pulbrook?

Context → An interim charging order was granted against shares D owned for court damages. D claimed that he had in 2007 given 300 of his shares to his wife and 14 to his daughter and these shares could not be subject to the final charging order D. did not complete the share transfer forms and did not pass them his share certificates but issued them new certificates unauthorised by the company

Outcome of the case → This case gave structure to the pennington v waine case that the requirement of detrimental reliance in regards to the donor making a promise and failing to fulfill it to the donee (similar to properitary estoppel)

Importance → Equity may perfect an imperfect gift where there is detrimental reliance by the donee with a constructive trust.