Choithram and Pennington

The following is a supplement to the discussion of the Milroy v Lord and Re Rose principles in Equity Trusts relating to the cases of T Choithram International SA v Pagarani 2001 2 All ER 492 and Pennington v Waine 2002 4 All ER 215. These cases confirm the existing law for the most part, although in factual circumstances which have occasioned comment by some jurists. The Underlying Principle in Milroy v. Lord An imperfect gift will not be perfected simply by interpreting the donor to be a trustee of the property which was to have been the subject matter of that gift, nor will an incompletely constituted trust be rendered effective so as to aid a volunteer in neither case will equity perfect an imperfect transfer of property. That much was made evident in the judgment of Turner LJ in Milroy v Lord . Turner LJ expressed this principle in terms that for a settlement to be effective the settlor must have done everything which, according to the nature of the property comprised in the settlement, was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the settlement binding upon him. The rigour of this principle that equity will not assist a volunteer by perfecting an imperfect gift appears to have been diluted by a statement of Lord Browne-Wilkinson to the effect that although equity will not aid a volunteer, it will not strive officiously to defeat a gift. The Re Rose principle In Re Rose (1952), the registered owner of shares executed two share transfers, one in favour of his wife absolutely by way of gift and the other in favour of two people (including his wife) on trust. The shares were in a private company, which empowered the board of directors to object to the transfer of shares. The transferor had completed all the formalities required of him only ratification by the board of directors remained before the transfer was complete. The date of transfer was again important so that Roses estate could demonstrate that the voluntary transfer had