only had to pay when there was written confirmation

prior to 1980 SD was paid on transfer of interests s.53(1)(c) LPA 25

requires tax to be paid as soon as put in writing

to avoid, people tried to separate the transfer from the written form by doing written part later settlement for 6 grandchildren Created trust orally in February only when evidenced in writing that there was a transfer Hunter wealthy man attempting to avoid tax by making orally Grey v IRC 60 HL introduction Formalities V wealthy with sum of money at his disposal creation of trusts Vandervell v IRC 67 HL higher standard of formalities Upjohn on death s.9 Wills Act 1837 personal property land where valid declaration of trust, no formalities trust arises if three certainties are satisfied and if fully constituted

transferred to trustee who held legal title, asked him to transfer equitable interests into 6 settlements In March puts in writing, arguing that it was the transfer in March which constituted the written evidence held, no SD payable when gave oral direction, payable when in writing

distinction between trust of personalty and trusts of land

wanted to create a chair of pharmacology at the Royal College of Surgeons but didn't want to transfer the money outright

Stamp Duty

distinction drawn between trust created inter vivos (in lifetime) or after death writing signed at least 2 witnesses wills cover land and personalty

wanted to transfer shares, to be held on trust until RCS had sufficient money to establish, then he wanted the shares back and thereby retain an interest for SD purposes, while RCS held equitable interest in shares and trustees held legal title, V had no interest at all no written disposition of equitable interest in shares held, could avoid s.53(1)(c) LPA 25 due to it stating payable when 'equitable'

the object of the section, as was the object of the old Statute of Frauds, is to prevent hidden oral transactions in equitable interests in fraud of those truly entitled, and making it difficult, if not impossible, for the trustees to ascertain who are in truth his beneficiaries when the beneficial owner owns the whole beneficial estate and is in a position to give direction to his bare trustee with regard to the legal as well as the equitable estate there can be no possible ground for invoking the section where the beneficial owner wants to deal with the legal estate as well as the equitable estate

s. 53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925

rule which allows a beneficiary to enforce a trust even where there is no written evidence equity will intervene and not allow the trustee to use transfer as a means of escaping penalty for breach of section trust will be upheld V v IRC dependent on beneficiary proving he enjoy his rights as a person behind the trust Rochefoucauld v Boustead 1837 Maxim applies land

if the beneficiary does not fully dispose of his interest but merely creates a sub trust retaining some active duties over the trust then the transaction is outsider the section A decides to deal on behalf of x can be done orally and sub trust is created trust implied by law no writing required avoid by s.53(2) have 'active duties' if A says, going to hold on behalf of X and Y if the disposition is that wants to hold for A purely S transfer to T with A as the beneficiary remainder to B

equity will not allow a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud no one can rely on the failure of another to comply with statutory formalities in order to perpetrate a fraud criticise law on formalities should be more rigid can be avoided in different manner, by use of the constructive trust rather than maxim

A declares that he is to hold his interest for B absolutely

disposition

sub trust Formalities

inter vivos RT and CT Bannister v Bannister 48

property transferred from the owner/settlor to her nephew on understanding she would hold on his behalf no question that s. 53(1)(b) was complied with meaning we would term this an express trust with the nephew as trustee

upheld her rights as settlor, clear she had rights in the property and that she had agreed to protect her right Scott the equitable principle on which a constructive trust is raised against a person who insists on the absolute character of a conveyance to himself for the purpose of defeating a beneficial interest

A holds his interest for either B for life remainder to C or for such of L or Z as he or the trustees may appoint sub trust because B becomes a trustee and takes on some duties in relation to the fund because B has to choose between the beneficiaries where a beneficiary enters into a specifically enforceable contract to transfer a subsisting equitable interest under a trust, then the interest will be under a constructive trust and the transferee will get the immediate benefit of the interest avoiding s.53(1)(c) didn't work M to S and S to M private company is significant shares are such that they can be enforced by specific performance contract to assign, once made and could be specifically performed, they become constructive trustees of the share held, as the nature of the property was already agreed, were constructive trustees and had to comply by his oral agreement...he created inn his mother an equitable interest in his reversion, since the subject matter of the agreement was property of which specific performance would normally be decreed by the court the view of the present case is that the effect of each individual agreement was to constitute the shareholder an implied or constructive trustee for the other shareholders, so that the requirement for writing contained in s.53(1)(c) was dispensed with by 53(2) agreement between mother and son to transfer shares in private company Oughtred v IRC 60 HL

no disposition

Hodgson v Marks 71 s. 53(2) LPA 25 avoiding s.53(1)(c) contractual transfer of equitable interest personalty no need to be written or formalities only thing is that words must imply an intention Paul v Constance 77 CA don't need the word trust or legal terminology held, would uphold on basis of everyday words are there any formalities to deal in equitable interest held behind a trust? money paid into account in the name of one person, claimed that it was to be left for another

Radcliffe Neville v Wilson 96 disposition of interests under trusts implied by law

Nourse

s.53(2)

transfer of beneficial interests under an existing trust

will

s.9 Wills Act 1837 disposition what constitutes a disposition? at what stage has there been one? needs to be written to prevent hidden oral transactions and forgeries

inter vivos transfer of title subject to a bare trust declare new trust

s.53(1)(c) LPA 25

writing signed

when the beneficial owner owns the whole beneficial estate and is in a position to give directions to his bare trustee with regard to the legal as well as the equitable estate there can be no possible ground for invoking the section where the beneficial owner wants to deal with the legal estate as well as the equitable estate

Upjohn

V v IRC 67 HL

designed to help trustee have evidence of where equitable interest lies

Paul Hogarth-Blood