The first part of this paper reviews and evaluates the change of the scope of the maxim that equity will not assist a volunteer and the second part looks at the recent shift in objectives underlying the maxim. The author will argue that the recent changes to the maxim are not underpinned by clear and rational objective which would unify the approach of the courts when considering whether to perfect an imperfect gift or not.
The law regulating the constitution of trusts and gifts is governed by two equitable maxims which form two sides of the same coin: firstly, if the settlor has failed to constitute a trust, equity will not do so for him with the reference to the equitable maxim that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift; secondly, the would-be beneficiaries under incompletely constituted trust have no rights unless they have provided consideration which is in accordance with another equitable maxim that equity will not assist a volunteer. Since the judgement in „Milroy v Lord“ and „Rose v Inland Revenue Corms“ the area of law was „tolerably clear“ until the recent developments in „T. Choithram International S v Pagarani“ and in „Pennington v Waine“, which promoted generous interpretation of the above mentioned maxims.
Table of Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Scope of the rule “equity will not assist a volunteer”
- 3 Unconscionability as the new main policy objective?
- 4 Conclusions
Objectives and Key Themes
This paper examines the equitable maxims governing the constitution of trusts and gifts, specifically focusing on the maxim "equity will not assist a volunteer" and its recent evolution. It analyzes the implications of key cases, such as Milroy v Lord, Re Rose, Choithram, and Pennington v Waine, assessing the shift in the underlying policy objectives.
- The scope and application of the maxim "equity will not assist a volunteer."
- The impact of judicial decisions on the interpretation of the maxim.
- The role of unconscionability in perfecting imperfect gifts.
- The tension between legal certainty and equitable fairness.
- Analysis of the different approaches taken by the courts in resolving cases involving imperfect gifts.
Chapter Summaries
1 Introduction: This introductory chapter sets the stage by outlining the two key equitable maxims governing the constitution of trusts and gifts: equity will not perfect an imperfect gift, and equity will not assist a volunteer. It highlights the apparent clarity in this area of law following Milroy v Lord and Rose v Inland Revenue Commissioners, before introducing the significant changes brought about by more recent cases, T. Choithram International S.A. v Pagarani and Pennington v Waine. The chapter establishes the paper's aim to examine these changes and evaluate their underlying rationale.
2 Scope of the rule "equity will not assist a volunteer": This chapter delves into the evolution of the maxim "equity will not assist a volunteer," tracing its development from the rigid approach established in Milroy v Lord, which stipulated that the settlor must have done everything necessary to transfer the property. The chapter then explores Re Rose's modification, focusing on the settlor completing all actions within their control. It further analyzes the expansion of the maxim's scope in Choithram, where Lord Browne-Wilkinson's assertion that equity will not "strive officiously to defeat a gift" led to a more flexible interpretation. The chapter also critically examines Pennington v Waine, which deviated from Re Rose, holding that unconscionability could justify the completion of an imperfect gift even if the donor hadn't done everything in their power to transfer the property. The chapter concludes by considering whether these decisions establish new methods for transferring beneficial interest.
3 Unconscionability as the new main policy objective?: This chapter examines the policy arguments underlying the rule in Milroy v Lord as refined by Re Rose. It emphasizes the fundamental principle of justice protecting property owners from losing ownership unless they utilize legally recognized methods of transfer. The chapter contrasts the responsibilities of donors and trustees, arguing that imposing a trust to perfect an imperfect gift places a greater burden on the donor than intended. It further stresses the economic inefficiency and inherent unfairness of gifts and trusts, where the donee or trustee receives something without providing consideration. The chapter then explores the countervailing objective introduced in Pennington v Waine, where the court prioritized effectuating the donor's clear and continuing intention, even if the gift was incompletely constituted. The differing policy considerations of fairness to donees and upholding the donor's intentions are weighed, highlighting the role of unconscionability as a key factor in determining the outcome of these cases.
Keywords
Equity, imperfect gifts, trusts, unconscionability, voluntary settlements, Milroy v Lord, Re Rose, Choithram, Pennington v Waine, equitable maxims, donative intention, legal certainty, equitable fairness.
FAQ: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Maxim "Equity Will Not Assist a Volunteer"
What is the main topic of this paper?
This paper examines the equitable maxims governing the constitution of trusts and gifts, particularly focusing on the maxim "equity will not assist a volunteer" and its evolution through key case law. It analyzes the implications of significant cases, assessing the shift in underlying policy objectives and the tension between legal certainty and equitable fairness.
What are the key cases discussed in this paper?
The paper deeply analyzes Milroy v Lord, Re Rose, Choithram International S.A. v Pagarani, and Pennington v Waine. These cases represent different approaches to the maxim "equity will not assist a volunteer" and its application to imperfect gifts.
What is the traditional understanding of "equity will not assist a volunteer"?
Traditionally, as established in Milroy v Lord, the settlor had to do everything necessary to transfer the property to successfully constitute a trust or gift. Re Rose slightly modified this, focusing on whether the settlor had completed all actions within their control.
How has the understanding of "equity will not assist a volunteer" evolved?
More recent cases like Choithram and Pennington v Waine have introduced a more flexible interpretation. Choithram emphasized that equity won't "strive officiously to defeat a gift," while Pennington v Waine introduced unconscionability as a factor, allowing completion of an imperfect gift even if the donor hadn't done everything in their power to transfer the property.
What is the role of unconscionability in perfecting imperfect gifts?
Pennington v Waine highlights the increasing importance of unconscionability. The court prioritized the donor's clear and continuing intention, suggesting that unconscionable circumstances can justify completing an otherwise imperfect gift.
What are the conflicting policy objectives discussed in the paper?
The paper weighs the conflicting policy considerations of fairness to donees and upholding the donor's intentions. It explores the tension between protecting property owners' rights and ensuring equitable fairness in gift-giving situations. The economic efficiency and inherent unfairness of gifts and trusts without consideration are also discussed.
What are the key themes explored in the paper?
The key themes include the scope and application of the maxim "equity will not assist a volunteer," the impact of judicial decisions on its interpretation, the role of unconscionability, the tension between legal certainty and equitable fairness, and the analysis of differing court approaches in resolving cases involving imperfect gifts.
What are the chapter summaries?
The paper includes summaries of each chapter: an introduction setting the stage, a chapter on the scope of the rule, a chapter on the role of unconscionability, and concluding remarks. Each chapter summary outlines the key arguments and case law discussed within that section.
What are the keywords associated with this paper?
Keywords include: Equity, imperfect gifts, trusts, unconscionability, voluntary settlements, Milroy v Lord, Re Rose, Choithram, Pennington v Waine, equitable maxims, donative intention, legal certainty, and equitable fairness.
- Quote paper
- Lucie Novotna Krtousova (Author), 2012, Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. A review and an evaluation, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/358293
