Zeital v Kaye
A gift of shares was not complete in equity, because the donor had not given the donee the documents needed to complete the transfer.
Facts
Mr Kaye wanted to give the shares in a company to his partner, Mrs Zeital. He gave her a share certificate and a signed stock transfer form relating to one of the shares, but the form was incomplete, and he did not give her the documents relating to the other share, which was registered in the name of a nominee. After Mr Kaye's death, Mrs Zeital claimed the shares.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the gift was not complete. Rimer LJ said that, under the principle in Re Rose, the donor must have done everything in his power to transfer the shares, and Mr Kaye had not done so, because he had not given Mrs Zeital the documents she needed, and he had not arranged for a transfer of the nominee's share. The court declined to extend Pennington v Waine, because there was nothing that made it unconscionable for the donor's estate to deny the gift.
Related cases on formalities and constitution of trusts
- Re Brooks' Settlement Trusts [1939] Ch 993
- Cannon v Hartley [1949] Ch 213
- Choithram (T) International SA v Pagarani [2001] 1 WLR 1
- Fletcher v Fletcher (1844) 4 Hare 67
- Grey v IRC [1960] AC 1
- Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892
- King v Dubrey [2015] EWCA Civ 581, [2016] Ch 221
- Mascall v Mascall (1984) 50 P & CR 119
Studying equity and trusts? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
