An attempt to make an oral disposition of a subsisting equitable interest is void for want of writing.

A man returned home from a trip and, being chastised by his wife for bringing no gift for their new son, took a cheque from his pocket. The cheque was made out to the father and he said, ‘Look here it is all for baby’. The father died before he could transfer legal title to the baby.

That this was not a valid declaration of trust as there was insufficient certainty of intention. Equity will not create a valid trust out of an imperfect gift.

Mrs Oughtred had the life interest in shares, then to her son P. She was also the absolute beneficiary of shares. To avoid death duties P and Mrs Oughtred agreed to exchange their interests. This was later evidenced in writing.

The House of Lords by a three to two majority did not uphold this argument. Viscount Radcliffe for the minority held that the exchange happened orally, and there was no need for any written evidence. The interest was held on constructive trust and, under s 53(2) LPA, it was outside the scope of s 53(1). The minority view has, however, found favour in the Court of Appeal in such cases as Neville v Wilson [1996].

The Comtesse de la Rochefoucauld owned land in Ceylon which she transferred to the defendant intending that he hold it on trust for her benefit. This intention was not evidenced in writing. He mortgaged the land and she sought a declaration that he held it on trust for her.

The Court of Appeal held that evidence other than writing could be admitted otherwise the instrument (at that time the Statute of Frauds) could be used as an instrument of fraud.

Mr Vandervell was the beneficiary under a bare trust of shares. He wanted to endow the Royal College of Surgeons with the shares. He directed that the shares be transferred to the Royal College of Surgeons.

Where an equitable owner, absolutely entitled and capable of doing so, makes an oral declaration to the trustee to transfer legal title to a transferee, intending at the same time that the equitable title be transferred to the same transferee, there is no need to comply with s 53(1)(c) LPA. Failure to specify the objects of the trust of the option meant that the trust company held on resulting trust for Mr Vandervell.

The option was held for Mr Vandervell on resulting trust. It was exercised in 1961 in favour of his children’s settlement. Between 1961 and 1965 dividends were declared for the benefit of the children’s trust. At Mr Vandervell’s death in 1967 his executors claimed that the dividends should have been held on resulting trust for him and should not have been paid to the children’s settlement.

The exercise of the option had ended the resulting trust of the option and a new trust had been created of the shares for the benefit of the children. A creation of a trust of shares required no formalities. Per Denning MR and Lawton LJ, in any event Mr Vandervell would have been estopped from denying the children’s claim to the benefit because (i) their money had been used to exercise the option; (ii) Mr Vandervell had approved the paying of the dividends to the settlement.