Explaining Re Rose: The Search Goes On?

Extract

It is often stated that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift: failed donative intent will not be construed as a declaration of trust (Milroy v. Lord (1862) 4 De G.F. & J. 264). The justification, as recognised by Maitland ﹛Lectures on Equity, p. 74), arises from the fundamental difference between donors and trustees. The donor divests himself of all responsibility regarding the property he gives whilst the trustee often assumes onerous fiduciary duties over property. Thus to impose trusteeship upon a would-be donor is to impose an outcome that results in far greater responsibility than the donor anticipated. Re Rose [1952] Ch. 499 recognises an exception to this rule, namely that when a donor has done all that only he was able to do to effect a gift at law so that the donee is able to complete the legal transfer by himself, the donor will hold the property on trust for the donee and the gift, although imperfect at law, is effective in equity.