Privacy Council (2001) is third case upon which case of Pennington v Waine was largely decided. Mr. Pagarani was an extremely wealthy man who decided after diagnosed with cancer in 2001 to live all his wealth to charitable foundation named after him. In 17 February 2001, Mr. Pagarani signed trust deed of foundation and afterwards, although not clear, stated that he gives all his wealth to trust. Mr. Pagarani had made also will that stated that all his wealth should go to relevant foundation. The relatives of diseased tried to benefit from will by claiming that foundation had not been established by time will was drafted; and assets had never validly transferred to foundation.
Addittionaly, rest of family who were trustees to foundation argued that transfer of deceased assets to foundation was valid. The problem was that method of transaction was not proper in wording to declare trust and that legal title had not validly pass to all trustees of foundation. The deceased had done all that was necessary to settle transfer binding upon him. The equitable interest of property vested finally in foundation along with rest of his personal assets. The judgment of Browne-Wilkinson L.J. confirms this view in best possible way: ` Although equity will not assist volunteer it will not strive officiously to defeat gift.' The rationale and wording of Mr. Pagarani was vague but in this case, clearly courts of equity were not willing to strike down gifts of charitable purposes.
The last case of Pennington v Waine (2002) and rationale behind decision of Court of Appeal is what we must consider since it can interpret way that equity can intervene as to legality of decision and relevant transaction. Ada Cramtpon held 1500 shares in family company when she decided to give 400 of them to her nephew Harold. Ms. Crampton i.e. donor further wished to appoint him future director of company; and she informed him about her intention. Afterward, she executed relevant share transfer form for these shares and gave it back to Mr. Pennington who was company's auditor.
Mr. Pennington sent form of consent to Harold to sign and declare that he agrees with transfer and new position that will have in company. Harold validly executed document and no further action was necessary from his part according to Mr. Pennington. Ms. Crampton also signed transfer form and shortly after, she died. Mr. Pennington i.e. third party; did not take any further action in order to register transaction through company's office and become legally binding.
The problem arises after death of Ms. Crampton since legal title of shares remained to her sole name and passed to her executors. Undoughtly, in share transfer cases donee becomes legal owner once he has title in his hands even if his name is not register in company as new owner, equity intervenes, Re Rose doctrine. Harold's case did not fulfill any of requirements. Harold faced another bigger difficulty that preemption rights were in breach ...