Equity Perfecting an Imperfect Gift of Shares: A comparative study on the rulings of the Malaysian federal court and English common law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v8iSI13.5037Keywords:
Company Shares, Equity, TrustAbstract
The aim of this paper is to ascertain how the latest Malaysian apex court apply English trust law for equity to perfect an imperfect gift of shares as encapsulated in the leading case of Pennington v Waine. A comparative research methodology reveals that there must be detrimental reliance on the part of the donee of shares, which cannot be justified from the perspective of company law. It must also be unconscionable for the donor of shares to deny the donee and this subjective test is too wide and confers the court's unfettered discretion to perfect an imperfect gift.
References
Abdul Ravuff bin Datuk AS Dawood & Ors v Dr Abdul Rahiman bin Datuk AS Dawood [2022] MLJU 830
Arjunan, K., & Low, C. K. (1995). Lipton & Herzberg’s: Understanding company law in Malaysia. LBC Information Services.
Companies Act 1985
Companies Act 2006
Companies Act 2016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2857182
Curtis v Pullbrook [2011] EWHC 167 (Ch)
Darpo, J., & Nilsson, A. (2010). On the comparison of environmental law. Journal of Court Innovation, 3(1), 315-336.
https://law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/IJIEA/jciDarpo_IJIECT_final%20feb%2010%203-10_cropped.pdf
Freeman, M., & Pullar, Z. (2022). Equity: Now assisting volunteers? A case comment on Khan v Mahmood [2021] EWHC 597 (Ch). Trusts & Trustees, 28(2), 141-147.
https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab108
Khan v Mahmood [2021] EWHC 597 (Ch)
Ladds, D. (2003). Pennington v Waine [2002] EWCA Civ 227. Trust Law International, 17(1), 35-40.
ff1a2bcbb22%26pddocfullpath%3d%252Fshared%252Fdocument%252Fanalytical-materials-uk%252Furn%253AcontentItem%253A54N2-87N1-DXSV-T31R-00000
%26pdcontentcomponentid%3d184481%26pddoctitle%3dPennington%2bv%2bWaine%2b%255B2002%255D%2bEWCA%2bCiv%2b227%26pdteaserkey%3dsr5
pdicsfeatureid%3d1517131%26pditab%3dallpods%26ecomp%3d-xsrk%26earg%3dsr5%26prid%3db44a5d52-897b-417a-8228-8a1373da0500
Mehren, A. T. v. (1991-1992). The comparative study of law. Tulane Civil Law Forum, 6(6-7), 43-59. https://journals.tulane.edu/teclf/issue/view/176
Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Co Ltd v Rose [1949] Ch 78
Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De GF & J 264
Morris, A. J. (2021). No longer waning – Pennington revived?. Trust Law International, 35(1), 50-56. http://bear.buckingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/515
Pennington v Waine [2002] 1 WLR 2075
Rose v IRC [1952] 1 All ER 1217
Schneider, C. E., & Teitelbaum, L. E. (2006). Life's golden tree: Empirical scholarship and American law. Utah Law Review, 2006(1), 53-106.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2862&context=articles
Sutherland, S. (2020). Defying easy explanations - The case of Pennington v Waine 18 years on. Trusts & Trustees, 26(5), 404-408. https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttaa031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttaa031
Tan Sri Dato’ Kam Woon Wah v Dato’ Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow [2022] MLJU 794
Teong, E. Y. K. (2021). Beware the 'gifted' Trojan Horse: Analysing the equitable maxim-'Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift’. Trusts & Trustees, 27(7), 686-700.
https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab053 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab053
Ying, K. L. (2021). 'Unconscionability' and the case against lumping: Three case studies. Trusts & Trustees, 27(1–2), 118-131. https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttaa109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttaa109
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 John Chuah Chong Oon, Sayidah Asma Basir, Ahmad Waseem Dhihny Yunus Dhihny Yunus, Cartaz Ummu Syawaeda Jaiman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
