Steve Evans, ‘Unconscionability: Pennington resurrected, but confusion remains: Khan v Mahmood

“Aunt Ada Crampton incompetently attempted a gift of some family company shares to nephew Harold. The relevant formalities were not complied with, so the gift was imperfect. A stock transfer form was sent by Ada to an accountant who did nothing with it. On her death, it was held by Arden LJ, with whom Schieman LJ and Clarke LJ agreed, that the shares had passed to nephew Harold in equity despite the formalities not being done correctly, because it would be unconscionable in the circumstances for Aunt Ada to have refused to transfer them, having set out to do so. Most contemporary academic commentary was critical of the Pennington decision. Lawyers and their clients dealing with transfers of property in practice need a date. The tax and succession and other consequences which can hinge upon the exact date of transfer of a property right may be significant …”

€ (Westlaw)

Steve Evans, ‘Unconscionability: Pennington resurrected, but confusion remains: Khan v Mahmood’ [2022] Conveyancer and Property Lawyer (2) 238-247.

(Visited 19 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply