“Oral dispositions of equitable interests are void without writing under s53(1)(c)”
Grey orally directed trustees holding shares on trust for him to thereafter hold them for his grandchildren. The Revenue claimed stamp duty on the basis this was a written disposition, but Grey argued it was oral and therefore void.
Whether oral directions by a beneficiary to trustees to hold property for other beneficiaries constitute dispositions of equitable interests requiring writing under s53(1)(c) LPA 1925
The House of Lords held that the oral directions constituted dispositions of equitable interests that were void for lack of writing under s53(1)(c)
This case is fundamental for understanding formal requirements for equitable interest transfers. It established the wide interpretation of 'disposition' in s53(1)(c) and remains essential for equity and trusts law, particularly trust formalities.
You're reading the free summary of Grey v IRC. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Grey v IRC [1960] AC 1 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.