Milroy v Lord established the fundamental principle that for a gift to be valid, it must be completely constituted either by transfer of legal title (whether to the donee outright or to trustees) or by declaration of trust. The case demonstrates that an imperfect gift cannot be saved by treating it as a declaration of trust unless there is clear evidence of such intention.

Pennington v Waine established that equity can perfect an imperfect gift of shares even without formal transfer where it would be unconscionable to allow the donor to resile from the gift. The case significantly relaxed the strict requirements for share transfers by allowing equitable intervention in appropriate circumstances.

Brightman J held that gifts to unincorporated associations can be valid as gifts to members beneficially, applying the contract-holding theory. This provided a solution for gifts to associations that would otherwise fail as purpose trusts.

Strong v Bird established the rule that an imperfect gift can be perfected where the intended donee later becomes the donor's executor. This case created an important exception to the general rule that equity will not assist a volunteer to perfect an imperfect gift.

Imperfect gift of land perfected by donee's detrimental reliance and improvements

House of Lords decision establishing the doctrine of secret trusts, holding that equity will enforce secret trusts to prevent fraud, even though they appear to contradict statutory formality requirements for wills.

Court of Appeal confirmed that non-charitable purpose trusts are generally void, rejecting arguments for extending the anomalous exceptions. The case reinforced the strict application of the beneficiary principle established in Re Astor.

Re Rose established the rule in equity that a gift is complete when the donor has done everything within their power to transfer the property, even if legal formalities remain incomplete. This case is fundamental to understanding when equitable title passes in incomplete legal transfers.

Roxburgh J held that non-charitable purpose trusts are generally void for lack of beneficiaries who can enforce them. The case established the beneficiary principle as a fundamental requirement for private trusts.

The House of Lords established that secret trusts can exist even when the will makes a beneficial gift to the secret trustee, provided the trustee accepts the trust obligation.

Cross J classified gifts to unincorporated associations in three ways: as absolute gifts to present members, as gifts to members subject to their contractual obligations under the association's rules, or as trusts for the association's purposes, valid only if those purposes are charitable. He held the Catford Synagogue's land was held on a valid charitable trust. The case laid groundwork for the contract-holding theory.

Court of Appeal established the 'is or is not' test for conceptual certainty in discretionary trusts. Even if it is difficult to determine whether marginal cases fall within a class, the trust is valid if clear cases can be identified.

Trusts fail if subject matter lacks certainty - 'bulk of estate' insufficient.

The Court of Appeal held that a resulting trust can be extinguished by the trustee's subsequent conduct showing intention to hold on express trust terms.

Secret trusts can be established by clear evidence of intention, communication and acceptance.

Incomplete trust dispositions cannot escape beneficial ownership for tax purposes

Court establishes three certainties doctrine for valid trust creation

House of Lords clarifies crucial distinction between trusts and powers

Trustee cannot claim benefit of doubt when mixing trust funds with own money

Court establishes certainty requirement for charitable trusts and cy-près doctrine

Purpose trusts valid when beneficiaries have direct enforceable interest

Contracts for equitable interests need separate written disposition despite specific enforceability

Beneficiaries cannot compel trustees to disclose reasons for exercising discretionary powers.

Half-secret trusts fail when communicated terms differ from will provisions

Educational trusts must benefit sufficient section of public, not just company employees' relatives.

Oral dispositions of equitable interests are void without writing under s53(1)(c)

No trust arises over unascertained goods without appropriation or sufficient certainty of subject matter

A trust of intangible property need not identify specific assets from a larger identical mass.

Mistaken payments create immediate constructive trusts giving equitable proprietary interests.

Religious trusts for specific denominations or groups can be charitable despite restricted beneficiaries.