W9 Constitution of Trusts and Perfection of Gifts
W9 信托的设立与赠与的完善

This seminar focuses on the crucial requirement that for an express trust to be valid and enforceable, it must be properly constituted. Similarly, for a gift to be legally effective, it must be perfected. Constitution refers to the vesting of the legal title to the trust property in the trustee(s). Perfection refers to the donor completing the transfer of the property to the donee.  
本讲重点讨论一项至关重要的要求，即一项明确信托要有效且可执行，必须得到适当的设立。同样，一项赠与要具有法律效力，必须加以完善。“设立”指的是将信托财产的法定所有权授予受托人。“完善”指的是捐赠人完成将财产转移给受赠人的过程。

Why Constitution/Perfection Matters
为什么设立/完善至关重要

• Settlor/Donor: Once a trust is constituted or a gift perfected, the settlor/donor generally loses all rights to the property, unless they have reserved a power of revocation or made themselves a beneficiary. They cannot typically recall the property.
  委托人/赠与人：一旦信托设立或赠与完善，委托人/赠与人通常会丧失对该财产的所有权利，除非他们保留了撤销权或使自己成为受益人。他们通常不能召回该财产。
• Trustee: Once constituted, the trustee is under a mandatory obligation to perform the trust.  
  受托人：一旦成立，受托人即有强制性义务履行信托。
• Beneficiary/Donee: Beneficiaries gain enforceable rights against the trustee and potentially proprietary rights in the trust property once the trust is constituted. Donees gain absolute ownership once the gift is perfected.  
  受益人/受赠人：一旦信托成立，受益人获得针对受托人的可执行权利，并可能获得信托财产的所有权。一旦赠与完善，受赠人获得绝对所有权。
• Incomplete Constitution/Perfection: If a trust is not constituted or a gift is not perfected, there is simply no trust or gift. The intended beneficiary or donee, being a volunteer (having given no consideration), cannot compel the settlor/donor to constitute the trust or perfect the gift. Equity will not assist a volunteer.  
  不完整的成立/完善：如果信托未成立或赠与未完善，则根本不存在信托或赠与。预期的受益人或受赠人，作为志愿者（未提供任何对价），不能强迫财产授予人/赠与人成立信托或完善赠与。衡平法不会帮助志愿者。

Methods of Benefiting Another Voluntarily (Milroy v Lord)
自愿使他人受益的方法 (Milroy v Lord 案)

Lord Justice Turner in Milroy v Lord identified three ways to voluntarily provide for another:
在 Milroy v Lord 案中，特纳大法官指出了三种自愿为他人提供利益的方式：

• 1. Outright Gift: Transfer the property directly to the intended recipient.  
  1. 直接赠与：将财产直接转移给预期的接受者。
• 2. Transfer on Trust: Transfer the property to a third party (trustee) to hold on trust for the beneficiary.  
  2. 信托转移：将财产转移给第三方（受托人），由其以信托方式为受益人持有。
• 3. Self-Declaration of Trust: Declare oneself (the settlor) trustee of the property for the beneficiary.  
  3. 自我声明信托：声明自己（委托人）为受益人的财产受托人。

Critically, Turner LJ stated that the chosen method must be followed correctly. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift, nor will it treat a failed attempt to make a gift (Method 1) or transfer on trust (Method 2) as a self-declaration of trust (Method 3).  
关键在于，特纳大法官指出，所选择的方法必须正确执行。衡平法不会完善不完善的赠与，也不会将制造赠与（方法 1）或信托转让（方法 2）的失败尝试视为自我宣告信托（方法 3）。

The General Rule: "Everything Necessary" (Milroy v Lord)
一般规则：“一切必要之事”（米尔罗伊诉劳德案）

• The Rule: "…the settlor must have done everything which, according to the nature of the property comprised in the settlement, was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the settlement binding upon him.".  
  规则：“……财产授予人必须已经完成一切事情，根据构成和解的财产的性质，为了转移财产并使和解对他具有约束力，有必要完成这些事情。”
• Meaning: The settlor/donor must complete all the legally required steps for the specific type of property being transferred to vest the legal title in the intended trustee/donee. If anything necessary remains undone by the settlor/donor, the constitution/perfection fails.  
  含义：财产授予人/捐赠人必须完成所有法律要求的步骤，以便将特定类型的财产的所有权归于指定的受托人/受赠人。如果财产授予人/捐赠人未完成任何必要的事情，则构成/完善失败。
• Rationale: Ensures the settlor/donor's intention is clear and final; provides certainty.  
  理由：确保立 settlor/donor 的意图清晰且最终；提供确定性。
• Formalities for Transferring Property: 
  转移财产的 формальности:

• The "necessary" steps depend on the property:
  “必要”步骤取决于财产：

• Land: Requires a deed of transfer (conveyance or assignment). Handing over title deeds alone is insufficient.
  土地：需要转让契约（转让或让与）。 仅移交所有权契据是不够的。
• Chattels (Physical Goods): Usually requires physical delivery with intention to give. Alternatively, a deed of gift can be used. For large items, delivering a means of control (e.g., keys for a car) may suffice.
  动产（实物商品）：通常需要实际交付并具有赠与意图。 或者，可以使用赠与契据。 对于大型物品，交付控制手段（例如，汽车钥匙）可能就足够了。
• Shares (Private Company): This is often complex. Generally requires:
  股份（私人公司）：这通常很复杂。 一般来说需要：

• 1. Donor executes a share transfer form.
  1. 捐赠人签署股份转让表格。
• 2. Form and share certificate delivered to the donee/trustee or the company.
  2. 表格和股票凭证已交付给受赠人/受托人或公司。
• 3. Form submitted to the company for registration.
  3. 表格已提交给公司进行注册。
• 4. Company directors approve the transfer (if required by articles).
  4. 公司董事批准转让（如果公司章程有要求）。
• 5. Company registers the transfer, changing the name in the register of members. Legal title passes only upon registration.
  5. 公司注册该转让，更改成员登记册中的姓名。 legal title 仅在注册后才转移。

• Cheques: Transfer usually requires endorsement (signing the back) if payable to the donor. Simply handing over a cheque payable to oneself is not enough. Mandate to pay ceases on drawer's death.
  支票：如收款人为捐赠人，转让通常需要背书（在背面签字）。仅仅交出开给自己的支票是不够的。付款授权在出票人死亡时终止。
• Equitable Interests: Requires writing (as per relevant statutes, e.g., CPO s.5(1)(c) in Hong Kong).  
  衡平法权益：需要书面形式（根据相关法规，例如香港的《财产条例》第 5(1)(c)条）。

Key Cases on the General Rule & Failed Attempts
关于一般规则和失败尝试的关键案例

• 1. Milroy v Lord (1862):
  1. Milroy v Lord (1862)：

• Facts: Medley intended to transfer Bank of Louisiana shares to Lord to hold on trust for his niece (Milroy's wife). He executed a deed purporting to do so and gave Lord the share certificates. However, the bank's rules required registration of the transfer in their books, which Medley never arranged, although Lord held a power of attorney enabling him to do it. Medley died.  
  案件事实：Medley 意图将路易斯安那银行的股份转让给 Lord，由 Lord 以信托方式为他的侄女（Milroy 的妻子）持有。他签署了一份据称要这样做的契约，并将股票凭证交给了 Lord。然而，该银行的规定要求在他们的账簿中登记转让，Medley 从未安排此事，尽管 Lord 持有一份授权书，使他能够这样做。Medley 去世了。
• Issue: Was the trust validly constituted?  
  争议问题：该信托是否有效成立？
• Held (Court of Appeal): No. Medley had not done everything necessary according to the nature of the property (shares) to transfer legal title to Lord. Registration was necessary and hadn't occurred. Equity could not perfect the imperfect transfer. The failed transfer of trust could not be construed as a self-declaration of trust by Medley.  
  判决（上诉法院）：不行。Medley 没有根据财产（股份）的性质做一切必要的行为来将合法所有权转让给 Lord。登记是必要的，但没有发生。衡平法不能完善不完善的转让。失败的信托转让不能被解释为 Medley 的自我声明信托。
• Impact: Established the strict "everything necessary" rule and the principle that equity won't substitute one mode of transfer for another failed one.  
  影响：确立了严格的“一切必要”规则，以及衡平法不会用一种转让方式替代另一种失败的转让方式的原则。

• 2. Re Fry (1946):

• Facts: Fry, resident in Florida, wanted to gift shares in an English company to his son. He executed transfer forms and sent them for registration. Wartime regulations required UK Treasury consent for transfers involving non-residents, which Fry applied for but died before receiving.  
  案情：弗莱是佛罗里达州的居民，他想将一家英国公司的股份赠送给他的儿子。他签署了转让表格并将其发送进行注册。战时条例要求涉及非居民的转让需获得英国财政部的同意，弗莱提出了申请，但在收到批准前去世。
• Issue: Was the gift perfected?
  争议焦点：这份赠与是否已经完善？
• Held (Romer J): No. Obtaining Treasury consent was necessary, and Fry hadn't done it. He hadn't done everything required of him. Furthermore, the Treasury might have refused or asked for more information, and Fry could have changed his mind. The intended transfer could not operate as a trust.
  判决（Romer 法官）：不行。获得财政部同意是必要的，而 Fry 没有做到。他没有完成所有要求他做的事情。此外，财政部可能已经拒绝或要求提供更多信息，而 Fry 可能已经改变主意。拟议的转让不能作为信托运作。
• Impact: Reinforced the strict Milroy v Lord approach, emphasizing steps required by the donor.  
  影响：强化了米尔罗伊诉洛德的严格方法，强调了捐赠者所需的步骤。

• 3. Jones v Lock (1865):

• Facts: Father returned from a business trip, was chided for not bringing a gift for his baby son. He produced a cheque payable to himself for £900, saying "Look you here, I give this to the baby" and placed it in the baby's hand. He later retrieved it and put it in his safe. He died soon after.  
  事实：父亲出差回来，因为没有给他的小儿子带礼物而受到责备。他拿出了一张抬头人为自己的 900 英镑支票，说：“看这里，我把这个给孩子”，然后把它放在孩子的手里。之后他又取回支票并放在了他的保险箱里。不久之后他去世了。
• Issue: Was there a perfected gift or a valid declaration of trust?
  问题：是否存在已完成的赠与或有效的信托声明？
• Held: No perfected gift, as the cheque was payable to the father and wasn't endorsed. Crucially, there was no declaration of trust either. The father's words and actions were deemed "loose conversation"; he intended an outright gift (which failed), not to declare himself a trustee.  
  判决：由于支票的收款人是父亲且未背书，因此没有完成赠与。 关键是，也没有信托声明。 父亲的言语和行为被认为是“随意的谈话”； 他打算进行直接赠与（但失败了），而不是声明自己是受托人。
• Impact: Illustrates that intention is key, and a failed gift won't automatically become a trust. Clear intent to be a trustee is required for self-declaration.  
  影响： 说明意图是关键，失败的赠与不会自动变成信托。 自我声明需要成为受托人的明确意图。

• 4. Richards v Delbridge (1874):

• Facts: Grandfather wanted to gift his business (including leasehold premises) to his grandson. He endorsed a memorandum on the lease document: "This deed and all thereto belonging I give to Edward..." and handed it to the grandson's mother. He died shortly after.  
  事实： 祖父想把他的生意（包括租赁场所）赠送给他的孙子。 他在租赁文件上签署了一份备忘录：“我将这份契约及其所有附属物赠送给爱德华......”，并将其交给孙子的母亲。 不久之后他去世了。
• Issue: Was the gift perfected? If not, was there a declaration of trust?
  问题：礼品是否已完善？ 如果没有，是否有信托声明？
• Held: No perfected gift. Transferring a lease requires a deed, and the simple endorsement was insufficient. The court refused to construe the failed gift as a declaration of trust by the grandfather. While the word "trust" isn't essential, the settlor must do something equivalent to declaring they hold the property on trust.  
  判决：没有完善的礼品。转让租赁权需要契约，简单的背书是不够的。法院拒绝将失败的礼品解释为祖父的信托声明。虽然“信托”一词不是必需的，但委托人必须做一些相当于声明他们持有该财产的信托。
• Impact: Reinforces Milroy v Lord that a failed transfer will not be treated as a self-declaration of trust without clear intention to become a trustee.  
  影响：强化了米尔罗伊诉劳德案的判决，即失败的财产转移不会被视为自我声明信托，除非有明确意图成为受托人。

Relaxation/Exceptions to the Strict Rule
严格规则的放宽/例外

• 1. Re Rose (1952): The "Everything in Donor's Power" Rule
  1. Re Rose (1952): “捐赠人权力范围内的一切”规则

• Facts: Mr Rose executed share transfers in March 1943, completing all forms correctly and delivering them with certificates to the trustees (for one trust) and his wife (for a gift). The company's articles required director approval for transfers. Approval and registration didn't occur until June 1943. Mr Rose died less than 5 years after June but more than 5 years after March. Estate duty liability depended on whether the transfer was effective in March or June.  
  事实：Rose 先生于 1943 年 3 月签署了股份转让书，正确填写了所有表格，并将表格连同证书交付给受托人（对于一项信托）和他的妻子（作为赠与）。公司章程规定转让须经董事批准。批准和登记直到 1943 年 6 月才发生。Rose 先生在 6 月之后不到 5 年去世，但在 3 月之后超过 5 年去世。遗产税责任取决于转让在 3 月还是 6 月生效。
• Issue: When was the transfer effective in equity?  
  问题：转让在衡平法上何时生效？
• Held (Court of Appeal): The transfer was effective in equity in March. Although legal title didn't pass until June (registration), Mr Rose had done everything in his power by March to divest himself of the shares. The only remaining steps (director approval, registration) were outside his control and depended on third parties (the company directors). From March, he held the legal title on constructive trust for the transferees.  
  判决（上诉法院）：转让在衡平法上于三月份生效。 尽管法定所有权直到六月份才转移（注册），但罗斯先生在三月份已尽其所能剥夺自己对股份的处分权。 唯一剩余的步骤（董事批准、注册）不在他的控制范围之内，并且取决于第三方（公司董事）。 从三月份起，他以推定信托的方式为受让人持有法定所有权。
• Impact: Modified Milroy v Lord. Constitution/perfection occurs in equity when the donor has done everything in their power to transfer the property, making the transfer irrevocable by the donor, even if acts by third parties are still required to perfect legal title. It's seen as applying, rather than contradicting, Milroy (focusing on the donor's actions).  
  影响：修改了 Milroy v Lord 案。 当捐赠人已尽其所能转移财产时，衡平法上的设立/完善即发生，即使仍需要第三方采取行动来完善法定所有权，捐赠人也不可撤销该转移。 它被认为是应用而非反驳 Milroy 案（侧重于捐赠人的行为）。

• 2. Mascall v Mascall (1985): 

• Facts: Father executed a land transfer deed for his son, handed it over with the land certificate. Son needed to submit it to the Land Registry for registration. Before the son did so, father and son argued, and father sought to revoke the gift.
  案情：父亲为儿子签署了一份土地转让契约，并连同土地证一起交给了他。儿子需要将其提交给土地注册处进行注册。在儿子这样做之前，父子俩发生了争吵，父亲试图撤销这份赠与。
• Issue: Was the gift perfected in equity before registration?
  问题：在注册前，该赠与是否已在衡平法上完善？
• Held: Yes. Applying Re Rose, the father had done everything in his power to effect the transfer. Handing over the executed transfer form and certificate put the completion beyond his control; it was now up to the son (the donee) to apply for registration. The gift was irrevocable by the father.  
  判决：是。根据 Re Rose 案，父亲已尽其所能完成转让。交出已签署的转让表格和证书使完成过程超出了他的控制范围；现在由儿子（受赠人）申请注册。该赠与对父亲而言是不可撤销的。
• Impact: Applied the Re Rose principle to land transfers.
  影响：将 Re Rose 原则应用于土地转让。

• 3. Pennington v Waine (2002): Unconscionability? 
  3. Pennington 诉 Waine 案 (2002)：违反良知？

• Facts: Ada wanted to gift 400 shares in a private company to her nephew, Harold, to enable him to become a director. She signed the share transfer form and gave it to her agent, Mr Pennington (an accountant), instructing him to arrange the transfer and Harold's directorship. Pennington told Harold about the gift and that he needed to do nothing further. Harold agreed to become a director. Pennington filed the form but never delivered it to Harold or the company before Ada died. Legal title remained with Ada.
  案情：Ada 想将其在一家私人公司的 400 股股份赠与其侄子 Harold，以使他能够成为一名董事。她签署了股份转让表格，并将其交给了她的代理人 Pennington 先生（一名会计师），指示他安排转让事宜以及 Harold 的董事职位。Pennington 告诉 Harold 关于这份赠与，并告知他无需再做任何事情。Harold 同意成为一名董事。Pennington 提交了表格，但在 Ada 去世之前，从未将其交给 Harold 或公司。法定所有权仍然属于 Ada。
• Issue: Was the gift perfected in equity?
  问题：该赠与在衡平法上是否已完善？
• Held (Court of Appeal): Yes, the gift was effective. The reasoning is complex and controversial. Arden LJ focused on whether it would be unconscionable for Ada (or her estate) to recall the gift. Factors included Ada executing the form, telling Harold, Pennington telling Harold he need do nothing, and Harold agreeing to be a director (potential detrimental reliance). Clarke LJ suggested executing the correct transfer form with intent might itself pass the equitable interest without delivery.  
  判决（上诉法院）：是的，该赠与有效。其推理复杂且具有争议性。Arden LJ 侧重于 Ada（或其遗产）撤回赠与是否是不公正的。相关因素包括 Ada 签署表格，告知 Harold，Pennington 告知 Harold 他无需做任何事情，以及 Harold 同意担任董事（潜在的依赖性损害）。Clarke LJ 认为，签署正确的转让表格并具有意图本身可能无需交付即可转移衡平权益。
• Impact: Highly controversial. Appears to significantly depart from Milroy and Re Rose by potentially perfecting a gift even where the donor hasn't done everything necessary or everything in their power, based on unconscionability. Later cases suggest it might apply where there's detrimental reliance by the donee making it unconscionable for the donor to revoke. Its status, particularly in Hong Kong, is debated.  
  影响：极具争议。通过基于不公正原则，即使捐赠人没有做所有必要的事情或尽其所能，也可能完善赠与，这似乎明显偏离了 Milroy 和 Re Rose 的判例。后来的案例表明，它可能适用于受赠人存在依赖性损害，导致捐赠人撤销是不公正的情况。其地位，尤其是在香港，备受争议。

• 4. T Choithram International SA v Pagarani (2001): Benevolent Construction
  4. T. 卓伊斯蘭國際公司诉帕加拉尼案 (2001)：慈善解释

• Facts: Wealthy Mr Pagarani announced on his deathbed he was giving his vast wealth (shares in companies he controlled) to a charitable foundation he had just established. He was one of the foundation's trustees. He hadn't completed share transfer forms before dying.  
  事实：富有的帕加拉尼先生在临终前宣布，他将把他拥有的巨额财富（他控制的公司的股份）捐赠给他刚刚成立的慈善基金会。他是该基金会的受托人之一。他在去世前没有完成股份转让表格。
• Issue: Was the gift to the foundation effective?
  问题：给予该基金会的赠与是否有效？
• Held (Privy Council): Yes. Although technically an imperfect gift (Method 1), the court construed his words ["I give to the foundation"] as a declaration of trust (Method 3). Since he was already a trustee, the trust was constituted the moment he declared it, as legal title was already vested in one of the trustees (himself). Equity would not strive officiously to defeat a gift, especially to charity.  
  判决（枢密院）：是。尽管从技术上讲，这是一项不完善的赠与（方法 1），但法院将他的话语[“我给予该基金会”]解释为信托声明（方法 3）。由于他已经是受托人，因此信托在他声明之时即告成立，因为合法所有权已经归属于其中一位受托人（他自己）。衡平法不会主动破坏赠与，尤其是对慈善机构的赠与。
• Impact: Shows a more flexible approach where the donor is also a trustee. It avoids the strict Milroy dichotomy by construing the words "I give to the foundation" as "I give to the trustees of the foundation to hold on trust for the foundation", which, given he was a trustee, meant the trust was constituted.
  影响：显示了一种更灵活的方法，即捐赠者同时也是受托人。它通过将“我给予该基金会”解释为“我给予该基金会的受托人，由其为该基金会持有信托”来避免严格的米尔罗二分法，鉴于他是一名受托人，这意味着信托已成立。

Accidental Perfection / Other Exceptions
意外的完善 / 其他例外情况

• 1. The Rule in Strong v Bird (1874): 
  1. Strong v Bird 规则 (1874)：

• Rule: Where a donor intends to make an immediate inter vivos gift (or release a debt), the intention continues until the donor's death, and the intended donee becomes the executor (or administrator) of the donor's estate, the gift is perfected because legal title vests in the donee in their capacity as personal representative.  
  规则：如果赠与人有意作出立即生效的生前赠与（或免除债务），且该意图持续至赠与人去世，并且拟定的受赠人成为赠与人遗产的遗嘱执行人（或管理人），则因受赠人以其作为遗产代表的身份获得合法所有权，该赠与即告完成。
• Requirements:  要求：

• 1. Intention to make an immediate inter vivos gift/release.  
  1. 立即生效的生前赠与/免除的意图。
• 2. Intention continues unchanged until the donor's death.  
  2. 意图持续不变，直至捐赠人去世。
• 3. Donee becomes the executor/administrator of the donor's estate.  
  3. 受赠人成为捐赠人遗产的遗嘱执行人/管理人。

• Strong v Bird Facts: Stepmother lent stepson £1100, agreeing repayment via rent reduction. After two repayments (£200), she orally released him from the remaining £900 debt at Christmas, accepting full rent thereafter. She never executed a formal deed of release and never asked for the money back during the next four years. She died, having appointed the stepson as her sole executor. Other relatives claimed the £900 was still owed to the estate.  
  Strong v Bird 案件事实：继母借给继子 1100 英镑，同意通过减少租金的方式偿还。在偿还了两笔款项（200 英镑）后，她在圣诞节口头免除了他剩余的 900 英镑债务，此后接受了全额租金。她从未签署正式的免除契据，并且在接下来的四年里从未要求归还这笔钱。她去世了，并指定继子为她的唯一遗嘱执行人。其他亲属声称仍欠遗产 900 英镑。

• Held: The debt was released. Although the oral release was ineffective at law, her intention to release the debt continued until death, and the appointment of the stepson (the debtor) as executor vested the property (the right to sue for the debt) in him, perfecting the release.  
  判决：债务已解除。尽管口头免除在法律上无效，但她免除债务的意图一直持续到去世，并且指定继子（债务人）为遗嘱执行人，将财产（起诉债务的权利）赋予了他，从而完善了免除。

• Re James (1935): Extended the rule to administrators appointed by the court.  
  Re James (1935): 将该规则扩展至由法院指定的遗产管理人。
• Re Gonin (1979): Limited the rule. Mother promised a house to the daughter who cared for her. Mother later dealt with parts of the property as her own (selling land). She died intestate, daughter became administratrix. Held: Rule didn't apply as mother's later actions showed she hadn't maintained a continuing intention to make an immediate gift of the house during her lifetime. (Note: Today, proprietary estoppel or a constructive trust might provide a remedy ).  
  Re Gonin (1979)：限制了该规则。母亲承诺将一栋房子赠与照顾她的女儿。母亲后来将部分房产作为自己的财产进行处理（出售土地）。她去世时没有留下遗嘱，女儿成为遗产管理人。判决：该规则不适用，因为母亲后来的行为表明她没有维持在有生之年立即赠与该房屋的持续意图。（注意：今天，产权禁止反言或推定信托可能会提供补救措施）。

• 2. Coincidental Receipt (Re Ralli's Will Trusts): 
  2. 巧合的接收（Re Ralli's Will Trusts）：

• Rule: If trust property happens to come into the hands of the intended trustee (even in a different capacity), the trust may be considered constituted. "We don't really care how the trustees get it".  
  规则：如果信托财产恰好落入预定受托人手中（即使是以不同的身份），则该信托可被视为已设立。“我们并不真正在意受托人是如何获得它的”。
• Facts: Helen covenanted (promised via deed) to settle future property she expected under her father's will trust onto a marriage settlement trust for her sister Irene. Helen died before receiving the property. By coincidence, the same person (Irene's husband) was trustee of both the father's will trust and Helen's marriage settlement trust. When the father's trust property became distributable, he already held it.
  事实：海伦订立契约（通过契据承诺），将她预期从她父亲的遗嘱信托中获得的未来财产，转移到一个为她妹妹艾琳设立的婚姻财产信托中。海伦在收到该财产之前去世。巧合的是，同一个人（艾琳的丈夫）既是她父亲的遗嘱信托的受托人，也是海伦的婚姻财产信托的受托人。当她父亲的信托财产可以分配时，他已经持有该财产。
• Held: The trust of Helen's share was constituted because the appointed trustee coincidentally already had legal title (as trustee of the father's trust).  
  判决：海伦股份的信托已成立，因为指定的受托人恰好已经拥有合法所有权（作为其父亲信托的受托人）。

• 3. Donationes Mortis Causa (DMC - Gifts in Contemplation of Death): 
  3. 临终赠与 (Donationes Mortis Causa, DMC)：

• Nature: A unique type of gift made during the donor's lifetime, conditional upon, and perfected by, the donor's death from a contemplated cause. It's revocable before death. It takes precedence over wills. Operates outside the Wills Act formalities and normal transfer rules (likely via constructive trust).  
  性质：一种独特的赠与，在赠与人生前作出，以赠与人因预期原因死亡为条件，并因赠与人死亡而完成。在死亡前可撤销。优先于遗嘱。在《遗嘱法》的形式和正常转移规则之外运作（可能通过推定信托）。
• Requirements (Cain v Moon; Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon v Lee Wai Hing):
  要求（Cain 诉 Moon 案；Sen 诉 Headley 案；Chan Gordon 诉 Lee Wai Hing 案）：

• 1. Contemplation of Impending Death: Gift must be made in contemplation (though not necessarily expectation) of death from a specific cause (e.g., illness, operation, hazardous journey). General contemplation of mortality isn't enough. If the donor recovers, the gift fails. If the donor dies from another cause, the gift may still be valid.  
  1. 预见迫在眉睫的死亡：赠与必须是在预见（但不一定是期望）因特定原因（例如，疾病、手术、危险的旅程）而死亡的情况下作出的。对死亡的一般思考是不够的。如果赠与人康复，赠与失败。如果赠与人死于其他原因，赠与仍然有效。
• 2. Conditional on Death: Gift only becomes absolute on the donor's death and is revocable until then. Revocation must be communicated.  
  2. 以死亡为条件：赠与仅在赠与人死亡时才成为绝对的，并且在此之前可以撤销。撤销必须传达。
• 3. Delivery of Subject Matter / Parting with Dominion: Donor must deliver the property or something representing it, showing an intention to part with control (dominion) over it.
  3. 标的物的交付/放弃管辖权：赠与人必须交付财产或代表财产的物品，表明其有意放弃对财产的控制权（管辖权）。

• Chattels: Physical delivery or means of control (e.g., keys for a car - Woodward v Woodward ).  
  动产：实际交付或控制手段（例如，汽车钥匙 - Woodward v Woodward）。
• Land: Controversial, but possible (Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon ). Delivery of title deeds or keys to boxes containing them may suffice.  
  土地：有争议，但有可能（Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon）。交付所有权证书或包含所有权证书的箱子的钥匙可能就足够了。
• Bank Accounts: Delivery of passbook may work. ATM cards/online accounts uncertain.
  银行账户：交付存折可能有效。ATM 卡/在线账户不确定。

• Chan Gordon v Lee Wai Hing & Anor (Hong Kong): Applied DMC principles to land/property. Donor gave neighbour keys to a flat and safe deposit box (containing title deeds and bank passbook). Donor expressed a wish to return to the flat but died. The Court of Appeal held, giving the key to a safe deposit box containing title deeds showed parting with dominion over the flat, making a valid DMC of the flat (and BEA account). Statements about returning to flat weren't incompatible with a DMC.  
  陈国敦诉李惠卿及另一人（香港）：将 DMC 原则应用于土地/房产。捐赠人将一套公寓和保险箱（内含产权契据和银行存折）的钥匙交给了邻居。捐赠人表达了返回公寓的意愿，但去世了。上诉法院认为，将包含产权契据的保险箱钥匙交给他人，表明放弃了对公寓的支配权，从而使该公寓（以及东亚银行账户）的 DMC 有效。关于返回公寓的陈述与 DMC 并不矛盾。

Self-Declaration of Trust
自我声明信托

• Method: Settlor declares they now hold their own property on trust for beneficiaries.  
  方法：委托人声明他们现在为受益人持有自己的财产，以信托方式持有。
• Constitution: Constitution is automatic, as the settlor already holds legal title. The key issue is whether there has been a valid declaration.  
  设立：如财产授予人已经持有合法所有权，则设立自动完成。关键问题是是否存在有效的声明。
• Requirements:   要求：

• 1. Certainty of Intention: Clear evidence the settlor intended to impose binding trust obligations on themselves regarding the property. Use of the word "trust" is not essential (Paul v Constance), but actions/words must be equivalent. Failed gifts are not typically construed as declarations of trust (Jones v Lock, Richards v Delbridge).  
  1. 意图确定性：清晰的证据表明，财产授予人有意对自己施加关于该财产的具有约束力的信托义务。使用“信托”一词并非必要（Paul v Constance），但行为/言语必须具有同等效力。失败的赠与通常不被解释为信托声明（Jones v Lock, Richards v Delbridge）。
• 2. Certainty of Subject Matter and Objects.  
  2. 标的物和受益人的确定性。
• 3. Formalities: Generally none for personal property. For land, the declaration must be manifested and proved by writing (e.g., CPO s.5(1)(b)).  
  3. 形式：一般而言，个人财产无特定形式要求。对于土地，声明必须以书面形式体现和证明（例如，《产业所有权条例》第 5(1)(b)条）。

Testamentary Trusts/Gifts
遗嘱信托/馈赠

• Constitution and perfection are generally not an issue for trusts or gifts made in a valid will.  
  遗嘱中设立的有效信托或赠与，通常不存在设立（Constitution）和完善（Perfection）的问题。
• If the will is valid and the property exists in the estate, the executors are legally obligated to transfer the property to the designated trustees or donees according to the will's terms.  
  如果遗嘱有效且遗产中存在该财产，则遗嘱执行人有法律义务按照遗嘱的条款将该财产转让给指定的受托人或受赠人。
• The focus in exams for constitution/perfection issues is almost always on inter vivos (lifetime) attempts.  
  关于设立/完善问题的考试重点几乎总是在生前（有生之年）的尝试上。
• All testamentary dispositions must comply with Wills Ordinance formalities (e.g., s.5 in Hong Kong).
  所有遗嘱处分必须符合《遗嘱条例》的形式要求（例如，香港法例第 5 条）。