W9
Q1 DMC Q1 临终赠与
Gladys lives in the flat next door to Madam Wong. For some time, Madam Wong has been unwell and Gladys has been concerned about her health. Gladys has been taking some meals into Madam Wong and Madam Wong has asked her to carry out some errands for her including collecting her mail from the mail box in the foyer to the block of flats. On one visit Madam Wong gave Gladys a key ring with three keys on it. One key was for the mailbox, one for the door to the flat and the other Madam Wong said would be useful for Gladys when Madam Wong had “passed on”. Shortly after this Madam Wong died. A search of Madam Wong’s flat found no will and extensive investigation has found no next of kin of Madam Wong. Madam Wong’s estate comprises the flat, a sum of $12,000 in a Bank of West Asia account (the passbook to which was discovered in the flat), and a sum of $1,000,000 in an account in the Bank of Credit, the passbook to which was discovered in a safe deposit box the only key to which was on the key ring given to Gladys. The safe deposit box also contained the deeds to the flat.
Gladys 住在王太太隔壁的公寓里。一段时间以来，王太太身体不好，Gladys 一直很关心她的健康。Gladys 一直在给王太太送饭，王太太也让她帮着做一些事情，包括从公寓大堂的邮箱里取邮件。有一次，王太太给了 Gladys 一个钥匙环，上面有三把钥匙。一把是邮箱的钥匙，一把是公寓的门钥匙，另一把王太太说在她“过世后”对 Gladys 有用。此后不久，王太太去世了。对王太太的公寓进行搜查后，没有发现遗嘱，经过广泛调查也没有找到王太太的近亲。王太太的遗产包括公寓、西亚银行账户中的 12,000 美元（存折在公寓中被发现）以及一家信贷银行账户中的 1,000,000 美元，该账户的存折在一个保险箱中被发现，而保险箱的唯一钥匙就在交给 Gladys 的钥匙环上。保险箱里还装有公寓的地契。
Advise the Hong Kong SAR as to the claims the SAR and Gladys may have to Madam Wong’s estate.
就香港特别行政区和 Gladys 可能对王太太遗产提出的索赔，向香港特别行政区提供建议。
The central issue is the distribution of Madam Wong’s estate upon her death intestate and without known next of kin. The primary competing claimants are Gladys, Madam Wong’s neighbour, who claims certain assets were gifted to her shortly before Madam Wong's death, potentially qualifying as donationes mortis causa (DMCs), and the Hong Kong SAR Government (HKSAR), which may claim any remaining property as bona vacantia. This advice will analyse the validity of Gladys' potential DMC claims for each asset and determine the HKSAR's entitlement to the residual estate.
核心问题是王太太在没有遗嘱且没有已知近亲的情况下去世后，其遗产的分配问题。主要的竞争索赔人是 Gladys，王太太的邻居，她声称某些资产在王太太去世前不久被赠与给她，可能符合临终赠与（donationes mortis causa，DMCs）的条件；以及香港特别行政区政府（HKSAR），它可能会将任何剩余财产作为无主财物（bona vacantia）进行索赔。本建议将分析 Gladys 对每项资产的潜在临终赠与索赔的有效性，并确定香港特别行政区对剩余遗产的权利。
Gladys’ claim rests on the doctrine of DMC, which allows for gifts made during the donor's lifetime, in contemplation of impending death, to be perfected upon the donor's death, operating outside the usual requirements for lifetime gifts or testamentary dispositions. For a valid DMC, three requirements must be met (Cain v Moon; Sen v Headley): the gift must be made in contemplation of impending death, it must be conditional on death (revocable until then), and there must be delivery of the subject matter or parting with dominion over it. The first two requirements appear satisfied in this case. Madam Wong was unwell, made the transfer shortly before her death, and referred to the key being useful after she "passed on," strongly suggesting contemplation of death from her existing condition (Vallee v Birchwood). The conditionality on death is implied by these circumstances and the reference to passing on, with no evidence of revocation. The critical analysis, therefore, centres on whether Madam Wong parted with dominion over each specific asset claimed by Gladys.
Gladys 的主张依赖于临终赠与 (DMC) 原则。该原则允许在捐赠者生前，在预见到即将死亡的情况下所作出的赠与，在捐赠者去世后生效，且不受生前赠与或遗嘱处分的通常要求的约束。要使临终赠与有效，必须满足三个要求 (Cain v Moon; Sen v Headley)：赠与必须是在预见到即将死亡的情况下作出的，它必须以死亡为条件（在此之前可撤销），并且必须交付标的物或放弃对其的支配权。在本案中，前两个要求似乎已得到满足。王太太身体不好，在去世前不久进行了财产转移，并提到钥匙在她“去世后”会有用，这强烈表明她是预见到自己因现有疾病而死亡 (Vallee v Birchwood)。以死亡为条件的性质可以从这些情况和对去世的提及中推断出来，并且没有证据表明有撤销。因此，关键的分析集中在王太太是否放弃了对 Gladys 所主张的每项特定资产的支配权。
Regarding the flat and the $1,000,000 Bank of Credit account, the issue is whether Madam Wong relinquished sufficient control by giving Gladys the key ring. Parting with dominion requires the donor to effectively transfer control. For land, delivering the title deeds or the essential means of access (like the only key to where deeds are kept) can suffice (Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon v Lee Wai Hing & Anor). Similarly, for a bank account, delivery of essential indicia of title, such as a passbook or the sole means to access it, can also constitute parting with dominion. Here, Madam Wong gave Gladys the only key to the safe deposit box which contained both the title deeds to the flat and the passbook for the $1,000,000 Bank of Credit account. Handing over the sole means of accessing these essential documents strongly indicates an intention to transfer control, conditional upon death, closely mirroring the finding in Chan Gordon. While her statement about the key being useful after she "passed on" could raise ambiguity, the court in Chan Gordon found similar statements were not incompatible with a DMC. Therefore, Gladys has a strong claim that valid DMCs were made for both the flat and the $1,000,000 account, as sufficient dominion was likely parted with through delivery of the sole key.
关于公寓和信贷银行的 1,000,000 美元账户，问题在于王太太是否通过将钥匙圈交给 Gladys 而放弃了足够的控制权。放弃支配权要求捐赠者有效地转移控制权。对于土地而言，交付所有权契据或基本出入方式（如存放契据的唯一钥匙）就足够了 (Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon v Lee Wai Hing & Anor)。同样，对于银行账户而言，交付重要的所有权凭证，例如存折或访问该账户的唯一方式，也可以构成放弃支配权。在本案中，王太太将存放公寓所有权契据和信贷银行 1,000,000 美元账户存折的保险箱的唯一钥匙交给了 Gladys。交出访问这些重要文件的唯一方式强烈表明了转移控制权的意图，以死亡为条件，与 Chan Gordon 案的判决非常相似。虽然她关于钥匙在她“去世后”会有用的说法可能会引起歧义，但 Chan Gordon 案中的法院认为类似的说法与临终赠与并不矛盾。因此，Gladys 有充分的理由声称已对公寓和 1,000,000 美元的账户进行了有效的临终赠与，因为很可能通过交付唯一钥匙放弃了充分的支配权。
Conversely, Gladys' claim to the $12,000 Bank of West Asia account and the $41,000 cash found in the flat is considerably weaker. The relevant rule remains that the donor must part with dominion over the specific asset intended as a gift. While Gladys possessed a key to the flat, the evidence suggests this was provided primarily for practical errands like collecting mail, not specifically to gift the contents. The passbook and cash were merely located within the flat; they were not delivered themselves, nor was dominion over them specifically relinquished in contemplation of death. Mere access to the location, granted for other reasons, does not equate to the necessary parting with dominion required for a DMC. Thus, it is unlikely Gladys can establish a valid DMC for these items.
相反，Gladys 对西亚银行账户中的 12,000 美元以及在公寓中发现的 41,000 美元现金的主张要弱得多。相关的规则仍然是，赠与人必须放弃对其意图作为礼物的特定资产的所有权。虽然 Gladys 拥有公寓的钥匙，但证据表明这主要是为了处理诸如收取邮件之类的实际事务，而不是专门用于赠送公寓内的物品。存折和现金仅仅位于公寓内；它们本身并没有被交付，也没有在临终前明确放弃对其的所有权。仅仅是出于其他原因而被允许进入该地点，并不等同于 DMC 所要求的必要的所有权放弃。因此，Gladys 不太可能为这些物品建立有效的 DMC。
Finally, the HKSAR's claim arises under the doctrine of bona vacantia. According to the Intestates' Estates Ordinance (Cap. 73), when an individual dies without a will and without any statutory next of kin, their property, so far as it is undisposed of, passes to the Government. Given Madam Wong's intestacy and the absence of known relatives, any property not validly transferred to Gladys via DMC falls into this category. Based on the preceding analysis, this would encompass the $12,000 Bank of West Asia account and the $41,000 cash. The HKSAR therefore has a strong claim to these specific assets.
最后，香港特别行政区的主张是根据无主财物原则提出的。根据《无遗嘱者遗产条例》（第 73 章），当一个人在没有遗嘱且没有任何法定近亲的情况下死亡时，其财产（只要未被处置）将归政府所有。鉴于王女士的无遗嘱以及没有已知的亲属，任何未通过 DMC 有效转让给 Gladys 的财产都属于这一类。根据之前的分析，这将包括西亚银行账户中的 12,000 美元和 41,000 美元现金。因此，香港特别行政区对这些特定资产拥有强有力的主张。
In conclusion, the HKSAR Government should be advised that Gladys likely has a valid claim to Madam Wong’s flat and the $1,000,000 in the Bank of Credit account via DMC, based primarily on the parting with dominion evidenced by the delivery of the sole key to the safe deposit box containing the essential indicia of title (Chan Gordon). However, the HKSAR has the stronger claim to the remaining assets – the $12,000 Bank of West Asia account and the $41,000 cash – as these were likely not subject to valid DMCs and therefore pass to the State as bona vacantia due to Madam Wong's intestacy and lack of kin. The estate should be administered reflecting these distinct entitlements.
总之，应告知香港特别行政区政府，Gladys 可能对王女士的公寓以及信用卡银行账户中的 1,000,000 美元拥有有效的 DMC 主张，这主要基于通过交付包含重要所有权凭证的保险箱唯一钥匙所证明的所有权放弃（Chan Gordon）。但是，香港特别行政区对剩余资产（西亚银行账户中的 12,000 美元和 41,000 美元现金）拥有更强的主张，因为这些资产可能不受有效的 DMC 约束，因此由于王女士的无遗嘱和缺乏亲属而作为无主财物归国家所有。遗产的分配应反映这些不同的权利。
Q2 Outright gift & Self-declaration (建立信托 v. 生前赠与)
Q2 直接赠与和自我声明（建立信托 v. 生前赠与）
A few years ago, Mary decided to treat her three children, Samantha, Tim and James. She wrote to Samantha, who lived in Macau with her boyfriend, telling her that she was giving her 25,000 shares that she owned in a local company, Mongkok Steel Stockholders Limited. Mary executed a share transfer in favour of Samantha and gave the share certificates and the share transfer form to Samantha.
几年前，玛丽决定善待她的三个孩子，萨曼莎、蒂姆和詹姆斯。她写信给和男友住在澳门的萨曼莎，告诉她，她要把自己拥有的本地公司——旺角钢铁股东有限公司的 25,000 股股份送给她。玛丽签署了一份以萨曼莎为受益人的股份转让书，并将股票证书和股份转让表格交给了萨曼莎。
Mary then wrote to her son, Tim, who was away at university, telling him that she now held the $200,000 in her high interest bank account on trust for him.
之后，玛丽写信给在大学读书的儿子蒂姆，告诉他，她现在以信托的方式为他持有其高息银行账户中的 200,000 美元。
Finally, Mary approached her youngest son, James, and told him that she was henceforth going to hold her holiday home in Sai Kung in trust for him.
最后，玛丽找到她最小的儿子詹姆斯，告诉他，她今后将以信托的方式为他持有她在西贡的度假屋。
Last month, Mary was diagnosed with a terminal degenerative liver disease. A few days after the diagnosis, her favourite nephew, Alexander, came to visit her. She told Alexander that he could have her flat in Kennedy Town to hold on trust for his children. She gave Alexander the keys to the flat and a box containing the title deeds. The following day, Mary was killed in a car accident whilst on the way to see her consultant to discuss her liver condition.
上个月，玛丽被诊断出患有晚期退行性肝病。诊断几天后，她最喜欢的侄子亚历山大来看望她。她告诉亚历山大，他可以拥有她在坚尼地城的公寓，以信托的方式为他的孩子们持有。她把公寓的钥匙和一个装有产权证书的盒子给了亚历山大。第二天，玛丽在去看顾问讨论她的肝脏状况的路上，在一次车祸中丧生。
Mary’s will, which appointed her boyfriend George and her daughter Samantha as executors, was found to contain only two dispositions. The holiday home in Sai Kung was left to Mary’s niece, Kathy, and the residuary estate was left to George. Before her death, Mary had indicated that she was leaving nothing to her three children because she had made adequate provision for them during her lifetime.
玛丽的遗嘱指定了她的男友乔治和她的女儿萨曼莎为执行人，但遗嘱中只包含两项处置。西贡的度假屋留给了玛丽的侄女凯西，剩余遗产留给了乔治。玛丽在去世前曾表示，她不会给她的三个孩子留下任何东西，因为她在生前已经为他们提供了充分的保障。
George, as residuary legatee, is claiming the shares in Mongkok Steel Stockholders Limited, the $200,000 in the bank account, and the flat in Kennedy Town. Both James and Kathy are claiming that the holiday home in Sai Kung is theirs.
乔治作为剩余遗产的继承人，正在索取旺角钢铁股东有限公司的股份、银行账户中的 20 万元以及坚尼地城的公寓。詹姆斯和凯西都声称西贡的度假屋是他们的。
You are to advise as to the ownership of the shares, the $200,000, the holiday home in Sai Kung and the flat in Kennedy Town.
您需要就股份、20 万元、西贡的度假屋和坚尼地城的公寓的归属提供建议。
This advice concerns the ownership of several assets following Mary's death, considering several inter vivos transactions she attempted and the subsequent dispositions in her valid will. The assets in question are shares in Mongkok Steel Stockholders Limited (MSS Ltd), $200,000 held in a bank account, a holiday home in Sai Kung, and a flat in Kennedy Town. The analysis requires applying principles of perfection of gifts, constitution of trusts (including self-declarations), potential Donatio Mortis Causa (DMC), the rule in Strong v Bird, and the effect of testamentary dispositions, considering the claims of Mary's children (Samantha, Tim, James), her nephew (Alexander), her niece (Kathy), and her boyfriend/residuary legatee (George).
本建议涉及玛丽去世后若干资产的归属问题，考虑到她尝试进行的几项生前交易以及随后在其有效遗嘱中的处置。相关资产包括旺角钢铁股东有限公司（MSS Ltd）的股份、银行账户中持有的 20 万元、西贡的度假屋和坚尼地城的公寓。分析需要应用赠与完善原则、信托构成（包括自我声明）、潜在的临终赠与（DMC）、Strong v Bird 规则以及遗嘱处置的效力，同时考虑玛丽的孩子（萨曼莎、蒂姆、詹姆斯）、她的侄子（亚历山大）、她的侄女（凯西）以及她的男友/剩余遗产继承人（乔治）的主张。
Regarding the 25,000 shares in MSS Ltd, the issue is whether Mary perfected the intended lifetime gift to Samantha. An outright gift requires the donor to do everything necessary according to the nature of the property to transfer legal title (Milroy v Lord). For shares, this typically necessitates executing a share transfer form, delivering it with the share certificate, and securing registration. However, equity may deem the gift perfected if the donor has done everything in their power, putting the transfer beyond their control (Re Rose). Mary executed the transfer form and gave both the form and certificates to Samantha. Having done so, Mary completed all actions required of her; completion then depended on Samantha submitting the documents for registration. This aligns with the principle in Re Rose and Mascall v Mascall, meaning the gift was perfected in equity at the point of delivery to Samantha. Therefore, the shares belong beneficially to Samantha, not to George as part of the residue.
关于 MSS 有限公司的 25,000 股股份，问题在于玛丽是否完善了对萨曼莎的预期生前赠与。完全赠与要求赠与人根据财产的性质采取一切必要措施来转移法定所有权（Milroy v Lord 案）。对于股份，这通常需要执行股份转让表格，连同股票证书一起交付，并确保登记。但是，如果赠与人已尽其所能，使转让超出其控制范围（Re Rose 案），衡平法可以认为赠与已完善。玛丽执行了转让表格，并将表格和证书都交给了萨曼莎。这样做之后，玛丽完成了她需要做的所有事情；完成取决于萨曼莎提交文件进行注册。这与 Re Rose 案和 Mascall v Mascall 案的原则相符，意味着该赠与在交付给萨曼莎时在衡平法上已完善。因此，这些股份在受益上属于萨曼莎，而不属于乔治，作为剩余财产的一部分。
Concerning the $200,000 bank account, the question is whether Mary created a valid inter vivos trust for Tim through self-declaration. A self-declaration requires a clear, immediate intention to hold specific property on trust for identifiable beneficiaries, satisfying the three certainties (Knight v Knight). For personalty like bank funds, no specific formality beyond the clear manifestation of intention is usually required. Mary wrote to Tim stating she "now held" the specific "$200,000 in her high interest bank account" "on trust for him." The phrasing strongly indicates an immediate intention to create a binding obligation (Paul v Constance), distinct from a failed gift (Jones v Lock; Richards v Delbridge). The subject matter (the specific account) and the object (Tim) are certain. As Mary already held legal title, the trust was constituted immediately upon this declaration. Consequently, the $200,000 is held on trust for Tim and does not fall into the residue for George.
关于 200,000 美元的银行账户，问题在于玛丽是否通过自我声明为蒂姆设立了有效的生前信托。自我声明要求有明确的、立即的意图，以信托方式为可识别的受益人持有特定财产，从而满足三个确定性（Knight v Knight 案）。对于像银行资金这样的动产，通常不需要明确表示意图之外的任何特定手续。玛丽写信给蒂姆，声明她“现在以信托方式持有”她“高息银行账户中的 200,000 美元”“为了他”。这种措辞强烈表明了一种立即创造具有约束力的义务的意图（Paul v Constance 案），这与失败的赠与（Jones v Lock 案；Richards v Delbridge 案）不同。标的物（特定账户）和受益人（蒂姆）是确定的。由于玛丽已经拥有法定所有权，该信托在声明后立即成立。因此，这 200,000 美元以信托方式为蒂姆持有，并且不属于乔治的剩余财产。
The ownership of the Sai Kung holiday home involves assessing an attempted inter vivos self-declaration of trust for James against a specific device in Mary's will to Kathy. Mary orally told James she was "henceforth going to hold" the home in trust for him. While indicating intent, a declaration of trust concerning land must be manifested and proved by signed writing to be enforceable (CPO s.5(1)(b)). The oral declaration for James was therefore ineffective. As the inter vivos trust failed, Mary remained the owner at her death. Her valid will specifically devises the holiday home to Kathy. This testamentary gift takes precedence over the prior unenforceable oral declaration. Thus, the holiday home belongs to Kathy.
西贡度假屋的所有权涉及评估一项针对玛丽遗嘱中特定条款（针对凯西）的，试图向詹姆斯作出的生前自我声明信托。玛丽口头告诉詹姆斯，她“今后将以信托方式持有”该房屋，为他持有。虽然表明了意图，但关于土地的信托声明必须以书面形式体现和证明，才能强制执行（《财产所有权条例》第 5(1)(b)条）。因此，对詹姆斯的口头声明无效。由于生前信托失败，玛丽去世时仍然是所有者。她的有效遗嘱明确将度假屋遗赠给凯西。这项遗嘱中的赠与优先于先前的无法执行的口头声明。因此，度假屋属于凯西。
Finally, the Kennedy Town flat requires analysis of Mary's interaction with Alexander shortly before her death. Mary, after a terminal diagnosis (satisfying contemplation of death for DMC), told Alexander he could have the flat "to hold on trust for his children," giving him keys and a box with title deeds. The potential mechanisms are inter vivos trust constitution, DMC, or Strong v Bird. Constitution of an inter vivos trust of land requires a deed of transfer to the trustee (Alexander), which was not executed, failing both Milroy v Lord and likely Re Rose. A DMC requires parting with dominion. While delivering keys/deeds can suffice for land (Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon), the instruction "to hold on trust" suggests an intent to create an inter vivos trust structure, not a conditional gift perfected by death (the essence of DMC). Strong v Bird is inapplicable as the intent was not an immediate gift to Alexander, and Alexander is not an executor. Therefore, the attempted lifetime trust fails for want of constitution and is not saved by DMC or Strong v Bird.
最后，关于坚尼地城（Kennedy Town）的公寓，需要分析玛丽去世前不久与亚历山大之间的互动。玛丽在被诊断出绝症后（满足了 DMC 对死亡的预期），告诉亚历山大他可以拥有这套公寓“以信托方式为其子女持有”，并将钥匙和装有产权文件的盒子交给了他。可能的机制包括生前信托的设立、DMC 或 Strong v Bird 原则。设立土地生前信托需要一份转让给受托人（亚历山大）的契约，但并未执行，因此 Milroy v Lord 原则和可能的 Re Rose 原则均未满足。DMC 需要放弃支配权。虽然交付钥匙/契约可以满足土地的要求（Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon），但“以信托方式持有”的指示表明意图创建一个生前信托结构，而不是一种通过死亡完善的有条件赠与（DMC 的本质）。Strong v Bird 原则不适用，因为意图不是立即赠与亚历山大，而且亚历山大也不是遗嘱执行人。因此，试图设立的生前信托因缺乏设立而失败，并且不能通过 DMC 或 Strong v Bird 原则来补救。
In summary, the ownership of the assets is advised as follows: the MSS Ltd shares belong beneficially to Samantha; the $200,000 bank account is held on trust for Tim; the Sai Kung holiday home belongs to Kathy pursuant to the will; and the Kennedy Town flat falls into the residuary estate and thus belongs to George. George's claims as residuary legatee to the shares and the bank account fail, as does James' claim to the holiday home.
总而言之，资产所有权的建议如下：MSS 有限公司的股份属于萨曼莎的实益所有；200,000 美元的银行账户以信托方式为蒂姆持有；西贡的度假屋根据遗嘱属于凯西；坚尼地城的公寓归于剩余遗产，因此属于乔治。乔治作为剩余遗产继承人对股份和银行账户的主张失败，詹姆斯对度假屋的主张也同样失败。
Q3 DMC 问 3 DMC
Derek believed himself to be in his last illness. He said to his old friend Louise, “you have been a dear and loyal friend. Take this key. It will open the deed box which you will find in the upper drawer of my desk, of which you already have a key. The contents of that box I give you.” Within a few hours Derek became comatose and three days later died. Henry, his executor, took possession of the desk and broke open the deed box. The contents of the deed box were:
德里克认为自己病入膏肓。他对他的老朋友露易丝说：“你一直是一位亲爱的和忠诚的朋友。拿走这把钥匙。它将打开你会在我的书桌上层抽屉里找到的契约箱。我把那个箱子里的东西给你。” 几个小时后，德里克陷入昏迷，三天后去世。亨利，他的遗嘱执行人，占有了书桌并打开了契约箱。契约箱里的东西是：
Derek’s will provides that his jewellery is to be given to his niece as a family heirloom, his shares are to be sold and the money used for charitable purposes, his flat is to be given to his aged mother for the rest of her life, and his cash and car are to be given to his nephew.
德里克的遗嘱规定，他的珠宝要作为家族传家宝赠予他的侄女，他的股份要被出售，所得款项用于慈善目的，他的公寓要赠予他年迈的母亲，供她余生居住，他的现金和汽车要赠予他的侄子。
Advise Henry. 为亨利提供建议。
As executor, Henry must ascertain the legal status of Derek’s assets to ensure proper administration of the estate. The primary complication arises from Derek's actions shortly before his death, where he purportedly gifted the contents of a deed box to his friend Louise, potentially creating Donationes Mortis Causa (DMCs). These potential DMCs conflict with the dispositions in Derek's valid will. This advice will evaluate the validity of the purported DMCs for each relevant asset and clarify how Henry should proceed with distribution considering both the DMCs and the will.
作为遗嘱执行人，亨利必须确定德里克资产的法律地位，以确保遗产的正确管理。主要问题在于德里克去世前不久的行为，据称他将契约箱内的物品赠予了他的朋友路易丝，这可能构成了临终赠与（DMC）。这些潜在的临终赠与与德里克有效遗嘱中的处置相冲突。本建议将评估每项相关资产的推定临终赠与的有效性，并阐明亨利应如何在考虑临终赠与和遗嘱的情况下进行分配。
A DMC is a unique lifetime gift made in contemplation of death, conditional upon death, and perfected only upon death, operating outside usual will formalities. A valid DMC takes precedence over conflicting testamentary gifts. The three requirements are (Cain v Moon; Sen v Headley): contemplation of impending death, conditionality on death, and parting with dominion over the subject matter. Derek clearly met the first requirement, believing himself in his "last illness." Conditionality on death is implied by these circumstances. The central analysis concerns the third requirement – parting with dominion – achieved here by Derek giving Louise a key to the deed box (note: not necessarily the only key) and stating, "The contents of that box I give you." We must assess if this constituted parting with dominion for each item within the box.
临终赠与是一种独特的生前赠与，是在考虑死亡的情况下做出的，以死亡为条件，仅在死亡时完善，在通常的遗嘱形式之外运作。有效的临终赠与优先于冲突的遗嘱赠与。三个要求是（Cain v Moon; Sen v Headley）：对迫在眉睫的死亡的考虑，以死亡为条件，以及放弃对标的物的支配权。德里克显然满足了第一个要求，他认为自己患了“最后一场病”。在这些情况下，对死亡的条件是隐含的。中心分析涉及第三个要求——放弃支配权——德里克将契约箱的钥匙交给路易丝（注意：不一定是唯一的钥匙）并说“我把那个箱子的内容给你”，从而实现了这一点。我们必须评估这是否构成了放弃对箱内每件物品的支配权。
Regarding the antique jewellery found inside the deed box, delivery of chattels or the means to access and control them suffices for parting with dominion. By giving Louise a key providing access to the box containing the jewellery, coupled with the express statement gifting the contents, Derek likely parted with dominion over the jewellery. Therefore, a valid DMC of the jewellery to Louise probably occurred.
关于在契据箱内发现的古董珠宝，交付动产或获取和控制动产的手段足以构成放弃支配权。通过给露易丝一把可以打开装有珠宝的箱子的钥匙，再加上明确表示赠送箱内物品的声明，德里克很可能放弃了对珠宝的支配权。因此，很可能发生了对露易丝有效的死因赠与。
The share certificates were also in the box. However, parting with dominion over shares requires more than delivering certificates; it typically involves steps towards transferring legal title (Milroy v Lord). Merely providing access to the certificates does not equate to parting with dominion over the shares themselves. Thus, an effective DMC of the shares is unlikely.
股票凭证也在箱子里。然而，放弃对股票的支配权需要的不仅仅是交付凭证；它通常涉及转移法定所有权的步骤（Milroy v Lord）。仅仅提供凭证的访问权限并不等同于放弃对股票本身的支配权。因此，不太可能发生对股票的有效死因赠与。
For Derek’s flat, the title deed was in the deed box. Delivery of title deeds, or the essential means to access them, can constitute parting with dominion for land in a DMC (Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon). Providing Louise with the key to the box containing the deeds, along with the gifting statement, strongly suggests Derek parted with dominion over the flat. Consequently, a valid DMC of the flat to Louise likely occurred.
对于德里克的公寓，产权契据在契据箱里。交付产权契据或获取产权契据的基本手段可以构成死因赠与中对土地放弃支配权（Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon）。向露易丝提供装有契据的箱子的钥匙，以及赠与声明，强烈表明德里克放弃了对公寓的支配权。因此，很可能发生了对露易丝有效的公寓死因赠与。
The deed box also contained the key to a bank strong box, which in turn held cash and Ferrari registration documents. Derek's statement referred specifically to the "contents of that box" (the deed box). It is ambiguous whether he intended to gift only items directly within the deed box (like the strong box key itself) or also the assets accessible via that key. Parting with dominion over the cash and Ferrari requires more direct action than providing indirect access via a key inside another container (cf Woodward v Woodward). This indirectness makes it unlikely Derek sufficiently parted with dominion over the cash and Ferrari. While the strong box key itself might have been gifted via DMC as part of the deed box contents, the cash and Ferrari likely were not.
契据箱里还装有银行保险箱的钥匙，里面装着现金和法拉利登记文件。德里克的声明专门提到了“那个箱子（契据箱）里的东西”。目前尚不清楚他是否只想赠送直接在契据箱内的物品（比如保险箱钥匙本身），还是也包括通过该钥匙可以获得的资产。放弃对现金和法拉利的支配权需要比通过另一个容器内的钥匙提供间接访问权限更直接的行动（参见 Woodward v Woodward）。这种间接性使得德里克不太可能充分放弃对现金和法拉利的支配权。虽然保险箱钥匙本身可能作为契据箱内容的一部分通过死因赠与被赠与，但现金和法拉利很可能没有。
Henry must distribute the estate according to these findings, remembering that valid DMCs override the will. The jewellery, likely subject to a valid DMC, passes to Louise, not the niece. The shares, not validly gifted via DMC, remain in the estate and Henry must follow the will's direction to sell them for charitable purposes. The flat, also likely subject to a valid DMC, passes to Louise, meaning the testamentary gift of a life interest to Derek's mother fails. The cash and Ferrari, likely not validly gifted via DMC, remain in the estate and must be given to the nephew as per the will.
亨利必须根据这些调查结果分配遗产，记住有效的死因赠与优先于遗嘱。珠宝很可能属于有效的死因赠与，因此应归路易丝所有，而不是侄女。股票未通过有效的死因赠与赠出，仍属于遗产，亨利必须按照遗嘱的指示将其出售以用于慈善目的。公寓也可能属于有效的死因赠与，因此应归路易丝所有，这意味着遗嘱中给予德里克的母亲的终身权益无效。现金和法拉利可能未通过有效的死因赠与赠出，仍属于遗产，必须按照遗嘱的规定给予侄子。
Therefore, Henry should be advised to acknowledge Louise's likely claims to the jewellery and the flat based on DMC. He should proceed to administer the will concerning the shares (selling for charity) and the cash and Ferrari (giving to the nephew). The testamentary gifts to the niece (jewellery) and mother (life interest in flat) fail due to the DMCs. Should disputes arise, particularly regarding the flat or the strong box contents, seeking formal legal advice or court directions would be prudent, but the above distribution reflects the probable legal outcome.
因此，应建议亨利承认路易斯可能基于 DMC 对珠宝和公寓提出的索赔。他应继续管理有关股份（出售给慈善机构）以及现金和法拉利（赠送给侄子）的遗嘱。由于 DMC，遗嘱中给予侄女（珠宝）和母亲（公寓的终身权益）的礼物无效。如果出现争议，特别是关于公寓或保险箱内容，寻求正式的法律建议或法院指示将是明智之举，但上述分配反映了可能的法律结果。