In the above case, Sylvia seeking advice on whether she is entitled to the shares in Plonk ltd and

Broke ltd that belongs to George. On the given facts, George has attempted to give his interests in
Plonk ltd and Broke ltd to Zupo, Eerxes and Yasmin which give rise to issues which concern Sec 53 (1)
(c) LPA 1925.

Mainly, sec 53 (1) (c) is only applies to land and according to sec 205 (1) (x) LPA 1925, equitable
interests that in the Act is refers to ‘equitable interest in land’ / However, Sec 205 (1) provides that
court can depart from the definition provides when ‘the context otherwise requires’. After the cases
involving the decision of House of Lords, in applying sec 53 in ‘equitable interest in shares’, Brian
Green argued that sec 53 (1) (c) is example of a context requires the court to depart from the
definition in sec 205 (1) (x). Hence, sec 53 (1) (c) applies to equitable interest in shares too.
In regards to the title of shares in Plonk Lltd, George has attempted to give it to Zupo. According to
Grey v IRC, ‘dispositions’ is where in the beginning of a transaction one has a subsisting equitable
interest and no longer has the interest in the end. Thus, one must satisfy the requirement of sec 53 (1)
(c).
On the facts, George is creating a sub trust where George has instructed Trebor to transfer the title of
the share. Hayton argues that one must first determine the type of trust that has been created to
consider the formalities that must be complied with. There are two sub trusts to be consider, first bare
trusts where in Grainge V Wilberforce, it was stated that original beneficiary will drop out of the
picture so that the trustee will hold the benefits directly to the new beneficiary.

On the other hand, active sub trusts is where the original beneficiary retained within the trust when he
retains some part of his equitable interests or has some active duties to perform. Thus, he will not drop
out of the picture and this is not a ‘disposition’ (Onslow v Wallis).