## Facts

- The case concerned a dispute over the ownership of company shares held by Mr. Pulbrook.
- Damages levied against Mr. Pulbrook were secured by an interim charging order over assets, including shares.
- Mr. Pulbrook claimed he had gifted 300 shares to his wife and 14 to his daughter in 2007, prior to the charging order.
- He had not completed the share transfer forms nor delivered the original share certificates; instead, he issued unauthorized new certificates.
- The validity of these purported gifts was central, as it would affect whether the shares remained his assets subject to the charging order.
- The High Court, presided over by Briggs J, examined whether these actions constituted a valid transfer and if any equitable exceptions applied.

## Issues

1. Whether Mr. Pulbrook's actions in relation to the share transfers satisfied the equitable principle allowing perfection of an imperfect gift, particularly the principle in Re Rose.
2. Whether any detrimental reliance by the recipients justified equitable intervention to perfect the gifts.
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence for a benevolent construction to establish an intention to give or declare a trust in favor of the recipients.

## Decision

- The court found that Mr. Pulbrook did not fulfill all necessary steps personally required to transfer the shares, as he failed to complete and deliver share transfer forms and original share certificates.
- The principle in Re Rose did not apply because not all procedural requirements within the donor’s power had been satisfied.
- There was no evidence of detrimental reliance by the wife or daughter; neither had changed their position based on the supposed share transfer.
- The court could not find a sufficient basis for benevolent construction; there was no evidence of a clear intention to give or declare a trust, particularly in light of the failures to execute proper formalities.
- As a result, the shares remained part of Mr. Pulbrook’s assets and were subject to the charging order.

## Legal Principles

- Equity will perfect an imperfect gift only where the donor has completed all that is required of them to effect a transfer, as articulated in Re Rose.
- Detrimental reliance by the donee, as emphasized in Pennington v Waine, can permit equity to intervene, but only where the donee acts to their detriment based on the promised transfer.
- Courts may give effect to an imperfect gift through benevolent construction when a true intention to give or declare a trust is evident, but they cannot reconstruct a transfer that lacks completed formalities or clear intention.
- Mere intention or partial steps are insufficient to invoke equitable intervention absent fulfillment of these established conditions.

## Conclusion

Curtis v Pulbrook [2011] EWHC 167 (Ch) delineates the boundaries of equitable intervention in perfecting imperfect gifts. The case affirms that equity intervenes only where stringent requirements are met—full compliance with transfer procedures, evidence of detrimental reliance, or a clearly manifested intention to give or declare a trust—thereby reinforcing the necessity for correct legal formalities in asset transfers.