When Mr Ford made the very generous gift of a half share of his house to his then fiancée he likely didn't anticipate it resulting in a court decision nearly 20 years later.
One of the main threads in Ford  SC KIR 9 was whether a survivorship clause should have been included in the updated title deeds. These clauses operate to automatically transfer ownership on the death of one owner to the survivor and, while they can be useful, they can also cause difficulties.
In the case of Mr Ford, he had anticipated getting the half share back when his then wife died but a will had been made so while he could continue living there he didn't get full ownership. That was to pass to her children.
A survivorship might have helped, and they generally take priority over a will, but it still may not have guaranteed the return to him.
Leaving aside the potential tax issues (had he waited until after they were married spouse exemption would have been available), once you give an asset away you can't control what's done with it unless you've put something in place to restrict it whether that be by establishing a trust or including provision in the deeds.
Houses tend to be the most valuable asset a person has, so you need to fully consider and explore the impact of any decision to give even part of yours away.
The issue which I have determined in this case is one of law relating to the correct application of a statutory provision. There is no place here for consideration of issues of equity or reasonableness.