Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Implied trusts (Automatic resulting trusts (Trust fails/incomplete…

- - - - House of Lords decided money held on trust for QI - Barclays not entitled to it as creditor
        
        Reasons - identifiable property because held in separate account - purpose of loan clear and unequivocal, which is not uncommon, but also required separation of assets - both needed to create QT - later case law makes difficult
  - - - Donation to cause - surplus arises when cause no longer possible to carry out - if donors are identifiable, will get surplus back in same proportion as provided
        
        Anonymous donations - no clear consensus
        
        Re Gillingham Bus Disaster - should still be held on resulting trust for any identifiable contributors
        
        Re West Sussex - bona vacantia to crown
    - - When given to specific individual for purpose
- - - - Automatic resulting trust - doesn't depend on intentions or presumptions - come about automatically through operation of law
      - Presumed - Dinee presumed to hold on trust for donor - giving effect to intentions of the parties
    - - One type of resulting trust only - always responds to common intention of the parties
        
        Criticisms
        
        Contradicts case law - main criticism
        
        Automatic resulting trusts have been imposed respite contrary intention
        
        Leads to absurd results - intentions of parties often contradictory
        
        Only the settlor's intention is relevant
    - - Absence of intention to transfer benefit - Lord Millett in Air Jamaica v Charlton, and Robert Chambers - negative definition
      - Unjust enrichment theory - Peter Birks - rejected in Westdeutsche
- - - - Personalty - Re Vinogradoff - presumed resulting trust for transferor - can rebut presumption on basis of evidence that intended to be a gift - unclear why judge didn't in this case
      - Land - s60(3) LPA 1925 - Lohia v Lohia - resulting trust will not be presumed, but may be inferred
        
        Hodgson v Marks - can rebut where contrary evidence
  - - - Bull v Bull - mother and son - mother contributed to purchase money for house - agreed to a resulting trust - back then held to have same proportion of current value as put into the purchase
        
        Now
        
        Applies to investment purchases - Laskar v Laskar
        
        But not the family home - Stack v Dowden
    - - Rebutting the presumption of a resulting trust
        
        Gift - voluntary transfer of personal property - Fowkes v Pascoe - only scant evidence needed
        
        Loan - if can be demonstrated loan not gift - Re Sharpe
        
        Presumption of advancement - gift from husband to wife or father to child (mother only works when they are in loco parentis)
        
        Abolition of the presumption of advancement - Equality Act 2010 - relevant section still not in force